B
bengal_fan
Guest
i can’t believe this debate is still going on :banghead:
- Status
M
MaryLynne
Guest
The Book of Mormon is a ‘tradition of men’. 
C
Catholic_Girl_9
Guest
“Rod of iron” -sounds kind of wierd.
C
Calvin
Guest
Maybe this thread should have been started as a poll?
-C
T
TOmNossor
Guest
If Catholic apologists have explained infallibility to your satisfaction why don’t you accept the doctrine and convert? The magisterium has infallibly declared that the Body of Christ “uniquely subsists in the Catholic Church” (Vatican II). If you are satisfied that such declarations are infallible then why don’t you act on it?
Personally, if the doctrine of infallibility was explained to my satisfaction, I would convert in a heartbeat. If we accept the magisterium for what it claims to be (infallible), we should accept the Catholic Church who that very magisterium points to as the guardian and protector of the faith once imparted.
You must not mean what I think you mean.
-C
Calvin,
I am sorry I was less clear. Here is my statement with two sentences around it.
What I am trying to say is that the Catholic Church is internally consistent. I am not saying that I think it is the best read on the Bible and history, I am saying that the contradictions pointed to by anti-Catholics have been thoroughly addressed.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I originally did not respond to this because I didn’t think it was important enough. I still don’t, but I found this and thought it would be interesting.
You see, I would rather have my religion recognized by the President of the United States than by Rev. Moon.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040618-13.html
BTW, Pope John Paul II got recognized too.
Charity, TOm
D
Dr_Paul
Guest
If I understand your Church correctly, the belief is that the Catholic church is not the church that Christ established. By arguing that the LDS church is wrong in this matter, one is clearly defending the Catholic faith from what we see as heresy. I can understand the feeling of emptiness when one’s beliefs are decimated by logic. While I cannot vouch for everyone writing in this thread, I am not in the business of proving someone wrong to win an argument. I am motived by a true love of my Church and a true love for those who have been misled. The answer to where one goes when their mistaken beliefs are “decimated” is easy: Back into the Catholic church.
Yes, I do. Precisely why I am interested in hearing what you have to say. I do not want to have a distorted view of what you really believe. Thanks for sharing. But honestly, I do not find these arguments any more convincing.
Not sure I really follow you here. Sounds to me like relativisim. There can only be one truth. Either the Catholic church is right, or the CoJCoLDS is right. True we all have bias. Can’t get around that. But by saying IF you truly knew about the real presence in the Eucharist you would not have left, I don’t see how that fits with where you are now. Do you now believe that the real presence is not real. If so, you do not have a true understanding/experience of the real presence.
Again, sounds like relativism. Truth is truth, however misguided we may be in knowing this truth.
God Bless…
C
Calvin
Guest
I was just teasing you.
When I lived in Berkeley, some Moonies were passing out hard copies of the minutes of that meeting. One of them asked me “are you a Christian?” and I said “yes” and he said “well you should read this it is very important.” So I took it and read it as was walking and, so help me God, I couldn’t stop laughing. I can’t imagine who would dream that up as an outreach tool?!
So I dug up the link to give to my brother and I was reading it again and noticed Joseph Smith wasn’t on there – I thought I would see what you thought about it. (None of the Eastern Orthodox are on there either.) Especially when rod was writing about not needing proof to believe things. I thought that would be a good case study.
Cheers,
-C
A
AmandaPS
Guest
The biggest example I can think of is the Hittite culture that disappeared around 1200 B.C (?) and confirmation that the culture existed didn’t appear until the 1870s. Another one I can think of is the Babylonian Belshazzar, whose name wasn’t found until the late 1800s as well.
I’ve read the BoM, prayed about it, and my guardian angel told me to run the other way.
A
AmandaPS
Guest
rod of iron:
This is the same Holy Spirit that can tell the Nephites how to build synagogues in the same manner of the Jews, which was not in common use until after the fall of Jerusalem, but can’t tell them the name Bethlehem, which should’ve been well-known.
If the Holy Spirit of Mormonism can give the Greek name of the Messiah to a group of Jews from 600 B.C., why could the name Bethlehem not be given too? The Jews of Lehi’s family must have known of the existence of Bethlehem since Jacob buried Rachel on the road to Bethlehem (Ephratah) (Gen 35:19; 48:7). The Book of Ruth tells the story of Naomi, married to a man from Bethlehem-Judah (the town of Bethlehem in the land of Judah). It’s also where King David was born, so the town must have had some significance to the history of Lehi’s people. How then could it be that the Nephites did not know of Bethlehem when given the prophecy?
This is the same Holy Spirit that can tell the Nephites how to build synagogues in the same manner of the Jews, which was not in common use until after the fall of Jerusalem, but can’t tell them the name Bethlehem, which should’ve been well-known.
A
AmandaPS
Guest
I can’t find the post by Flower_Charity that darcee and rod of iron responded to. Was it deleted by the mods? From the quotes, it looked pretty offensive. I couldn’t even find the handle (Flower_Charity) under the members list. 
Boggling mind in need of Mountain Dew…
Boggling mind in need of Mountain Dew…
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
Dr Paul:
But since I started posting to this thread, I feel that some people here are not really interested in discussing the Book of Mormon. They are hear just to slam the Book of Mormon and destroy someone’s belief in it. As I think Tom stated, a person should not be so quick to decimate someone else’s beliefs without caring what that action will do to that other person. The post about using the Book of Mormon as toilet paper shows how much hate is in the heart of the person who wrote it.
Dr Paul:
Dr Paul:
Dr Paul:
Dr Paul:
I feel that when replying to the anti-Book of Mormon sentiment in this thread, I have tried to apply logic to support my belief. It does not seem logical to say something has been proven wrong due to lack of proof. The logical thing to say would be that the claims are questionable, not that they have been proven false. I have tried to use reason rather than using what one person in this thread believes I have been brainwashed to believe. I feel that I am a very reasonable man. If something does not seem to make sense to me, I think about it. I will even pray about it, even though some people do not seem to share the same sentiment that you should pray about something you do not know, hoping that God will answer you.
But since I started posting to this thread, I feel that some people here are not really interested in discussing the Book of Mormon. They are hear just to slam the Book of Mormon and destroy someone’s belief in it. As I think Tom stated, a person should not be so quick to decimate someone else’s beliefs without caring what that action will do to that other person. The post about using the Book of Mormon as toilet paper shows how much hate is in the heart of the person who wrote it.
Dr Paul:
I do not believe that joining up with the Catholic church is the only option, nor do I believe that it is an option for me. But that is what I believe.
Dr Paul:
What kind of arguments would be more convincing to you?
Dr Paul:
Another option is that both churches could be wrong. Both churches cannot be right, because they do not teach the same doctrines. But the possibility still exists that the LDS church and the Catholic church could both be wrong. This is where faith enters the picture.
Dr Paul:
I agree. There is such a thing as absolute truth. Hopefully, we all will no longer be misguided and will come to a knowledge of that truth.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
This is interesting. At the time that the Book of Mormon was brought forth, the word “Christ” was not just a Greek word. The word had been borrowed from Greek into Latin, then into Old English. By 1830, Old English had been outdated for hundreds of years. Even King James English is a newer version of English than Old English is. Therefore, since Joseph Smith was translating the golden plates into English, he wrote the best English word to represent the word meant by the writer of that part of the golden plates. The word “Christ”, which means ‘anointed one’, was the best word to use. “Christ” had been an English word for hundreds of years by that time, even though its origins are Greek.
I am not disputing that Lehi, his wife, and his kids knew about the town of Bethlehem. But if his kids never speak of the town to their children for several generations, the ones who knew about the town would have died away, and the generations still living would not have any idea that the town ever existed. The knowledge of the town would have to be passed down by word of mouth or by a written record. The town is not mentioned in their record, known as the Book of Mormon. I do not see why a literate people would refrain from writing down the name of the town if they indeed were passing around the information about it by word of mouth. The Book of Mormon even states that the Lamanites arrived at a point after several generations where they no longer knew their history, because they had not taken the time to write it down as the Nephites had done. If you fail to write something down on something that will survive through the years, and people no longer speak about it, it will beome lost and will no longer be known among that people.
Why do you think that so much is known about the Catholic church and its early church fathers? Because the church fathers wrote down the information. If they hadn’t, the information would no longer be known today.
D
darcee
Guest
Hey ROI
did you find that scripture for me or did my response to you get lost?
-D
did you find that scripture for me or did my response to you get lost?
-D
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
The verse I was speaking of is 3 Nephi 15:1. The verse says,
“And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings, he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and said unto them, Behold, ye have heard the things which I have taught before I ascended to my Father; Therefore whoso remembereth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, him will I raise up at the last day.”
Jesus had just finished speaking to the Nephites what He had spoken to the Jews. But as I read the chapters prior to this verse, it seems that Jesus may have just been referring to what He said in chapters 12 through 14. I wasn’t so sure He was referring to chapter 10 with that verse.
So, I started to read around the verses mentioning the chickens. After doing so, I still do not believe that the Nephites had chickens, nor do I believe that the Book of Mormon shows that they did. Before these verses about chickens, Jesus’ voice is heard from heaven. This begins in chapter 9 and continues through chapter 10. The voice first tells the people about the cities that were destroyed. Some of the cities were buried and some fell into the sea; Zarahemla was destroyed by fire. The voice tells them that the inhabitants of these cities were destroyed because of their iniquities. After the voice stops speaking, the people who heard it are so astonished that they do not make a noise for many hours. Then, Jesus’ voice from heaven again speaks. Jesus speaks about how He was willing to gather them like a hen gathers in her chicks, but they refused to be gathered. Jesus is not necessarily teaching them anything at this point. He is not dialoguing with those people. After I read a few more times what the voice said, I believe that Jesus was lamenting. He was saying, “Why are you people so stupid? When I try to gather you unto me, you will not come.” But Jesus does let them know that He is not finished in His attempts to gather them unto Himself.
Did you know that when I did a word search in the Bible, I only found the word “chicken” one time? It is found in Matthew 23:37. It is very similar to the verses in 3 Nephi. Matthew 23:37 states,
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
A parallel verse appears in Luke 13:34 –
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!”
But the word “chicken” is not used in Luke. Why isn’t “chicken” used anywhere else in the Bible if the people in Jerusalem had chickens? But then again, we are told that the “cock” crowed after Peter denied knowing Jesus 3 times. Is the cock referring to a male chicken, or some other type of bird? The verse in Matthew seems to be another place where Jesus is lamenting over the people.
D
darcee
Guest
rod of iron:
In verse 10 it sounds like he was simply chiding them, NOT telling them what he had told others earlier.
Therefore I have a hard time accepting your argument for the words having to have been parallel even if it would have made no sense to the people he was chiding as they would not be familiar with the fowl mentioned.
-D
Yes, I agree that there is no real connection between what he was supposed to have said in verses 10 and what was said later in verse 15.
In verse 10 it sounds like he was simply chiding them, NOT telling them what he had told others earlier.
Therefore I have a hard time accepting your argument for the words having to have been parallel even if it would have made no sense to the people he was chiding as they would not be familiar with the fowl mentioned.
-D
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Dr Paul:
A few comments.
- I did not suggest that logic decimated LDS beliefs but rather that anti-Mormon’s used “logic” to supposedly decimate LDS beliefs.
- I do not think that anti-arguments have no place, but I think one must be incredibly careful. In the absence of pro-arguments, I think anti-arguments should be avoided. I also think that when one chooses to utilize anti-arguments they need to do so from a position of well researched knowledge and charity. The reason for the need to have both anti and pro arguments is that I believe much of what is anti-Mormonism points one to atheism. My personal belief is that if one cannot accept that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such, and the further clarification contained in the D&C concerning binding LDS doctrine” they are duplicitous if they accept “infallibility is only guaranteed when speaking from the Chair of Peter, in accordance with faith or morals, and conforming to tradition.”
- I do not think it is impossible for Catholics to practice higher apologetics. It might not be easy and it may not be the best method of apologetics at all times, but you are not Protestants or LDS or Bahai or Moslems. (You are also not Jews, but since Jews are seldom evangelical I do not think Catholics need to fight that battle). The 4 groups I listed cannot be true unless the Catholic Church feel into error. The Catholic can show that they have not fallen into error and rest on their merits. The other groups I mentioned cannot do this.
- I do think that the Peter was the head of the apostles and the rock. I do not think Peter passed his singular authority on to the Bishop of Rome. I do think that Peter and the other apostles passed authority on to the Bishops in general. I do think that this authority survived for many years and the Catholic Church did exactly as Christ intended. She offered the witness of Christ to the world. She compiled a Biblical record of worth. She preserved the witness of Christ for the world so that the Reformation could set the stage for the Restoration. So, I would not say that the Catholic Church was not the church Christ established. I would instead say that the Catholic Church was the church Christ established, but not for the purpose of preserving a continued chain of authority. Christ died and was resurrected and so did his bride.
- And, if the burning bush or the logical argument that I cannot comprehend exists (partially because of the stones I have already overturned and partially because of the overwhelming conviction that I already have both logically and spiritually) tells me that the CoJCoLDS is not where God wants me, I would be Catholic in a split second (provided said bush or said logic didn’t have more to say than get out of the CoJCoLDS of course). I would be a major pain to any RCIA instructor, and since I am a baptized, confirmed Catholic I could just start attending. So yes, back to the Catholic Church would be my path, but I hardly think such a conclusion is universal or prevalent among LDS or protestants.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Dr Paul:
If you are suggesting that the authentic explanations concerning the BOM problems are not very convincing, then in a few cases I would agree with you (although not too many). But on the sum, I find the fraud theory lacking.
Dr Paul:
Not sure I really follow you here. Sounds to me like relativisim. There can only be one truth. Either the Catholic church is right, or the CoJCoLDS is right. True we all have bias. Can’t get around that. But by saying IF you truly knew about the real presence in the Eucharist you would not have left, I don’t see how that fits with where you are now. Do you now believe that the real presence is not real. If so, you do not have a true understanding/experience of the real presence.
Again, sounds like relativism. Truth is truth, however misguided we may be in knowing this truth.
God Bless…
I am not trying to say that the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS are both the one true church. That I have relativistic tendencies I cannot deny. But I choose the CoJCoLDS not because I think the choice is of no consequence. I choose the CoJCoLDS because the non-spiritual data and the spiritual data clearly point me towards the CoJCoLDS. My posts are not intended to suggest that there are two correct answers to the question of who holds the keys, the Prophet or the Pope. My posts are intended to suggest that I think there are internally consistent structures behind the Pope and the Prophet. I can recognize strengths in the Catholic position and acknowledge the absence of a simple, “fatal flaw,” and still be solidly a LDS.
Charity, TOm
I guess I am not sure what arguments you do not find very convincing. The BOM is either what is says it is or it is a fraud. Unless I have missed it nobody has addressed the few points the ROI and I have mentioned that must be explained away for the fraud theory to even get off the ground. These are a few things among a great deal that could be shared.
If you are suggesting that the authentic explanations concerning the BOM problems are not very convincing, then in a few cases I would agree with you (although not too many). But on the sum, I find the fraud theory lacking.
Dr Paul:
Not sure I really follow you here. Sounds to me like relativisim. There can only be one truth. Either the Catholic church is right, or the CoJCoLDS is right. True we all have bias. Can’t get around that. But by saying IF you truly knew about the real presence in the Eucharist you would not have left, I don’t see how that fits with where you are now. Do you now believe that the real presence is not real. If so, you do not have a true understanding/experience of the real presence.
Again, sounds like relativism. Truth is truth, however misguided we may be in knowing this truth.
God Bless…
I am not trying to say that the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS are both the one true church. That I have relativistic tendencies I cannot deny. But I choose the CoJCoLDS not because I think the choice is of no consequence. I choose the CoJCoLDS because the non-spiritual data and the spiritual data clearly point me towards the CoJCoLDS. My posts are not intended to suggest that there are two correct answers to the question of who holds the keys, the Prophet or the Pope. My posts are intended to suggest that I think there are internally consistent structures behind the Pope and the Prophet. I can recognize strengths in the Catholic position and acknowledge the absence of a simple, “fatal flaw,” and still be solidly a LDS.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am glad you were teasing. I am sorry that I didn’t see that. I hope I do not get too rapped up in all of this, but I am sure I do not see jokes too frequently.
And, as I said before, I have no need to accept someone as the Empress of Cassadi (or whatever it was). I think it takes more than just being unable to disprove something.
Charity, TOm
C
Calvin
Guest
Like my new signature?
-C
- Status