LDS FAIR Apologetics - Anyone seen this before?

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I think it is important to distinguish between apologetics, defensive argumentation, and polemics, offensive argumenation. Apologetics is much easier and requires that you only know your own position. Polemics requires that you know the other guy’s position. One can, without committing himself to extensive study, engage LDS claims regarding the Apostasy (their polemics). Defense is much easier. But a lot of people get lured out of their foxholes and start attacking when they aren’t really armed for it.

The only issue that interests me at the LDS boards, where I have been participating since the year 2000 is the Apostasy. The LDS like to talk about how they don’t attack any religion, but the very foundations require that they take a polemical view of the Catholic Church first, and the Protestant reformers after. In my opinion, they do a pretty good job dealing with the Protestants. But when it comes to us, they use the same tired junk that the Protestants use. They don’t have an original thought about why or how the Catholic Church is apostate with one minor exception that hardly any of them are qualified to discuss. In my opinion, this is where they are the most vulnerable.

I think Catholics are using bad strategy when without familiarizing themselves with LDS principles, they use polemics that they got from Protestant websites. We can have a distinctly Catholic approach to LDS claims that is more effective than repeating what Protestants have said. It involves appreciation of how the Mormons, following Catholic principles, have arrived at the conclusion that Protestants cannot show anyone where is the one true church. To fail to regularly and repeatedly acknowledge consistencies and truths we have in common, is to leave them with an impression that they are hated. They feel very persecuted in the world, the internet, and over here at this forum.

After we have succeeded in demonstrating that we don’t hate them, or think they are stupid, then we can begin to set up our defense for why they are wrong about trusting Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church. No. I don’t have any known converts, but I know that people cannot be won to the truth by a mere intellectual exercise. They have to know that we love them and think well of them. They have to perceive that we have good will toward them. Polemical approaches fail miserably to do this. I suggest that we force them to do the polemics. It takes more patience, but l know it leads to frustration on their part that will eventually bear better fruit than when we merely parrot what they hear from what they call “anti-Mormons”. Once you are labelled “anti-Mormon”, you are discredited.

St. Paul said that he was all things to all men that he might by all means save some. Of course we know he never advocating sinning. But we don’t win anybody by shaming or angering them. It is hard to be polemical and tender at the same time. I can’t do it, and I don’t think we are succeeding in this forum either.

Rory, aka 3DOP

PS: Hey blueadept. I didn’t know you poked around over here!

 

[catholic-rcia]

I think it is important to distinguish between apologetics, defensive argumentation, and polemics, offensive argumenation. Apologetics is much easier and requires that you only know your own position. Polemics requires that you know the other guy’s position. One can, without committing himself to extensive study, engage LDS claims regarding the Apostasy (their polemics). Defense is much easier. But a lot of people get lured out of their foxholes and start attacking when they aren’t really armed for it.

The only issue that interests me at the LDS boards, where I have been participating since the year 2000 is the Apostasy. The LDS like to talk about how they don’t attack any religion, but the very foundations require that they take a polemical view of the Catholic Church first, and the Protestant reformers after. In my opinion, they do a pretty good job dealing with the Protestants. But when it comes to us, they use the same tired junk that the Protestants use. They don’t have an original thought about why or how the Catholic Church is apostate with one minor exception that hardly any of them are qualified to discuss. In my opinion, this is where they are the most vulnerable.

I think Catholics are using bad strategy when without familiarizing themselves with LDS principles, they use polemics that they got from Protestant websites. We can have a distinctly Catholic approach to LDS claims that is more effective than repeating what Protestants have said. It involves appreciation of how the Mormons, following Catholic principles, have arrived at the conclusion that Protestants cannot show anyone where is the one true church. To fail to regularly and repeatedly acknowledge consistencies and truths we have in common, is to leave them with an impression that they are hated. They feel very persecuted in the world, the internet, and over here at this forum.

After we have succeeded in demonstrating that we don’t hate them, or think they are stupid, then we can begin to set up our defense for why they are wrong about trusting Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church. No. I don’t have any known converts, but I know that people cannot be won to the truth by a mere intellectual exercise. They have to know that we love them and think well of them. They have to perceive that we have good will toward them. Polemical approaches fail miserably to do this. I suggest that we force them to do the polemics. It takes more patience, but l know it leads to frustration on their part that will eventually bear better fruit than when we merely parrot what they hear from what they call “anti-Mormons”. Once you are labelled “anti-Mormon”, you are discredited.

St. Paul said that he was all things to all men that he might by all means save some. Of course we know he never advocating sinning. But we don’t win anybody by shaming or angering them. It is hard to be polemical and tender at the same time. I can’t do it, and I don’t think we are succeeding in this forum either.

Rory, aka 3DOP

PS: Hey blueadept. I didn’t know you poked around over here!

**I have to say…. good job, praise God! **

Yes, if we don’t love them as ourselves than we really should not be posting here as Catholics. Confession would be a good place to re-start.

If they know that they are truly loved here then they will have a place to go after they have concluded that their Doctrine is false. If not they will just turn their back on all religion and this does happen here in Northern Utah. I have seen this. This is so hard!

I at times get caught up in the argument in ways I know are sin. Once we can recognize this and put a stop to it a lot of deletion in what we write can take place before the final posting. I look for my own pride and ego in what I write and thank God for exposing it through prayer.

Thank Him for the delete button on my keyboard. But from time to time Satan does win. Then I thank God for Confession along with knowing the final score…Jesus wins! And it is comforting to know that not one of us will get any credit for that as He gets it all.

Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[blueadept]

After we have succeeded in demonstrating that we don’t hate them, or think they are stupid, then we can begin to set up our defense for why they are wrong about trusting Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church. No. I don’t have any known converts, but I know that people cannot be won to the truth by a mere intellectual exercise. They have to know that we love them and think well of them. They have to perceive that we have good will toward them. Polemical approaches fail miserably to do this. I suggest that we force them to do the polemics. It takes more patience, but l know it leads to frustration on their part that will eventually bear better fruit than when we merely parrot what they hear from what they call “anti-Mormons”. Once you are labelled “anti-Mormon”, you are discredited.

St. Paul said that he was all things to all men that he might by all means save some. Of course we know he never advocating sinning. But we don’t win anybody by shaming or angering them. It is hard to be polemical and tender at the same time. I can’t do it, and I don’t think we are succeeding in this forum either.

Rory, aka 3DOP

PS: Hey blueadept. I didn’t know you poked around over here!

Hi 3DOP,
This was the first forum I poked around when I got challenged by the missionaries and there were a couple of good LDS folks here who lasted long enough to convince me that if I really wanted to learn about the LDS faith, this site really didn’t fit the bill. I needed to be willing to be outnumbered by the LDS faithful with the goal of at least knowing what the best LDS answer to any particular issue was even if I didn’t necessarily agree with it

Your approach in regards to the LDS faithful is right on IMO. In fact, I believe I exemplify what you’re saying over at that site. There were some complaints over there that LDS members weren’t treated well so I came back to check a few threads and I find two of my favorite Catholic apologists who on occasions help me over there, soren and 3DOP. A pleasure as always.

We all do what we can to correct those misconceptiong about the RCC while showing it in a loving way.

 

[soren1]

I think it is important to distinguish between apologetics, defensive argumentation, and polemics, offensive argumenation. Apologetics is much easier and requires that you only know your own position. Polemics requires that you know the other guy’s position. One can, without committing himself to extensive study, engage LDS claims regarding the Apostasy (their polemics). Defense is much easier. But a lot of people get lured out of their foxholes and start attacking when they aren’t really armed for it.
Rory, aka 3DOP

Rory,

This is a very helpful correction to some of my remarks above. You are the good cop to my bad cop. I am definitely more warlike than you, and have no qualms about criticizing Mormonism directly and hard, but justly. Nevertheless, even when on the attack, it is important to maintain a specifically Catholic stance, and by all means to depart from the Protestant methodologies that dominate so much of the territory. This is not just because the “anti-Mormon” label is a fatal liability, but because getting people out of Mormonism does nothing to save their souls if they do not also get into the true Church. Polemics must never eclipse evangelization, especially since few people are sufficiently equipped for it.

Nevertheless, polemicism has a high value in my opinion, and my reasons are Biblical, for polemics are found throughout scripture, and St. Paul even strikes blind a magician who impedes him from presenting the gospel to another man. (Acts 13:6-12) Other magicians have lived since then, and one of them was named Joseph Smith. For the gospel’s sake, I am willing to strike at him, just as long as I make it clear to others and to myself that it is for the gospel’s sake that I do so.

The LDS Church itself impresses on the minds of its followers that they are morally accountable to the evidential power of the BOM. This single consideration, in the minds of many Mormons, eclipses all other concerns, so that the text of the book itself functions as a modern-day Elymas. Consider Elder Holland’s words at General Conference last October:

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: “a stone of stumbling, . . . a rock of offence,” a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.”

Knowing what I know about the BOM and the kind of research and argumentation that actually underlies these claims, I find this statement to be a very cruel bit of emotional manipulation. But it is effective propaganda - more effective, in fact, than a strong argument. The intrinsic power of the gospel to persuade and convict the hearts of men cannot be blocked on its own terms, but souls can be destroyed simply by being distracted from it, by having some barrier placed between them and the hearing of the word of God. And no such barrier is more effective than false religious hope. The Book of Mormon was created as a foundation on which to construct just such a barrier. Hence, as distasteful a subject as Joseph Smith is even to talk about, his claims as a revelator need to be addressed and refuted in their own territory. To that end, going on the offensive is both strategically necessary and morally virtuous.

 

[pinay]

I think it is important to distinguish between apologetics, defensive argumentation, and polemics, offensive argumenation. Apologetics is much easier and requires that you only know your own position. Polemics requires that you know the other guy’s position. One can, without committing himself to extensive study, engage LDS claims regarding the Apostasy (their polemics). Defense is much easier. But a lot of people get lured out of their foxholes and start attacking when they aren’t really armed for it.

The only issue that interests me at the LDS boards, where I have been participating since the year 2000 is the Apostasy. The LDS like to talk about how they don’t attack any religion, but the very foundations require that they take a polemical view of the Catholic Church first, and the Protestant reformers after. In my opinion, they do a pretty good job dealing with the Protestants. But when it comes to us, they use the same tired junk that the Protestants use. They don’t have an original thought about why or how the Catholic Church is apostate with one minor exception that hardly any of them are qualified to discuss. In my opinion, this is where they are the most vulnerable.

I think Catholics are using bad strategy when without familiarizing themselves with LDS principles, they use polemics that they got from Protestant websites. We can have a distinctly Catholic approach to LDS claims that is more effective than repeating what Protestants have said. It involves appreciation of how the Mormons, following Catholic principles, have arrived at the conclusion that Protestants cannot show anyone where is the one true church. To fail to regularly and repeatedly acknowledge consistencies and truths we have in common, is to leave them with an impression that they are hated. They feel very persecuted in the world, the internet, and over here at this forum.

After we have succeeded in demonstrating that we don’t hate them, or think they are stupid, then we can begin to set up our defense for why they are wrong about trusting Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church. No. I don’t have any known converts, but I know that people cannot be won to the truth by a mere intellectual exercise. They have to know that we love them and think well of them. They have to perceive that we have good will toward them. Polemical approaches fail miserably to do this. I suggest that we force them to do the polemics. It takes more patience, but l know it leads to frustration on their part that will eventually bear better fruit than when we merely parrot what they hear from what they call “anti-Mormons”. Once you are labelled “anti-Mormon”, you are discredited.

St. Paul said that he was all things to all men that he might by all means save some. Of course we know he never advocating sinning. But we don’t win anybody by shaming or angering them. It is hard to be polemical and tender at the same time. I can’t do it, and I don’t think we are succeeding in this forum either.

Rory, aka 3DOP

PS: Hey blueadept. I didn’t know you poked around over here!

Hello RoryMcKenzie… I LOVE this post! Truly it is a blazing example of Christianity.

In all my dealings in all facets of my life I always put in my mind that it matters less what religion you believe is correct. What matters more is the sincerity in the pursuit to do His will. Because, man is limited in his understanding. What I believe is true may not be the same as yours but the sincerity with which I seek truth is as full as yours. There are but 4 possible explanations - 1.) I misunderstood the promptings of the Holy Spirit, 2.) you misunderstood the promptings of the Holy Spirit, 3.) we both misunderstood the promptings of the Holy Spirit, 4.) God saw it fit for us to receive different messages.

In either of the 4 cases, it does not give us enough reason to debase the person for his sincerity is complete. The power of our intelligences differ. But, we listen to the other person when the message is doled out with respect. Because, it just might expand our understanding. To have pride is to think that I know it all and that what you say doesn’t have any bearing to my testimony. But being but human, I do have a limit in the abuse I can take to my character. And also because I am human, I sometimes err and utter harshly in my dealings with another. For that, we are both fortunate that there is the process of repentance and that I can come to you with profuse apologies and it be accepted.

Because of this, I always profess love for my fellow man regardless of the path we take in pursuit of happiness. We are all in the same boat in this storm called Life.

 

[pinay]

The LDS Church itself impresses on the minds of its followers that they are morally accountable to the evidential power of the BOM. This single consideration, in the minds of many Mormons, eclipses all other concerns, so that the text of the book itself functions as a modern-day Elymas. Consider Elder Holland’s words at General Conference last October:

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: “a stone of stumbling, . . . a rock of offence,” a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.”

Knowing what I know about the BOM and the kind of research and argumentation that actually underlies these claims, I find this statement to be a very cruel bit of emotional manipulation. But it is effective propaganda - more effective, in fact, than a strong argument. The intrinsic power of the gospel to persuade and convict the hearts of men cannot be blocked on its own terms, but souls can be destroyed simply by being distracted from it, by having some barrier placed between them and the hearing of the word of God. And no such barrier is more effective than false religious hope. The Book of Mormon was created as a foundation on which to construct just such a barrier. Hence, as distasteful a subject as Joseph Smith is even to talk about, his claims as a revelator need to be addressed and refuted in their own territory. To that end, going on the offensive is both strategically necessary and morally virtuous.

Hello soren1. Greetings again!

That talk was actually one of my favorites of that particular conference. I have to disagree with your point although I understand where you are coming from. You have to take that quote into context from the entire talk and the audience it was intended.

To be a member of the LDS church, one MUST have a testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. It is a requirement. And to be a member of the LDS church, especially a member of the Quorom of the 12 Apostles, one must believe whole-heartedly that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one true church.

Elder Holland was addressing the church - a church whose membership must have had a testimony of the Book of Mormon to be in its membership. It is the foundation of the restored gospel. Without it, there is no restoration. Without restoration, there is no LDS church. It is not cruelty to remind the membership of the reason why they are there in the first place. And that, to abandon the church because of attacks on the BOM is quite foolish when one’s testimony is not based on historical evidences of such-and-such but of the truths found in the book itself and the manner that it was brought to light. It is completely true that for an LDS member to leave the church, he has to overcome the barrier of his testimony of the BOM. There are quite a bunch of them that do leave - like SirThomasMore in this forum - who must have gained a testimony of the BOM at one point having been a missionary, and found himself now contrary to it - which means he found reason enough to retract that testimony.

That talk was specifically addressed to those who have gained a testimony of the BOM and then find themselves abandoning it - not necessarily to those who have no testimony of it at all.

As Christians, we don’t abandon the Old Testament because we can’t find evidence of the Garden of Eden, or the flood, or the pilgrimage out of Egypt, etc. We embrace it because the teachings inside the books of the OT touches as as true. For a Christian to abandon Christianity, one must face the Holy Bible and reject it. The same can be applied to the Book of Mormon for an LDS.

And just like Christians find it “foolish” that Muslims do not find the path of righteousness in the Holy Bible, LDS find it “foolish” that non-LDS do not find the truth in the Book of Mormon. It is all but a matter of perspective and to that you need to offer patience for those who have a different understanding of God’s plan of salvation as your own.

This is not cruelty. It is what is said on the title of the talk - a safety for the soul.

Peace, brother.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hello RoryMcKenzie… I LOVE this post! Truly it is a blazing example of Christianity.

In all my dealings in all facets of my life I always put in my mind that it matters less what religion you believe is correct. What matters more is the sincerity in the pursuit to do His will. Because, man is limited in his understanding. What I believe is true may not be the same as yours but the sincerity with which I seek truth is as full as yours. There are but 4 possible explanations - 1.) I misunderstood the promptings of the Holy Spirit, 2.) you misunderstood the promptings of the Holy Spirit, 3.) we both misunderstood the promptings of the Holy Spirit, 4.) God saw it fit for us to receive different messages.

In either of the 4 cases, it does not give us enough reason to debase the person for his sincerity is complete. The power of our intelligences differ. But, we listen to the other person when the message is doled out with respect. Because, it just might expand our understanding. To have pride is to think that I know it all and that what you say doesn’t have any bearing to my testimony. But being but human, I do have a limit in the abuse I can take to my character. And also because I am human, I sometimes err and utter harshly in my dealings with another. For that, we are both fortunate that there is the process of repentance and that I can come to you with profuse apologies and it be accepted.

Because of this, I always profess love for my fellow man regardless of the path we take in pursuit of happiness. We are all in the same boat in this storm called Life.

Hi pinay,

I am afraid I must confess that in spite of your undoubted misplaced praise for my post, I disagree with a lot of your post and sometimes vehemently. It seems probable that I failed to explain myself properly. Perhaps another time I can explain.

Sincerely,

Rory

 

[soren1]

]And just like Christians find it “foolish” that Muslims do not find the path of righteousness in the Holy Bible, LDS find it “foolish” that non-LDS do not find the truth in the Book of Mormon. It is all but a matter of perspective and to that you need to offer patience for those who have a different understanding of God’s plan of salvation as your own.

What do you think that lack of patience with people who disagree with me has to do with my criticism of the Book of Mormon? What evidence do you have for this judgment? Admittedly, I was writing my post for Rory, who is already aware of my knowledge of LDS apologetics and the grounds I have presented and defended in the past for criticizing both the Book of Mormon and the personal honesty of Elder Holland as an apologist. These grounds have nothing to do with presumptive arrogance about the superiority of my own worldview. In fact I advocate against that kind of thing. Just the other day, on a thread at this forum, a Catholic poster criticized an LDS poster, a very adroit former Catholic named Tom Nossor, for strawman argumentation. I responded as follows in Tom’s defense:

I have known Tom by correspondence for some years now, and I can vouch that he is positively allergic to making straw man arguments knowingly. You will rarely meet a published Catholic apologist who has studied LDS theology with the same breadth and detail that Tom has given to Catholicism.

Now, if I were really lacking tolerance for other worldviews, assuming foolishness on the part of others, or if peremptory dismissal of LDS claims were the starting point of my own apologetic, how could I have made this statement? Does not the fact that I am able to think these things about Tom show that I have paid attention to his ideas and arguments, with an eye toward discerning their merits, so that I have gained both moral and intellectual respect for him?

Now, perhaps you might say in your defense, “Well, I didn’t read that post.” If so, that reinforces my point: you don’t know me, yet you seem to divine my fundamental attitude in the absence of evidence to reveal what that attitude actually is. Now it could have been that I am just some braggart who has spent years bashing on Mormons without ever listening to their side, and that my confidence in the case against the BOM is a product of my unwillingness to listen: I simply fail to notice when my charges have been refuted, and then declare victory. On the other hand, it might be that I have done academic studies in the fields relevant to BOM evidential argument, read in the ancient languages, and examined the issues in detail. Or I could be somewhere between those two points. My posts here, taken by themselves, give no decisive evidence either way, so why assume the worst me, if not on the basis of your own presumption?

 

[soren1]

]As Christians, we don’t abandon the Old Testament because we can’t find evidence of the Garden of Eden, or the flood, or the pilgrimage out of Egypt, etc. We embrace it because the teachings inside the books of the OT touches as as true. For a Christian to abandon Christianity, one must face the Holy Bible and reject it. The same can be applied to the Book of Mormon for an LDS.

Not only do you jump hastily to a moral judgment, but here you make false assumptions about what the content of my argumentation must be like, reminding me that the presence of evidence is not the main reason for belief in a holy book. In the four years that I have actively defended the gospel against Mormonism, the sentence, “There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon” has never proceeded from my lips or from my pen; or if it did, I was not presenting it as a specific reason to disbelieve. Much to the contrary, in another recent thread at this forum, I made the following response to a Catholic who was making just such an argument:

*Mormons don’t have to prove the BOM. … I think it should be held as a general principle that when someone claims to believe something on faith, then the burden of proof lies on the objector. This sensibility can be seen in Catholic theology. We cannot prove the doctrine of the Trinity, but we can respond to every possible objection to show that no argument posed against it is demonstrative, making it rationally possible to believe in the Trinity. Thus the power of faith, necessary to accept that teaching, assumes the benefit of the doubt. Yet if we are going to claim the benefit of the doubt for ourselves in apologetic dialogue, we need to extend it to others, and do so generously. For the Book of Mormon, that means allowing for conjectural answers to our objections, even if those answers may not be compelling. For instance, you mention the weight of the plates. Some LDS apologists claim that the plates could have been an alloy of gold and copper, called tumbaga, that could be made from ancient Mesoamerican metallurgy. That alloy would have appeared to be gold, but would have weighed a quarter as much. Thus the plates would have weight around 60 lbs, close to the estimate of 50lbs. made by some of the BOM witnesses. This might not be a compelling rebuttal, but can’t we give it the benefit of the doubt?

Besides, we make our case more compellingly when we take the burden of proof on ourselves and then meet that burden. For instance, it seems like a big loss to concede the argument about the gold, but it isn’t. Instead, because the LDS rebuttal depends on a Mesoamerican setting for the BOM, it moves the conversation into the question of the Limited Geography Theory. At that point our case becomes stronger, as the LGT can be rigorously disproven, as at least one Mormon prophet has said. Thus, assuming the burden of proof at this point enables us to respond effectively to a more central Mormon claim, and eventually to otherthrow the more peripheral argument about the gold as well, by defeating the archaeological theory that underlies it.*

Admittedly, the Catholic I was responding to pressed his case about the gold a little farther, causing me to modify some of what I said about it, but that does not change the basic philosophy I am expressing here, which is the only one I think has any chance of meaningfully responding to Mormon claims or those of any other religion.

 

[soren1]

]Hello soren1. Greetings again!
You have to take that quote into context from the entire talk and the audience it was intended…

Elder Holland was addressing the church - a church whose membership must have had a testimony of the Book of Mormon to be in its membership. It is the foundation of the restored gospel. Without it, there is no restoration. Without restoration, there is no LDS church. It is not cruelty to remind the membership of the reason why they are there in the first place.

As before, there are some things that Rory knows about my approach to Mormonism that I didn’t feel necessary to raise explicitly in a post addressed to him. What Rory knows is that the personal ethics of Elder Holland as an apologist have been a main locus of my response to Mormonism since he killed Mormon apologetics in October 2007 when he responded to Trinitarian criticisms in a talk entitled lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-15,00.html"]The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent. By bearing false witness against the ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church, and grossly misrepresenting their account of the Trinity as a pretext for criticizing it, Elder Holland elevated a crude, false, and disrespectful style of apologetics to the level of official teaching. I recently tried to raise this subject again when the LDS apologist Eric Shuster paid a visit to this site. As a former Catholic, I hoped his knowledge of Catholicism would help him see the demonstrative force of the evidence against Holland better than other Mormons who have merely chastised me for pointing them out. I started to present the evidence in post #70 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6768583#post6768583"]this thread, but he didn’t stick around so I didn’t follow through with more posts, but I will briefly summarize for you some of what I would have said. Anyone at all acquainted with Trinitarian theology should be able to identify at least one error in the following statement, though there are in fact four:

• These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.
  We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.*

If you are unaware, the correct account of the Trinity is that the person are “distinct but not separate.” The formula of “separate persons” that Elder Holland gives was condemned by the very councils he attributes it to. Moreover, the person are absolutely not “abstract” but supersubstantial. Next, “incomprehensibility,” as a divine attribute is God’s property of being “infinitely intelligible,” although Elder Holland treats it as if it means the exact opposite, “unintelligible,” and then holds it to ridicule on that basis. More forgivably in light of LDS terminology, the persons of the Trinity are not “members” because that term implies division into parts. The entirety of Elder Holland’s address is just this bad. It has almost as many errors as sentences.

While this is not the first time that a General Authority has explicitly misrepresented Catholic teaching in General Conference, it is first time I know of when he has followed it up with strong pretentions to moral high ground, as embodied in these words, “It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.)” On the basis of his verbal quip about divine incomprehensibility alone, Elder Holland has indeed disrespected the doctrines of other religions, and has no moral high ground from which to demand respect. This hypocrisy, exercised within the very act of bearing false witness, undermines the credibility of his testimony.

But what does this have to do with my charge of cruelty? At the deepest level, it is not the Catholic Church that is most disrespected by Elder Holland’s cheap shots, but his Mormon audience, which does not have the knowledge of Trinitarian teaching to recognize how he travesties it. This man is the former Dean of Religious Studies and former President of BYU, so I think it safe to assume he could have gotten his facts right if he wanted to. Maybe he just didn’t care, or maybe he consciously chose not to. Either way reflects badly on the respect he holds for the millions who hang trustingly on his words. It is an immoral form of apologetics, which abuses the human dignity of the people it addresses.

It is not my lack of appreciation for the importance of testimony in Mormon life and in Elder Holland’s talk that makes me criticize him as I do, but rather the respect I hold for the moral demands that an authentic testimony places on the way Christians must do apologetics. He has no credibility as an apologist, and has shown himself willing to say whatever works to persuade people. But he does not mind telling people their testimony makes them morally accountable to the evidential apologetic claims such as supposed Hebraisms in the text, or the witnesses – claims that I know for myself to be utterly specious – while scorning the “pathetic” efforts of BOM critics to explain the book away, pushing his claims through on a wave of emotion. It does not take a saint’s power of spiritual discernment to see why this is manipulative, and therefore cruel.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Rory,

This is a very helpful correction to some of my remarks above. You are the good cop to my bad cop. I am definitely more warlike than you, and have no qualms about criticizing Mormonism directly and hard, but justly. Nevertheless, even when on the attack, it is important to maintain a specifically Catholic stance, and by all means to depart from the Protestant methodologies that dominate so much of the territory. This is not just because the “anti-Mormon” label is a fatal liability, but because getting people out of Mormonism does nothing to save their souls if they do not also get into the true Church. Polemics must never eclipse evangelization, especially since few people are sufficiently equipped for it.

Nevertheless, polemicism has a high value in my opinion, and my reasons are Biblical, for polemics are found throughout scripture, and St. Paul even strikes blind a magician who impedes him from presenting the gospel to another man. (Acts 13:6-12) Other magicians have lived since then, and one of them was named Joseph Smith. For the gospel’s sake, I am willing to strike at him, just as long as I make it clear to others and to myself that it is for the gospel’s sake that I do so.

Hi soren.

Thanks for seeing my point. Be assured, I see yours. I believe in intensively prepared, respectful, dignified polemics in the spirit of Sts. Thomas and Francis de Sales.

I fear that what goes on here seldom attains to that standard. I am ashamed to have to defend a Church whose members are stooping even to the juvenile tactic of calling their prophet “Joe”. What is gained by such puerile stuff, other than a stained reputation for the whole Church? I wouldn’t want to have to defend that before God some day. I would be afraid that rather than turning Mormons toward the truth, it turns them away. Does anyone think that this is what a Mormon needs to hear? This is how God wants Catholics to interact with non-Catholics and non-Christians? Those who agree with me need to help police this place…Enough of that…

Anyway, there is a thread going on over there right now about Catholic Answers, this forum, as it relates to Mormonism. I am afraid that they are universally convinced that they are universally hated over here. I watched for a few days while they crowed because Mormons never write or publish any literature that specifically targets any one religion, comparing it negatively to this website and its host, Catholic Answers.

I think you will be gratified with what I had to say in defense of a Catholic policy that exposes popular errors. It is my suspicion that in early Mormonism polemics flourished as readily as it did everywhere else. I hope so! I explained how I do not consider it to be any mark of virtue for the one true church to be indifferent to perceived error and omit to examine it in favor of some kind of sloppy, irreverent definition of love. I am pretty sure this is just a modern phenomenon that springs from an age of skepticism regarding most forms of knowledge. Catholics are not immune either, but we sure do have a strong tradition to resist if we would be so inclined.

Anyway…rambling now…Maybe some of our other posters here might benefit from getting a peek at how our efforts are being received too. For anyone interested…

mormonapologetics.org/topic/50013-one-thing-i-like-about-the-mad-forum/page__st__80

 

[SirThomasMore]

Hi soren.

Thanks for seeing my point. Be assured, I see yours. I believe in intensively prepared, respectful, dignified polemics in the spirit of Sts. Thomas and Francis de Sales.

I fear that what goes on here seldom attains to that standard. I am ashamed to have to defend a Church whose members are stooping even to the juvenile tactic of calling their prophet “Joe”. What is gained by such puerile stuff, other than a stained reputation for the whole Church? I wouldn’t want to have to defend that before God some day. I would be afraid that rather than turning Mormons toward the truth, it turns them away. Does anyone think that this is what a Mormon needs to hear? This is how God wants Catholics to interact with non-Catholics and non-Christians? Those who agree with me need to help police this place…Enough of that…

Anyway, there is a thread going on over there right now about Catholic Answers, this forum, as it relates to Mormonism. I am afraid that they are universally convinced that they are universally hated over here. I watched for a few days while they crowed because Mormons never write or publish any literature that specifically targets any one religion, comparing it negatively to this website and its host, Catholic Answers.

I think you will be gratified with what I had to say in defense of a Catholic policy that exposes popular errors. It is my suspicion that in early Mormonism polemics flourished as readily as it did everywhere else. I hope so! I explained how I do not consider it to be any mark of virtue for the one true church to be indifferent to perceived error and omit to examine it in favor of some kind of sloppy, irreverent definition of love. I am pretty sure this is just a modern phenomenon that springs from an age of skepticism regarding most forms of knowledge. Catholics are not immune either, but we sure do have a strong tradition to resist if we would be so inclined.

Anyway…rambling now…Maybe some of our other posters here might benefit from getting a peek at how our efforts are being received too. For anyone interested…

mormonapologetics.org/topic/50013-one-thing-i-like-about-the-mad-forum/page__st__80

I never thought I would say this to a fellow Catholic, but instead of talking ABOUT me, have the courtesy to talk TO me if you have an issue with me or my posting.

I make no apologies for my methods. I understand that they are not your methods, but that is ok. The Catholic Church has made no secret that it does not consider Mormons to be Christians. You can tip toe around it should you choose. I choose to follow the Catholic Church teachings.,

As to calling him Joe, I have said before…it is his name. Thomas is Tom, Steven is Steve, Michael is Mike, Robert is Bob, Peter is Pete, Joseph is Joe. And the fact he was a false prophet does not mean we must call him by a longer name…or take the extra time to type a longer name (I am a poor typist). Even a greater man, Abraham Lincoln, was called Abe. My best friend is named Joseph and everyone calls him Joe. If that is somnehow offensive to you, I humbly suggest you not be quite so sensative.

Should you choose to comment further, I am easy to message. It is much better than talking about me knowing I will see it.

In His Grip,

Stephen (or Steve) aka Thomas (or Tom)

 

[MelanieAnne]

Soren,

I’d like to express my appreciation for your posts, in this and other threads. I cannot pretend to be the scholar that you are, but I enjoy and learn from the things you post, no matter what the subject.

THANK YOU!

 

[twopekinguys]

Soren,

I’d like to express my appreciation for your posts, in this and other threads. I cannot pretend to be the scholar that you are, but I enjoy and learn from the things you post, no matter what the subject.

THANK YOU!

Ditto!!

I would also like to say that I learn volumes from all of those that have left mormonism .

 

[SirThomasMore]

same goes for me

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I never thought I would say this to a fellow Catholic, but instead of talking ABOUT me, have the courtesy to talk TO me if you have an issue with me or my posting.

I make no apologies for my methods. I understand that they are not your methods, but that is ok. The Catholic Church has made no secret that it does not consider Mormons to be Christians. You can tip toe around it should you choose. I choose to follow the Catholic Church teachings.,

As to calling him Joe, I have said before…it is his name. Thomas is Tom, Steven is Steve, Michael is Mike, Robert is Bob, Peter is Pete, Joseph is Joe. And the fact he was a false prophet does not mean we must call him by a longer name…or take the extra time to type a longer name (I am a poor typist). Even a greater man, Abraham Lincoln, was called Abe. My best friend is named Joseph and everyone calls him Joe. If that is somnehow offensive to you, I humbly suggest you not be quite so sensative.

Should you choose to comment further, I am easy to message. It is much better than talking about me knowing I will see it.

In His Grip,

Stephen (or Steve) aka Thomas (or Tom)

Hi Tom,

I thought you might be one of the people who did this, but wasn’t sure. Anyway, thank you for the reply. I’ll be getting back to you later.

Rory

 

[SirThomasMore]

Hi Tom,

I thought you might be one of the people who did this, but wasn’t sure. Anyway, thank you for the reply. I’ll be getting back to you later.

Rory

Okey dokey. Have a super day