T
TexanKnight
Guest
If Palmer is not a liar, then what does that say?
- Status
T
TexanKnight
Guest
and if the LDS Church HAS lied about its past…then who should you believe?
M
Marie5890
Guest
I remember watching an interview that Raymond Arroyo did with then, Cardinal Ratzinger…Yes but I enjoy hearing these items about other religions. Truly blessed by being Catholic and I thank God.
I do believe the elastic band has been stretched pretty far and we will be seeing a return, if not a stampede, back to the Catholic Church. God works in mysterious ways.
He saw the future of the Church in just the opposite way. He didnt see people stampeding back to it, but it becoming much much smaller in terms of numbers, but stronger in the faith communities in which it is found…
Sort of like it was historically in the early Church…
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/RATZINTV.HTM
Raymond: … in such a powerful way, when they interact. Talk for a moment about the New Springtime. The Pope has talked a great deal about the New Springtime and you, yourself have laid out your own ideas. Your vision is a little different from some. Some see the numbers growing and everybody believing and dancing hand-in-hand (the Cardinal chuckles) into the millennium. You see a different picture. Tell us what that picture involves. How do you see this Springtime evolving?
Cardinal: As I do not exclude even this dancing hand-in-hand, but this is only one moment. And my idea is that really the springtime of the Church will not say that we will have in a near time buses of conversions, that all peoples of the world will be converted to Catholicism. This is not the way of God. The **essential things in history begin always with the small, more convinced communities. So, the Church begins with the 12 Apostles. And even the Church of St. Paul diffused in the Mediterranean are little communities, but this community in itself is the future of the world, because we have the truth and the force of conviction. So, I think also today it should be an error to think now or in 10 years with the new springtime, all people will be Catholic. This is not our future, nor our expectation. ** But we will have really convinced communities with élan of the faith, no? This is springtime — a new life in very convinced persons with joy of the faith.
Raymond: But, smaller numbers? In the macro?
Cardinal: Smaller numbers, I think. But from these small numbers we will have a radiation of joy in the world. And so, it’s an attraction, as it was in the old Church. Even when Constantine made Christianity the public religion, there were a small number of percentage at this time; but it was clear, this is the future. So we can live in the future, just give us a way in a different future. And so, I would say, if we have young people really with the joy of the faith and this radiation of this joy of the faith, this will show to the world, “Even if I cannot share it, even if I cannot convert it at this moment, here is the way to live for tomorrow.”
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Nice thing is that wikipedia actually spells his name right.
S
Shinehah
Guest
Hi Texan,
This is an interesting speculative post. Fortunately, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not reliant on one particular individual’s purported conversations with an unnamed former Mission president and an unknown general authority, on speculative conversations on who said what, and who gets a million dollars, and who believes and who does not.
Latter-day Saints and prospective Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study scriptures and pray to God, asking Him if what they are learning is true. We have a unique doctrine that God will witness to a sincere individual if something that purports to be truth is truth. We call this a testimony. Members of the church are taught about what a testimony is and is not from the time they are 3, and most of us spend our whole lives in careful study, pondering and prayer asking for manifestations of truth.
What I believe is not based on an individual who apparently has an axe to grind.
This is an interesting speculative post. Fortunately, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not reliant on one particular individual’s purported conversations with an unnamed former Mission president and an unknown general authority, on speculative conversations on who said what, and who gets a million dollars, and who believes and who does not.
Latter-day Saints and prospective Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study scriptures and pray to God, asking Him if what they are learning is true. We have a unique doctrine that God will witness to a sincere individual if something that purports to be truth is truth. We call this a testimony. Members of the church are taught about what a testimony is and is not from the time they are 3, and most of us spend our whole lives in careful study, pondering and prayer asking for manifestations of truth.
What I believe is not based on an individual who apparently has an axe to grind.
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
The idea of a spiritual witness to truth is hardly unique to the LDS church. All of the restorationist religions (LDS, JW, SDA, INC and all Pentecostal and most Evangelical faiths) also rely on their own feelings as the arbiter of truth. It is also a prominent feature of the New Age movement.
Following one’s feelings was already an old religious technique when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon borrowed it from the evangelical preachers they knew and incorporated it into the Book of Mormon and the LDS faith.
All of Christianity also believes that the Holy Spirit witnesses to the truth. The difference between Christianity and Mormonism is that if a Christian’s feelings run counter to the known facts (and counter to the bible), then those feelings are highly suspect.
The bible teaches that the heart (our feelings) is consistently deceptive and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). How many times have we heard “how can it be wrong when it feels so right?”. Many a virgin has fallen for those words, to her lasting regret.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
T
twopekinguys
Guest
I’m going to give you a little heads up here.
There are several former mormons who post here, and are very well versed in what they were taught as mormons, versus what is being taught now, etc.
There are several here, myself included that have mormon family members, and have a very good understanding of how things work.
E
eddie_too
Guest
I reiterate what was written earlier that this: “We have a unique doctrine that God will witness to a sincere individual if something that purports to be truth is truth. We call this a testimony” (taken from a post by someone who self-identifies as Mormon); is not unique to the lds religion.
recently on these threads, the Bahia also have advocated this technique for discerning the truth’s contained in the writings of their Bahaullah.
realistically, any organization has access to this mechanism. obviously, it is a very unreliable mechanism because those who fasten their wagons to it are many and varied; with the implication being that the god they worship is a god of contradictions with no possible way to identify truth.
recently on these threads, the Bahia also have advocated this technique for discerning the truth’s contained in the writings of their Bahaullah.
realistically, any organization has access to this mechanism. obviously, it is a very unreliable mechanism because those who fasten their wagons to it are many and varied; with the implication being that the god they worship is a god of contradictions with no possible way to identify truth.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I agree with you that LDS should not be reliant on such conversations like you described. But to reduce Mr. Palmer’s argument to only this is grossly ignorant of the facts. Grant Palmer, among other ex-LDS historians, have spent years of their lives painstakingly pouring through historical documents doing research on the early years of the LDS church. Their conclusions are based on that research. To say, as you did in your post, that these people just have some axe to grind in order to dismiss their conclusions is akin to burying your head in the sand. The mountain of historical evidence they have compiled is compelling on its own. Instead of immediately trying to dismiss them, you owe it to yourself to see what they have to say.
There are many things one could say about this. I know this is how you were taught to approach things. Unfortunately, this method has gotten millions into trouble because the bottom line, even though you may not realize it, is that you are basing your conclusions on feelings and training. And Mormons by no means are unique in this, but it is particularly strong in them because they are taught this method so emphatically from such an early age. And when you mention this with regards to 3 year-olds, we all know what is really happening here. How many times have you seen parents make their little kids stand up at a fast and testimony meeting to bear their testimony while whispering in their ear what to say, “I know the church is true and I know Joseph Smith was a prophet…” The kids don’t know that at all. They are just repeating what their parents are telling them. What do you think the average Mormon is going to believe after years of this kind of training? Is it any wonder how the average Mormon just automatically ignores a critic without even attempting to understand the criticism?
If you are going to spend your life in careful study, that doesn’t mean only reading what the Mormon church supplies. They will not tell you the rest of the story. People like Grant Palmer discovered the rest of the story through their own efforts. Don’t be so quick to dismiss them because they once were where you are now.
I
iepuras
Guest
I will also add that many people who have gone down the same road as Grant Palmer have paid a personal price (e.g., divorce, shunning from family, etc.) for learning and telling the rest of the story.
S
Shinehah
Guest
Thanks for the heads-up.
S
Shinehah
Guest
Good points here. Though I have studied LDS church history as a personal hobby, I probably have not had the exposure Mr Palmer has. Having read some of his material I do see a spirit of bitterness in him - maybe its just me.
Having grown up outside of the LDS church, I can also understand the perspective of an outsider having to study, seek, pray for understanding of what I was taught by missionaries. I believe I am basing my understanding of truth from the God of Truth, in answer to sincere prayer. Is it difficult to believe that a sincere seeker of truth, praying earnestly to God, would receive an answer from God? All of our church activities and teachings are based on this principle: each must learn for themselves from God. I have found for myself and others that a testimony of the truth of something is a great motivator. Example: We don’t have to bend the arms of church members to get them to pay tithing - we invite them to do it and they will gain a testimony of it for themselves, then they will be motivated to continue the practice.
(I also disagree with parents whispering to their young kids what to say in testimony meeting. Raising our son I prefer that he learns to say what he believes from his own convictions rather than what his parents teach him to say.)
S
SteveVH
Guest
No, not at all. I believe God answers prayers from a sincere heart. The question is, are we hearing God’s answer or are we listening to our own desires, or, God forbid, are we listening to another voice who also speaks to us?
Any testimony that we authentically receive from God should not conflict with what we can discern through our rational minds. In other words, truth cannot conflict with truth. So we must make a discernment as to what we think we have heard is actually from God.
When the very well documented history of Christianity and the doctrines and beliefs of the early Church conflict with the teachings of any organization claiming to be a restoration of the original Church one needs to give this the utmost consideration. When the doctrine and beliefs of this organization cannot be found at all in the early Church, one needs to ponder these things.
There is another voice out there who desires to tear us away from the Truth and replace it with something false. He is subtle. The false doctrine must be mixed together with some truth and a lot of “nice feelings” otherwise we would never fall for it.
Read the early Church fathers. We have writings from contemporaries of the Apostles, the beginning of the Church, to present. The consistency in doctrine is amazing. And none resembles Mormon doctrine and theology.
God bless.
Steve
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I have also read some of his material and watched several of his interviews. If you haven’t seen any of the videos you might want to view them to get a better idea. From what I’ve seen and read I think Mr. Palmer seems to be a very charitable Christian person. I didn’t see bitterness, although given what the church put him through I would certainly understand some bitterness would be a normal reaction for any human being. The work, however, stands on its own. From personal experience I also know that many LDS have an emotional reaction to anyone who questions the truthfulness of Mormonism. Mormons will often label any such person or material as ‘anti-Mormon,’ and immediately dismiss any criticism. It’s a response based on emotion, not facts. Sort of a trained self-defense mechanism. It can be hard to get past that and have a rational discussion.
Yes, but LDS take it way too far to the point that it overrides everything else. And therein lies the rub. LDS are so conditioned within the church constantly being told again and again and again “I know the church is true” and “I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet” and “I know the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the earth” (and a litany of other key statements I’m sure you could list as well) that they interpret warm feelings to be the Holy Spirit. It’s a conditioned response, and critical thinking gets dropped.
We have hearts AND minds, and the two should work together in theses matters. So if I learn from historical evidence that Joseph did a lot of horrible things to his wife, to teenage girls, to his friends, etc., and if I learn from historical facts that he was a treasure hunter that conned people out of their money, if I learn that historical facts clearly show that he pretended to translate ancient Egyptian scrolls into the Book of Abraham, whatever feelings I may have experienced are not going to matter much anymore. This is where the brain needs to be a check on our feelings.
But the church does bend the arms of its members to pay tithing–you can’t get a temple recommend without it. The most important thing a Mormon can do is be temple worthy and be sealed there, and the only way to do that is, along with some other things, to pay tithing. Incidentally, based on what you know about Jesus Christ, does that requirement in any way seem consistent with the way He dealt with people?
But that’s really not what happens in practice, is it? I know you see this on a weekly basis, if you just step back and think about it. The indoctrination is so strong in this area that to do anything else would seem so out of place you would stand out like a sore thumb.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
- Status