Let's talk about Mormonism

[Stephen168]

My daughter’s friend’s wife got her job after college in Utah. They were from California. After 6 years in Utah, they knew they didn’t what to raise their children there for the reason you described. They have since moved to Washington state.

On the other hand, my best friend in high school was Mormon and his parents were good with it. BUT, his Mother was not raised Mormon, and we lived in a VERY small town not in Utah. And he was required to also be friends with the other Mormons is our class.

 

[TOmNossor]

Having the name “Jesus Christ” in your church’s title doesn’t mean you are in Christ’s Church. You are in Joseph Smith’s church. Joseph Smith is not Jesus Christ. Many of us have pointed out your church’s errant beliefs and teachings which are in no way the beliefs and teachings of His true Church and Christianity.

The word “ridiculous” as stated by BT3241 was extremely generous and kind. Most people would be more blatant in their expressions regarding your church.

I do not think I have ever argued that the name of the CoJCoLDS (I usually abbreviate it) means it is Christ’s church.
I have offered many reasons that I believe the CoJCoLDS is more likely to be Christ’s church on earth than the Catholic Church (not on this thread, but on this board).
I have read the supposed “errant beliefs” for years on this board. I have also partaken of books, pamphlets, videos, radio shows, podcasts, and even in person conversations with folks such as Patrick Madrid. Seldom do I see someone present my believes as Thomas Aquinas presented those beliefs with which he disagreed. If you hold a belief Thomas Aquinas addressed, you usually recognize that he has treated your views with respect while he disagrees. Most folks here offer some caricature of my beliefs and then celebrate how “ridiculous” I am for holding them.
And if you read my post, you didn’t response. The CoJCoLDS is treated like Christ’s Church was treated in the first few centuries of its existence. Cardinal Newman and Bishop Sheen point out in their writings that a church not ridiculed could not be Christ’s Church.
Anyway, thanks for replying.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

All that being said, I didn’t actually say you had to respect my faith, I just said that I asked that you TREAT my faith with respect. I do not think this is too much to ask. Mocking others faith is not what I think my savior desires of me.

Charity, TOm

…

Have you ever had to tell your child he could not participate in a school activity because he wasn’t LDS? Has your child ever been systematically excluded from community activities because of his religion? I have had to explain this to my children on many occasions. I even sold our home in a small community I thought would be a good one to raise kids in, so we could move to a bigger city with more religious diversity to protect my kids from this.

So yes I have learned about the LDS and for 30 years have found absolutely nothing that compels me to respect it.

I apologize for what you describe here. It is un-Christ-like and should never happen. I can see how this could lead you ridicule my faith and claim it is appropriate for others to do that.
I am sorry,
Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

Why do Mormons misinterpret the Scriptures, TOm? Why do you need the Book of Mormon to explain the Bible to you? The books you claim are “another testament of Jesus Christ” aren’t. Read the Holy Bible and read your Book of Mormon. Notice anything familiar in the “books”? To put it kindly, your church’s founder, Joseph Smith, lifted sections of the Holy Bible and placed them in his book to give it an air of authenticity. Can you prove he didn’t do this?

Why do you preach and teach that your “prophets” words are more important than the words of Jesus? Why do you preach and teach that Satan is a son of God like Jesus is and that Jesus and Satan are brothers? You elevate Satan to being God which he will never be and demote Jesus, the true Son of God to being not only an angel but a fallen angel at that.

Please, TOm, look at your church’s beliefs and teachings objectively and honestly with open eyes. And then ask yourself if your church is really a Christian church. Compare its teachings with those of Christianity. You will find that Mormons were not the first humans and that God did not give His church to them. And hopefully, you will see the truth that Mormons aren’t Christians and that their baptisms and temple practices (the “unfinished work” of ancestors) aren’t valid.

Another matter. Read Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. Note how many times he replaces the names of the true prophets with his own. Why did he do that, TOm?

There is so much I could take up with you, the same things I and other took up with the Mormons who posted on Amazon’s now defunct discussion threads. We noticed that whenever the Mormons couldn’t respond to a question, they tried to get us to contact Monson or look up the answers on LDS.org. Funny, how that site confirms the beliefs and teachings Mormons deny.

 

[Horton]

I apologize for what you describe here. It is un-Christ-like and should never happen. I can see how this could lead you ridicule my faith and claim it is appropriate for others to do that

But this was not one time events. It happened over & over in many different places. I am far from a doormat and have let people walk over me. I have always chosen my friends carefully and rarely have a I chosen an LDS as a friend.

When you live in as many places as I have with large LDS populations, and they attempt to treat you as though you are less than they are in multiple situations, it become easier to view any LDS with skepticism.

I’ve never believed the JS story in any way or anything that followed it. I believe the Holy Catholic Church is then one true Church Jesus Christ founded, and I will never be persuaded to believe anything different.

 

[Stephen168]

What you claim is in Genesis is not what I claimed was not in Genesis. You ORIGINALLY said, “everything from nothing.“

Yes, the the first time I said, “everything from nothing; only his Word.” The second time I said, “made his creation from only his Word.” It is the same belief and it is not contradicted by Genesis; “God said, Let…”
Of course this has little to do with the main point: God has a nature and he created a natural and moral world which is in harmony with his nature. He gave man reason to discover the world God created. This world is consistent and therefore knowable. This Christian view gave man the desire for scientific and moral reasoning. Reasoning we still do today.

Ignoring the main point is typical of your sophistry on CAF.

The rest of the response was also relevant, but you probably didn’t read it either.

I never said it wasn’t relevant I said it “did not contradict my premises.”

When I said, “Mormons reject the ancient Christian understanding of the nature of God.” You continued to rambled on about ex nihilio which has nothing to do with the nature of God.

Then you act ignorant of the fact the Joseph Smith said God was once a man; a creation.

Then you support my claim of the way Mormons think of omnipotence…

So my conclusions stand:
The Mormon god takes away man’s desire for science, and moral reasoning, because what is true today, god could change tomorrow. Mormons have just waited for the changes to come out of Salt Lake. Even if these changes make Joseph Smith appear to be wrong in every claim he ever made; the new claims are true. True without any reflection on what this tells us about Joseph Smith.

While Mormons claim that Mormonism has begun to reason and no longer wait for Salt Lake, the implications for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, and others are still the same.

 

[Stephen168]

Funny, how that site confirms the beliefs and teachings Mormons deny.

I think that it is very true with Tom. He wants so much for the Mormon Church to be rational that he makes claims about a Mormon Church that conflicts with LDS.org

 

[lilypadrees]

lilypadrees:

Funny, how that site confirms the beliefs and teachings Mormons deny.

I think that it is very true with Tom. He wants so much for the Mormon Church to be rational that he makes claims about a Mormon Church that conflicts with LDS.org

Maybe he doesn’t know where to look on the site.

 

[TOmNossor]

Glad to hear your interactions are primarily associated with being a loving father!
May God be with both of you.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I apologize for what you describe here. It is un-Christ-like and should never happen. I can see how this could lead you ridicule my faith and claim it is appropriate for others to do that

But this was not one time events. It happened over & over in many different places. I am far from a doormat and have let people walk over me. I have always chosen my friends carefully and rarely have a I chosen an LDS as a friend.

When you live in as many places as I have with large LDS populations, and they attempt to treat you as though you are less than they are in multiple situations, it become easier to view any LDS with skepticism.

I’ve never believed the JS story in any way or anything that followed it. I believe the Holy Catholic Church is then one true Church Jesus Christ founded, and I will never be persuaded to believe anything different.

Again, these type of behaviors should never happen and I am sorry they happened once and more than once.
I do understand how being mistreated by a group of people who in some way claimed their mistreatment of you was a product of their faith committments would leave you skeptical of the claimed Christian rebirth within that faith community.
My son goes to a school where more than half the students are LDS and he is very critical of those who treat the non-LDS as somehow less-than. It does happen and it should never. I am sorry.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Why do Mormons misinterpret the Scriptures, TOm?

There is a lot in your post. I have no idea what Amazon discussion board was like, I do not think I have ever participated there.
I believe the LDS interpretation of the scriptures is generally God’s interpretation of the scriptures. Often (like in Genesis as Stephen168 is not acknowledging) Biblical scholars (not Catholic theologians, but Catholic and non-Catholic textual scholars) agree with the LDS view. Sometimes they do not. But like Catholics, LDS place emphasis upon the authorities of the church and how they have interpreted scripture. Do you believe “sola scriptura” results in Catholic theology? I maintain that LDS theology is not contradicted by the Bible, but I do not claim that “sola scriptura” results in LDS theology.
Concerning the rejection of creation ex nihilo, LDS are in alignment with the most accurate “sola scriptura” read of the Bible. Concerning many other things LDS are in alignment with the Bible. Concerning some things LDS emphasize extra-Biblical revelation because the CoJCoLDS is not based on the Bible, it is based on the same thing the Bible is based on, the revelation of God to man. Catholicism is in the same boat. Do you disagee?

To put it kindly, your church’s founder, Joseph Smith, lifted sections of the Holy Bible and placed them in his book to give it an air of authenticity. Can you prove he didn’t do this?

It seems clear to me that the inspired translation of the Book of Mormon has reliance upon the KJV of the Bible. I will acknowledge this as have many LDS scholars. I cannot prove Joseph Smith didn’t “lift portions of the Bible,” but based on ALL accounts of the translation of the BOM, Joseph didn’t copy the Bible. It was never present. Based on all accounts of Joseph Smith, he was semi-literate before the translation of the BOM so it seems unlikely that he read and memorized sections of the KJV of the Bible. Still, it is there. Why? I cannot prove what you ask me to prove, but you cannot prove that the KJV Bible passages were not a product of the revelation delivered to Joseph Smith. I can acknowledge that large sections of the KJV were almost certainly not written in gold plates by an ancient Mormon or Moroni. Thus a simple translation (which the production of the BOM couldn’t be for MANY other reasons anyway) of an ancient text is very unlikely.

Why do you preach and teach that your “prophets” words are more important than the words of Jesus?

I do not teach this and I do not think this has EVER been taught by LDS leaders. I am aware that Brigham Young once explained that listening to the inspired words of God’s prophet who is speaking to God’s children about current concerns is more valuable than a “sola scriptura” read of ancient Biblical texts.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

If you are condemning this from Brigham Young (or similar things) let me ask you a question.
If you sat at the feet of St. Peter in 35AD and he told you that you were called to be “partakers of the divine nature,” would you walk away because the words of God in the Old Testament are more important than inspired teachers authorized by God teaching you directly. I personally would not, but for your condemnation of my church in this area to be consistent you would need to do this.
You may not believe that Joseph Smith received revelation from God, but I do. When God’s inspired prophet explains to me what Jesus is teaching during the sermon on the mount, I find it much more valuable than when the non-inspired Pope tells me what Jesus meant.

Why do you preach and teach that Satan is a son of God like Jesus is and that Jesus and Satan are brothers?

I do not teach this and I doubt you (like me) have ever HEARD it taught. It has been taught by LDS leaders. It has been taught by ancient Christians such as Lacantius in the 4th century I think. While I will tell you some things that were taught were simply wrong, here I will only say that whatever truth was conveyed, it is obvious that 50+ year ago LDS and 1600+ year ago Christians were not elevating “Satan to being God.”

Another matter. Read Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. Note how many times he replaces the names of the true prophets with his own. Why did he do that, TOm?

I do not know what you refer to here. Which “names of the true prophets” did Joseph Smith replace with “his own” name? I am on a plane and cannot look up this nugget so I will just ask. You may have found something with which I am not familiar. Or you may have just mistyped?

There is so much I could take up with you, the same things I and other took up with the Mormons who posted on Amazon’s now defunct discussion threads. We noticed that whenever the Mormons couldn’t respond to a question, they tried to get us to contact Monson or look up the answers on LDS.org. Funny, how that site confirms the beliefs and teachings Mormons deny.

Contact Monson? Weird. I am about to return to work tomorrow. I will send you a PM. We can work through some issues one at a time as long as you will respond to my questions too. I do not think there are LDS problems that cannot be addressed and as long as you respect my time, I have no need to send you to LDS.org. That being said I think I will wind down my participation on this thread. I came across a couple articles in the Atlantic Magazine and have been thinking about how my faith is “ridiculed” and what Cardinal Newman had to say about my faith and this subject so I posted in this thread concerning that. Anyway, I will send you a PM, I will probably respond a few more times in this thread to a few things. Then I hope to fade a little.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

What you claim is in Genesis is not what I claimed was not in Genesis. You ORIGINALLY said, “everything from nothing.“

Yes, the the first time I said, “everything from nothing; only his Word.” The second time I said, “made his creation from only his Word.” It is the same belief and it is not contradicted by Genesis; “God said, Let…”

If when you say “only his Word” you mean creation ex nihilo, I can see how you think neglecting to mention “from nothing” is not a big deal.
That being said, I am correct. The text of Genesis is most clearly God’s creation by forming and NOT creation ex nihilo. This position is only gaining adherents among Biblical scholars.

Of course this has little to do with the main point: God has a nature and he created a natural and moral world which is in harmony with his nature. He gave man reason to discover the world God created. This world is consistent and therefore knowable. This Christian view gave man the desire for scientific and moral reasoning. Reasoning we still do today.

Stephen, you made a false statement about creation ex nihilo being in Genesis. I addressed it.
The rest of your statement was vague. I vaguely claimed that LDS embrace the early nature of God understanding. We have been around and around concerning ousia and the changing and developed positions associated with homousian. We have been back and for (I think) about the metaphysical monotheism brought to Christianity (and Judaism) through its interaction with Greek thought. I have read Catholic, LDS, and other scholars on these matters and your position is not strong and not remotely as strong as you suggest it is.

I never said it wasn’t relevant I said it “did not contradict my premises.”

I acknowledge that “relevant” was my word and it was not “did not contradict my premises.”
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Then you act ignorant of the fact the Joseph Smith said God was once a man; a creation.

Stephen you are still not reading what I am writing. I said:

The view I hold, the view Blake holds, and the virtual absence of any LDS leader espousing the view you claim LDS hold for 2-3 decades or more does not change the fact that some LDS leaders absolutely taught that God was once not God but a man. I think they were wrong in that God the Father like God the Son may have emptied Himself for the purpose of having a human experience, but that God the Father (like God the Son) was never a sinful human being like I am (I am not aware of any LDS leader who has ever said God was a SINFUL human like we are BTW, but perhaps you know of some).

I absolutely did not “act ignorant of the fact that” LDS leaders taught God was once not God but a man. I actually do not believe the KFD or the Sermon in the Grove from Joseph Smith actually teach this position that later leaders did. Which means that I deny that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man EXCEPT in that God the Father was just like Christ. But if you want to hear about this, I you will have to follow a link. It is only my opinion that this teaching came after Joseph Smith and it is not phenomenally important to my position on this subject.

Then you support my claim of the way Mormons think of omnipotence…

I do not agree that I support your claim. I think you are not reading, but I am not going to be able to care on this conversation much longer so I guess all will know you are right.

So my conclusions stand:
The Mormon god takes away man’s desire for science, and moral reasoning, because what is true today, god could change tomorrow.

Your conclusion is not supported by Pew research. LDS are more educated than average Americans and Catholics are less educated than average Americans.
In addition to this, I have already shared with you that as LDS pursue advanced degrees their involvement with their faith increases. When non-LDS Christians pursue advanced degrees their involvement with their faith decreases.
I think the rest of your “conclusion” doesn’t stand either, but I lack Pew or other research to speak authoritatively on it.
I do not know if I will respond to you further. Tomorrow it is back to solving problems involving patterning with Deep Ultraviolet Light with hopes of creating supercomputers and/or quantum computers someday. Of course I am a Mormon so I am probably just deceiving myself when I think I use science and reason.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

If when you say “only his Word” you mean creation ex nihilo, I can see how you think neglecting to mention “from nothing” is not a big deal.

That being said, I am correct. The text of Genesis is most clearly God’s creation by forming and NOT creation ex nihilo. This position is only gaining adherents among Biblical scholars.

Stephen, you made a false statement about creation ex nihilo being in Genesis. I addressed it.

Actually, I am correct in the claim I made.

 

[Stephen168]

God has a nature and he created a natural and moral world which is in harmony with his nature. He gave man reason to discover the world God created. This world is consistent and therefore knowable. This Christian view gave man the desire for scientific and moral reasoning. Reasoning we still do today.

Mormons reject the ancient Christian understanding of the nature of God. Joseph Smith tells us his god is not the creator, but a creation. When a Mormon says his god is omnipotent, he means god can do anything. Anything at random; like change the DNA of the American Indian to trick us into believing the Book of Mormon is fiction, or that Adam was God and now he’s not. The Mormon god takes away man’s desire for science, and moral reasoning, because what is true today, god could change tomorrow. Mormons have just waited for the changes to come out of Salt Lake. Even if these changes make Joseph Smith appear to be wrong in every claim he ever made; the new claims are true. True without any reflection on what this tells us about Joseph Smith.

While Mormons claim that Mormonism has begun to reason and no longer wait for Salt Lake, the implications for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, and others are still the same.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen you are still not reading what I am writing. I said:

I absolutely did not “act ignorant of the fact that” LDS leaders taught God was once not God but a man. I actually do not believe the KFD or the Sermon in the Grove from Joseph Smith actually teach this position that later leaders did. Which means that I deny that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man EXCEPT in that God the Father was just like Christ. But if you want to hear about this, I you will have to follow a link. It is only my opinion that this teaching came after Joseph Smith and it is not phenomenally important to my position on this subject.

It is not about what you believe, it is what the Mormon Church teaches.

Lorenzo Snow said, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” He claimed he received his couplet from God before departing for England for his mission. While on his mission he told the senior Mormon missionary, Brigham Young, about it. After returning from his mission, he told Joseph Smith about it and Smith said it was true. The following year Joseph Smith gave his King Follett Discourse: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

This Mormon belief in the nature of god was still current teaching through the 1970’s.

So I stand by my premise that Joseph Smith taught that god was once a man; a rejection of the Christian belief in the nature of God.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not agree that I support your claim. I think you are not reading, but I am not going to be able to care on this conversation much longer so I guess all will know you are right.

My claim was, “When a Mormon says his god is omnipotent, he means god can do anything. Anything at random; like change the DNA of the American Indian to trick us into believing the Book of Mormon is fiction, or that Adam was God and now he’s not.“

I had a Mormon make the claim that God changed the DNA of the American Indians to test the faith of Mormons.

You responded with:
“Do you believe God is incapable of changing DNA?”
“The God you embrace Stephen who CANNOT change DNA is very limited indeed.”

You support my premise that the “omnipotent” Mormon god acts randomly because he can.

Therefore, The Mormon god takes away man’s DESIRE for science, and moral reasoning, because what is true today, god could change tomorrow.

Your conclusion is not supported by Pew research.

My conclusion is based in reason. Mormonism lives in a world of random acts of god given through its leader. The Mormon world is unknowable because it can change tomorrow just like the DNA of the American Indian. There is no DESIRE to do science because it is a waste of time, all to be changed tomorrow by god.

A 10th century Mormon Church would have never built the great Universities. The Catholic Church did because of the Catholic Christian understanding of the nature of God and his creation.

Mormonism is living on the accomplishments of Catholic thought, while at the same time rejecting science which proves Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon wrong.

 

[adamhovey1988]

You know, it’s interesting you mention that about DNA. I live in a place, where having European, sub-Saharan African, and American Indian genetics is quite common. My mother’s family is largely from the Southern United States, and that happens here. Interestingly, a lot of people with those ancestries, actually take DNA tests, and it shows up as Middle Eastern. The reason for that, is because of the Middle East’s place on trade routes, not because American Indians are really Jewish. Because, Middle Eastern people have largely mixed backgrounds, the genetic testing shows up as a false positive. Now, it is possible to have both American Indian and Jewish ancestry, but that does not mean that one is derived from the other. By the way, a lot of those genetic testing websites, are owned by Mormons, and one thing I’ve noticed is, not only are they portraying American Indians as similar to Jewish people in genetics, largely based on a fallacy in how genetics works, but they are also claiming a very bizarre thing, such as a lot of American Indian tribes are crypto Jews. I can’t claim to know everything about every Indian tribe, but that’s extremely bizarre to me.

 

[Stephen168]

I had my DNA tested by a company with an emphasis on genetic health, because I didn’t want it to be just about genealogy.
If an American Indian had Jewish ancestry, it would still not make a case for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon for two reasons

1. The place I had my DNA tested is able to tell when a certain gene entered by family tree. The piece of sub-Saharan African DNA in my genetic code is the result of an ancestor who lived over 300 years ago. The American Indian would not have Jewish DNA which predated Columbus.
2. The most important: Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon is about ALL American Indians. We should find pre-Columbian Jewish DNA in every single American Indian.

#2 is the reason the Mormon Church has backed away from the claim of Joseph Smith in an attempt to salvage the Book of Mormon.