Mormon apologetics...

[majick275]

amgid has once again shown us “mormon apologetics”. No evidence, no facts, no analysis, just claims with “I already answered that” or “no need for further discussion” to gloss over the truth. In the end the only “case” offered is a personal testimony based on “wanting to believe” (Alma).

We have shown in multiple instances the FACT of LDS changes in doctrine, LDS scriptures contradicting each other and even themselves, LDS apostles and prophets denouncing each others teachings and practices as false, the fall of the BoA, evidence disproving the BoM claims, JS lying and secret combinations to get gain (money AND women).

standing atop the false claims of mormonism and crowing that they are true and that those who disprove them with facts are just evil apostates who should be ignored just proves the ridiculous position that mormon apologetics are in.

It sure seems that like BoM archeology there really isn’t such a thing as mormon apologetics. It fits better with the new age crystal gazers (glass lookers) of sedona and other such regional cults.

The true gospel of Jesus Christ is in the Bible. The true church that he founded himself (perfectly) still survives just he like he said it would in an unbroken tradition that still glorifies him in every mass.

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

How does John 3:16 answer the question of who was manifest in the flesh?

John 3:16 states that the Son of God was manifested in the flesh.

You said Luke 1:68, 1Tim 3:16, and Ignatius agreed with LDS doctrine.

That is correct, I do.

LDS doctrine reveals at least two Gods, the LDS church teaches that Elohim is the Father and Jehovah is the Son.

Yes, LDS doctrine teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages.

Again I ask who was manifest in flesh … Elohim … Jehovah … the Father … the Son?

The Son was manifested in the flesh.

amgid

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

Jeremiah 1 reveals just that God has forknowledge … again Jeremiah 1 does not support the LDS teaching that prophets prepare themselves to become leaders on earth while they were still spirits in heaven.

We believe it means that spirits existed before they were born. It is a question of your interpretation against mine. I believe that mine is the correct one.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Rachel Malloy:

Actually, I’m going to ask that the discussion of ‘Apostacy’ remain in it’s thread, and the discussion of Mormon apologetics remain in this one.

Thanks for your cooperation and participation.

No problem. I have transferred post #79 to that thread.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods.

 * "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370).*

and D&C section 21 tells us that we must accept all of his words as if they came from God. His Book of Abraham seems to follow that as well:

Abr. 4: 9

9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the waters• under the heaven be gathered together unto bone• place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered;

BUT the BoM tells us :

2 Ne. 31: 21

*21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way•; and there is none• other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine• of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one• God, without end. Amen.
*

and the D&C tells us:

D&C 20: 28

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one• God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

So when we talk about Mormon apolegetics (which SHOULD be focused on Joseph Smith because if he’s wrong the rest doesn’t matter) we find it very difficult to establish an actual LDS position to discuss. This is found throughout mormonism with the common cry of “we don’t teach that” or “that’s not doctrine”. When cornered on what IS the doctrine of the LDS church many LDS apologists would have us believe that we can always rely on the “standard works” but as you can see above they don’t establish a firm position either. So I have to ask, Is there even such a thing as Mormon apologetics? or are we just chasing our tails while Satan laughs?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods.

 * "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370).*

and D&C section 21 tells us that we must accept all of his words as if they came from God. His Book of Abraham seems to follow that as well:

Abr. 4: 9

9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the waters• under the heaven be gathered together unto bone• place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered;

BUT the BoM tells us :

2 Ne. 31: 21

*21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way•; and there is none• other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine• of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one• God, without end. Amen.
*

and the D&C tells us:

D&C 20: 28

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one• God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

So when we talk about Mormon apolegetics (which SHOULD be focused on Joseph Smith because if he’s wrong the rest doesn’t matter) we find it very difficult to establish an actual LDS position to discuss. This is found throughout mormonism with the common cry of “we don’t teach that” or “that’s not doctrine”. When cornered on what IS the doctrine of the LDS church many LDS apologists would have us believe that we can always rely on the “standard works” but as you can see above they don’t establish a firm position either. So I have to ask, Is there even such a thing as Mormon apologetics? or are we just chasing our tails while Satan laughs?

I don’t know what it is that you are objecting to in this post. You need to be more clear and succinct in you posts. I cannot respond properly to a haphazard post. What are you trying to demonstrate by this post?

amgid

 

[majick275]

Thank you, I think you just demonstrated it for me.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Thank you, I think you just demonstrated it for me.

You must be out of your mind.

amgid

 

[majick275]

nope. quite sane and humbly obedient to the one and only God who is TRULY everlasting and unchanging. May his blessings be upon you and yours always.

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

John 3:16 states that the Son of God was manifested in the flesh.

How do you reconcile your words above with 1Tim which reveals God was manifest in the flesh?

1Tim.1
[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
[2] Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Tim.2
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Tim.3
[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The Son was manifested in the flesh.

How do you reconcile your words above with Luke 1 which reveals that “the Highest, the Lord God, our God” visted us?

Luke 1
[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
[68] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
[72] To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
[78] Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

Yes, LDS doctrine teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages.

It appears LDS doctrine is not consistent with the Bible …

 

[JohnnyR]

**amgid writes, **
We believe it means that spirits existed before they were born. It is a question of your interpretation against mine.

Your interpretaion does not fit other scriptures, for example your intrepretaion does not fit Gen 2. Could you explain the LDS doctrine of pre-exitence in terms of the creation of Adam and Eve … thanks.

Gen 2
[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

[oat_soda]

When cornered on what IS the doctrine of the LDS church many LDS apologists would have us believe that we can always rely on the “standard works” but as you can see above they don’t establish a firm position either. So I have to ask, Is there even such a thing as Mormon apologetics? or are we just chasing our tails while Satan laughs?

this is a good point and something i discovered when i tried to understand the mormon teaching on Christ’s divinty and the trinity. the bottom line is that they do not hold Jesus on the same level or same substance as God the Father. while they believe in three persons in one Godhead, they are not all equal. God the Father is greater then God the son for mormons.

they may or may not admitt this or say something confusing. you really can’t find a offical definition on mormon doctrine. it is a fluid and inconsistent as are the stories of how Joe smith created the BOM

also, mormons and JWs and muslims all hold Jesus to be less then God. they also hold the Holy Spirit to be just a force. they are very similar to one another with the exception that JWs don’t have a later great prophet. all were started by salesmen and all dumb heaven down to a gimick. like, 40 black virgins and wine, or living on a perfect planet, or in the mormons case, your own planet. none hold to the idea of seeing God face to face in the beatific vision.

 

[dennisknapp]

Rachel Malloy:

Actually, I’m going to ask that the discussion of ‘Apostacy’ remain in it’s thread, and the discussion of Mormon apologetics remain in this one.

Thanks for your cooperation and participation.

Sorry, I was only using it as an example of how Mormon’s engage in apologetics. I did not intend to carry it over here.

I can think of not greater example of the use of begging the question and circular reasoning than their argument for the “Great Apostasy.”

Peace

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

I understand the use of one as an example for the other, which seems appropriate to me.

I just wanted to make sure that posters remembered to stay on topic after the example. It would be very easy for the example to translate to an actual argument.

That said, proceed with the discussion!

 

[ben_dy]

I don’t know why it took me so long to come to a realization that has likely already been pointed out by someone else at some point when discussing Mormon apologetics, but in re-reading Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity last night I came upon one page that presented a moment of clarity, to me, as to why Mormon apologetics will never be anything but solely faith-based: unlike the Christian (or Jewish, Islamic, etc.) apologist, who has recourse to methods of discovery using common tools which Crossan calls “An Interdisciplinary Method” in which he includes “anthropology, history, archeology, and literary criticism” (and to which I would add geography) none of these tools are available in the defense of particularly Mormon ‘standard works’ save the Doctrine and Covenants (and there could be made an argument to include those writings as well). Some of these tools – notably anthropology, history, literary criticism, and geography – can only be found within the text itself and that leaves no room for exegesis accessible to those who are not already true believers. Archeology is the best – and last remaining – tool to be used but, as we have seen, there is no archeological proof, no matter how strained, that does not presuppose unquestionable true belief: to accept a slashing weapon of wood and obsidian as a sword of steel (or, more correctly, I suppose, to accept a sword of steel as a slashing weapon of wood and obsidian) requires faith and faith alone, dismissing reason altogether. To try to impose a Semitic culture underlying a culture with no resemblance to a single branch (much less a root) of Semitic culture is a stretch that can only be accepted with reason and evidence, once again, thrown out the door, with nothing but blind faith remaining.

I could, of course, go on with examples, but I think all will see the point that I’m making (if those reading have not grasped my ‘point’ as a given already). So if the Mormon apologist has no recourse to the tools used in methods of other religion’s exegesis of sacred texts, what is he to do? The answer is – or answers are – to resort to the methodology as Dennis so succinctly outlined in the message that began this thread, or to enhance that single method with the methods which Dennis presented with more depth in message #68 and concluded with in message #70 – “It all comes down to their “spiritual testimony.”” The excitement and perceived sincerity of the Mormon believer rests solely on his “spiritual testimony”. When missionaries do a good job in relating their “spiritual testimony” converts are won (though, from what I’ve read, the retention rate of converts these days is abysmal) and the already faithful are buoyed in their faith. For the Mormon apologist, however, who is addressing an audience who might have their own, and very different, “spiritual testimonies” the lack of methodological tools makes the message flat and not only unconvincing but inconceivable. And that may well be amongst the answers to the question posed on another thread, ‘Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS church’ - “because it is so inconceivable”.

The question, then, for the Mormon apologist might be to look for ‘new’ methods but this has been the bane of so many new religions and heresies – and, as a Catholic, I would suggests this as another ‘proof’ (as if there need be any more) of Christ’s promise to his Church – that they falter because they cannot stand on reason: they can proselytize and win converts only to the degree to which those who are willing to abandon reason and accept emotions, sincerity, a sense of community, etc., as destination on the journey towards God is sufficient.

If there are Mormon scholars who have outlined other, more compelling, methods and methodology for theology and apologetics (not one and the same, I know, but the second must include the first) I’d be delighted to be given a clue as to where I might find such methods outlined so that I can see if they, for me, hold up to the same criticism that I apply to my own faith. Otherwise, I will simply have to stick by what Dennis has written so well.

 

[majick275]

I think you will find the most scholarly Mormon apologists are much like the high profile criminal defense attorneys.

They start from the premise that they are right until proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. They next devote their resources to discrediting “prosecution witnesses” (ad hominems if you will) then use their “expert witnesses” (FARMS, FAIR, BYU, etc.) to "muddy the waters of “scientific evidence” knowing that they can’t completely disprove the evidence against them but seeking to create “reasonable doubt” by counter-claiming that “it could have happened” or “maybe we don’t really know for sure”. (DNA evidence, BoA translation of facsimiles, BoM archeology) All the while they focus their efforts to their carefully selcted “jury”. (a group of people who don’t know the truth and are open to the possibility of mormonism). Former LDS who know the truth are “disqualified” as “apostates” who are so “anti” they can’t be trusted. Opposing points of view are discounted as not having the “fullness of the gospel” as they try to set the rules of “trial” with skillful objections and nitpicking over procedures so that the “jury” will never hear key pieces of “evidence”.

In the end some will be fooled and let the “guilty” walk. God though sees all and there is no escape from his judgement. The truth is obvious to those who actually read his words in the Bible, ponder their true meaning by studying the historical context that they were delivered in, think with their God given ability about how the word applies to them and THEN pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Stop “lawyering” up the Mormon heresy and accept God. Repent and be baptized. God welcomes all into his holy catholic and apostolic church.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

nope. quite sane and humbly obedient to the one and only God who is TRULY everlasting and unchanging. May his blessings be upon you and yours always.

Well thank you. But I remain as bemused as ever.

amgid

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

John 3:16 states that the Son of God was manifested in the flesh.

How do you reconcile your words above with 1Tim which reveals God was manifest in the flesh?

LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus was God made manifest in the flesh:

Book of Mormon, Title Page:

… And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations…

2 Nephi 11:

7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

2 Nephi 26:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases…

Mosiah 7:

27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth –

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son –

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son –

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Alma 34:

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

Ether 3:

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

D&C 19:

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

D&C 38:

1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;

D&C 61:

1 Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from everlasting to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

The Son was manifested in the flesh.

How do you reconcile your words above with Luke 1 which reveals that “the Highest, the Lord God, our God” visted us?

Same answer as above.

Yes, LDS doctrine teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages.

It appears LDS doctrine is not consistent with the Bible …

I did not notice a contradiction. You need to be more specific as to where the contradiction lies.

amgid

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

We believe it means that spirits existed before they were born. It is a question of your interpretation against mine.

Your interpretaion does not fit other scriptures, for example your intrepretaion does not fit Gen 2. Could you explain the LDS doctrine of pre-exitence in terms of the creation of Adam and Eve … thanks.

I don’t see a contradiction between Genesis 2 and pre-existence of spirit. Adam’s body was made of the dust of the earth, but his spirit pre-existed before his body was formed of the dust. Can you show me where you see the contradiction?

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

ben_dy:

I don’t know why it took me so long to come to a realization that has likely already been pointed out by someone else at some point when discussing Mormon apologetics, but in re-reading Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity last night I came upon one page that presented a moment of clarity, to me, as to why Mormon apologetics will never be anything but solely faith-based: unlike the Christian (or Jewish, Islamic, etc.) apologist, who has recourse to methods of discovery using common tools which Crossan calls “An Interdisciplinary Method” in which he includes “anthropology, history, archeology, and literary criticism” (and to which I would add geography) none of these tools are available in the defense of particularly Mormon ‘standard works’ save the Doctrine and Covenants (and there could be made an argument to include those writings as well). Some of these tools – notably anthropology, history, literary criticism, and geography – can only be found within the text itself and that leaves no room for exegesis accessible to those who are not already true believers. Archeology is the best – and last remaining – tool to be used but, as we have seen, there is no archeological proof, no matter how strained, that does not presuppose unquestionable true belief: to accept a slashing weapon of wood and obsidian as a sword of steel (or, more correctly, I suppose, to accept a sword of steel as a slashing weapon of wood and obsidian) requires faith and faith alone, dismissing reason altogether. To try to impose a Semitic culture underlying a culture with no resemblance to a single branch (much less a root) of Semitic culture is a stretch that can only be accepted with reason and evidence, once again, thrown out the door, with nothing but blind faith remaining.

I could, of course, go on with examples, but I think all will see the point that I’m making (if those reading have not grasped my ‘point’ as a given already). So if the Mormon apologist has no recourse to the tools used in methods of other religion’s exegesis of sacred texts, what is he to do? The answer is – or answers are – to resort to the methodology as Dennis so succinctly outlined in the message that began this thread, or to enhance that single method with the methods which Dennis presented with more depth in message #68 and concluded with in message #70 – “It all comes down to their “spiritual testimony.”” The excitement and perceived sincerity of the Mormon believer rests solely on his “spiritual testimony”. When missionaries do a good job in relating their “spiritual testimony” converts are won (though, from what I’ve read, the retention rate of converts these days is abysmal) and the already faithful are buoyed in their faith. For the Mormon apologist, however, who is addressing an audience who might have their own, and very different, “spiritual testimonies” the lack of methodological tools makes the message flat and not only unconvincing but inconceivable. And that may well be amongst the answers to the question posed on another thread, ‘Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS church’ - “because it is so inconceivable”.

The question, then, for the Mormon apologist might be to look for ‘new’ methods but this has been the bane of so many new religions and heresies – and, as a Catholic, I would suggests this as another ‘proof’ (as if there need be any more) of Christ’s promise to his Church – that they falter because they cannot stand on reason: they can proselytize and win converts only to the degree to which those who are willing to abandon reason and accept emotions, sincerity, a sense of community, etc., as destination on the journey towards God is sufficient.

If there are Mormon scholars who have outlined other, more compelling, methods and methodology for theology and apologetics (not one and the same, I know, but the second must include the first) I’d be delighted to be given a clue as to where I might find such methods outlined so that I can see if they, for me, hold up to the same criticism that I apply to my own faith. Otherwise, I will simply have to stick by what Dennis has written so well.

Excellent post, my friend!

You hit the nail on the head.

Peace