Mormon apologetics...

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

Whereas, the Catholic apologist has Scripture, history, and reason on his side.

These are usually the items that come under dispute.

. The evidence is so clear, so early, so universal, and so satisfying that the Catholic apologist allows the evidence to speak for itself.

Evidences don’t interpret themselves. They have to evaluated as to whether they support a proposition or not. Sometimes the same piece of evidence can be used to support multiple, competing propositions. This is frequently the case in religous discussions.

Both apologists search the historical record wanting to prove their faith is true, but the reader of a Catholic apologist’s work doesn’t need to seek a subjective “confirmation”. Who allows for the most plain reading of Scripture and history?

No matter how much scripture and history is consulted, spiritual confirmation is needed. I base this on my understanding of 1 Cor. 2, and not that I am trying provide an official interpretation of it or anything. I dislike using scriptures in a proof-text fashion. I will post it here because it is worth reviewing. With those disclaimers, I also apologize for the KJV idiom.10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but theSpirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Scriptures
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I think what the differences boil down to is subjective vs. objective.

You are probably right about this. It might be more appropriate to view objectivity and subjectivity as a spectrum or gray scale rather than a dichotomy. Viewed this way, I would say mormonism’s subjectivity tolerance is higher than catholicism’s.

When you look at the fact that most LDS converts attend a couple of missionary presentations, seek a burning sensation, quickly become baptized

Compare this to a typical Catholic convert. The person investigates the claims of the Church for months or years, attends RCIA for several weeks, then has to wait weeks or months for confirmation.

I am not sure this is a fair comparison given that mormons make their infants wait 8 years for baptism while catholics take care of this immediately. For adults I think the fairer comparison is the year of church attendance and “Gospel Priciples” curricula required before attending the temple. Educating the saints is on-going project. There is three hour block of weekly meetings, monthly home teaching visits, young adults can signup for advanced scripture study classes, etc.

I of course don’t wish to propose that LDS quickly baptising adults is intrinsically better that than catholic policy of making them wait a bit. With regard to apologetics and converts, I would have to say that I had some interesting experience in Oklahoma. First baptising an adult after a few discussions was rare. Many of the LDS converts there had gone through several sets a missionaries. Some of these attended church meetings for a time and called us in for the missionary discussions without any pressure from us. We had many visits where an investigator was nowhere near making a baptismal commitment and we would talk about just about whatever was on their minds.
But here I go providing anecdotes. I am mindful that some people looking into the LDS church don’t immediately get a spiritual witness and have high intellectual expectations. In a way I admire these people because it surely is act of faith to continue searching when there is no immediate resolution.

Mormon apologetics embrace Austin Farrer’s model of a Christian Apologist:“Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”
–fool

 

[JohnnyR]

mormon fool,

My experience with Mormon apologists is that they ignore many Bible verses and ignore the teachings of the early Christians.

Their is no question that the mysteries of God are spiritually discerned. I would agree that rational argument can maintain a climate in which belief may flourish because God is not the author of confusion, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. To know the truth we must continue in Christ’s word. We should search the search the scriptures daily to see whether things are so. The Bible is profitable for doctrine.

To assure we are not deceived we are too stand fast, and hold to the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. We are to continue in the faithful word which has been taught. The Bible reveals that in latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. The Bible also reveals that many will be follow and be deceived by false prophets.

The Living Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the more sure word of prophecy to interpret scripture and to clarify.

JohnnyR

 

[ben_dy]

I just would like to address one point now (I need to leave the house shortly) and delay, with explanation, a comment.
mormon fool:

I will have to bring your perception to FAIR’s attention. It seems to me free-stuff (like share-ware) is always going to come packaged with its annoyances. For a large-scale current project we are working on we have been instructed to leave out the personal narrative.

Not every one is a fan of paid apologetics. For example, just recently a Catholic was discussing Karl Keating on a mormon message board, see RoryMcKenzie56 post 758. Being paid will gets one’s credibility questioned in some circles (more so than it is already.)

Is my perception - my peeve - about FARMS and FAIR really anything new? I would have thought that it might be a peeve of many!

I did read the quotes in re Karl on the ZLMB board (on which I tried to more information - the "About ZLMB “Official Rules” link led to a “Page Not Found” but I’m not certain I’d have the time to join in discussions there if they are as active as the Catholic Answers board although the sub-title of the board, “A Forum Sounding Board for Academicians, Apologists, and Skeptics Interested in things LDS”, certainly piqued my attention.

To quote the gentleman who made two comments regarding Karl Keating (and, without mentioning by name, the whole of Catholic Answers, by implication):

I had a similar experience when I met Karl Keating from Catholic Answers. He’s hardly a logic machine for all his pretensions.

(…and later…)

As for Karl Keating, I am against the modern industry of apologetics as a profession for laymen. It puts them in a position of losing not just their faith, but finances, and face, if they are found wanting in knowledge. They get hit in the pocketbook if they concede points. They are followed by cheerleaders who hang on every word and who will abandon them for someone else if they spot any weakness. Keating got in on the ground floor though, and his position is secure, even if his product is not the best.

As to the first quote, I’ve never met Karl, yet in reading his books (and there aren’t many - I would think he is most well-known as the author of Catholicism and Fundamentalism than even for articles published by CA) and from various broadcasts and have never seen any pretensions exhibited. I don’t know Keating’s body of work well enough to say that he never exhibits pretensions, only to say that, in debate, what is self-assurance/self-confidence may be viewed, even by those on the same ‘team’, as pretensions, and that is, perhaps to what the writer might be seeing? I can only speculate as I will likely not join the ZLMB board and, unless that person is a CA member, he will be unable to clarify his statements.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

As to the latter (and longer) opinion, my very first knee-jerk reaction is to view this as a somewhat Luddite response. I suppose that I latched onto the words “against the modern industry”. I have read of those involved in Mormon apologetics who have, as the gentleman describes, found themselves in a position where they lose their faith but I’ve yet to hear of that occurring with a Catholic apologist - almost the contrary, in fact: a protestant who begins to delve deeply into the Catholic faith to assure or absolve himself of prejudicial notions (and I’ll just use Chesterton as an example) is likely to fall into that ritual which arieh so wonderfully defined. Does a paid apologist get hit in the pocketbook if he concedes ‘points’? I wouldn’t think so - for anyone to go into the ‘business’ of apologetics he or she would, I think, take into consider the strength and veracity of his knowledge, making certain that he was both secure in his faith and so knowledgeable of his ‘product’ to recognize that any points conceded are valid - admitting that there have been bad Popes, for instance, is only a concession to truth and the Catholic apologist should make no attempt to scuttle or avoid the truth. Are there Karl Keating cheerleaders? Or cheerleaders for other paid apologists? I don’t know, and the only other paid apologist with whom I am familiar does not seem to have the same obedience to authority which Catholic Answers seems to have (I’ve yet to read any deviations from the authority of the Magisterium) - that keeps the path on the ‘straight and narrow’, I think, and does not allow for any weaknesses of argument to surface (although some people may be able to present a case better than the other, or be more attractive than the other, so that ‘fans’ whom are fans of personality rather than substance may, for all I know, jump from favored apologist to apologist). I’m not quite certain what the writer means when he says that Keating “got in on the ground floor” nor am I certain what he means by “his product is not the best”. In any case, although it’s certain that the author is no fan of Keating or paid apologetics in general, he doesn’t make a convincing argument against the practice.

So I will stick by what I have said but try to render my beliefs more clearly:

1. As both the Catholic Church and the LDS church both make the claim to be the one true Church of Christ, both are more in need of apologetics than other sects who make no certain claim, and;
2. As Mormon apologists too frequently claim a lack of paid staffing to devote full time to the matter, they might take a lesson from an organization such as Catholic Answers, or - to broaden the stroke - a cue from the endless anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon ‘ministries’ and solicit funds (by any legal and ethical means!) to establish a Mormon apologetics working group with both a paid and a volunteer staff and see if it will or will not be supported by the Mormon community.

As as aside I would wonder if the gentleman who has a problem with paid apologetics has the same, or similar, problem with EWTN having a paid staff? You could, I would think, make parallel arguments that have been made with Keating’s vision for Catholic Answers with Mother Angelica’s vision of a Catholic broadcasting network. EWTN sustains itself in many different ways and, although the “product” might not be “the best” (some of those late-night, Italian-made, English-dubbed hagiographies - well… they’re no Gibson’s “Passion”). And yet the network fills a gap for those of us who would MUCH rather watch an Italian-made, English-dubbed hagiography at 3 in the morning rather than, say, ‘Babes of the Mile High Club’ on Cinemax.
mormon fool:

Anyway I really can’t speak for the LDS church, FARMS, or FAIR on what the best way to handle apologetics is. There was a pretty good interview of a FAIR leader on the subject that is worth checking out at here.

To be fair - and because I am an iPod and PodCast weenie, replacing each ‘high end’ version with the next the moment it is available for sale (yet not so interested in my new iPod as to download ‘Desperate Housewives’ - a program I just don’t think would interest me) - I really want to listen to the John Lynch interview before I make a reply.

 

[dennisknapp]

mormon fool:

I would equate “testimony” in the mormon apologist context as having knowledge and having had a spiritual witness of the central mormon truth claims.

But how do you know this is a valid spiritual witness?
mormon fool:
If I were to generalize the LDS search for truth it would be to study evidences and reasoning out of the best resources like finding the truth all depends on oneself, and praying like gaining spiritual truth all depends on divine intervention.

How much do you depend on each one? Is it 40% reason and 60% divine intervention, or…what exactly?
mormon fool:
First, I think we all approach life with preconceptions, there is no way to not do so. Our preconceptions shape what we choose to analyze. Some people cling more tenaciously to their preconceptions than others who will allow their beliefs to modified by the new information. Typically an apologist is at a point where their core values are pretty much fixed, and they feel passionate about demonstrating the validity of these core values to others who may not have such “fixed” notions. An apologist would allow modification of preconceptions in secondary matters. If they gave up on core values they would by definition cease to be an apologist for that position.

I don’t agree. I think a true apologist would be someone on the quest for truth, not someone merely dispensing propaganda. A true apologist is intellectually honest and open to changing their position, even on primary beliefs, if these beliefs were proven false. I consider myself strongly convinced that Catholicism is true, but if I were shown it was false and untrue I would follow the truth and cease being Catholic. This is intellectual honest, something all people need to take a hold of.
mormon fool:
With that in mind I totally agree that LDS apologists “presuppose the Mormon position to be true.” There is nothing wrong with this in their stage of intellectual and spiritual development. Just like there in nothing wrong when a committed Catholic apologists wakes up in the morning with a firm belief the Catholic position is true and worth defending.

This is a false dichotomy. You need not presuppose your position to be true to defend it. Everyone has presuppositions, this is true, but all presuppositions are subject to reality. If ones presupposition contradicts reality, the presupposition must change. One must first prove their presupposition it true and then one can defend it as so.
mormon fool:
And I also agree that LDS apologists sometimes pray for spiritual guidance and reading the Book of Mormon is a good way to recover one’s spiritual peace when doubts arise. It isn’t the only way to prepare to receive a spiritual witness, but coupled with prayer, dilligent study, and dilligent discipleship can be highly effective. Spiritual experiences come in a variety of different forms, “the burning in the bosom” is only one such.

later,

fool

But how does this effect others? If subjective religious experience is used as a valid channel for truth, the only person it is valid for is the individual. It has no bearing whatsoever on others, for it cannot be verified. In order for it to be effective for others it has to be verified by something outside the individual. This is where logic, reason, history, and theology come into play. If my personal religious experience tells me something contrary to reality, i.e. the church was restored under Joseph Smith in the 1800’s after 1700 years of some mysterious apostasy, then I must reject this experience and hold fast to reality. The evidence simply does not support the claims of Joseph Smith, therefore no matter what “experience” one has, it must be rejected.

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

Thus far, this is what I can gather about Mormon apologetics.

I am puzzled as to why you have described this process as “apologetics”. Apologetics literally means defending the Christian religion against (intellectual) attack by unbelievers. The activity you have described comes more under the definition of “proselyting” rather than “apologetics”.

First, presuppose the Mormon position to be true.

Not quite correct. I would say the first step is to presuppose that Mormonism could be true. If you cannot presuppose that Mormonism (or any other religion for that matter) could be true, you would have no incentive to want to honestly and sincerely investigate it, with the aim of establishing whether it is true or not. You would either not investigate it at all, or you would merely study it with a closed mind, with the aim of finding fault with it—which would militate against your ability to determine its truth, assuming that it were true.

Next, read all available data in the light of your presupposition.

Again, not really correct. The amount of “data” that you would be required to read (following the first step) is actually quite limited. It consists of the Book of Mormon! To that I would add the Joseph Smith Testimony. I would put that at the top of the list in fact, followed by the Book of Mormon. That is all the “data” that you will need to read.

Finally, when doubt enters your mind, take out a copy of the BoM, …

Not correct at all. “Doubt enter your mind” does not come into it. You read the Book of Mormon next, not after reading “all available data”. The Book of Mormon is the crux of the whole matter. Everything hinges on that. If it is true, that determines Joseph Smith as a true prophet, and the Church he established as true. If false, then everything else becomes false. It is the beginning and end of everything.

… pray for the burning in your bosom.

That is not what the Book of Mormon says. The Book of Mormon contains a promise within it, as follows:

Moroni 10:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
This says nothing about “burning in the bosom”. God has many different ways of revealing the truth to someone, and each person’s experience can be different.

Once this is received, repeat first step.

Not heard of that one before. Not sure what you mean by that.

amgid

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

The Bible reveals different steps …

It is not a burning bosom that guide us to truth. It is the Spirit of truth that guides us to all truth (John 16:13). The Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him (Luke 11:9,13).

When LDS talk about the “burning in the bosom,” they mean the same kind of thing as what is referred to in these scriptures you have sited. It is just using a different terminology.

The Bible reveals that followers of Jesus can experience a burning of the bosom and still not know Jesus (Luke 24:16,32),

Not correct. You have not understood the scriptures correctly. This is what the scripture says:

Luke 24:

13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.

15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

16 But their eyes were holden {that is, intentionally, by God} that they should not know him.

17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

---

28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made {i.e. pretended} as though he would have gone further.

29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
From this passage we learn the following facts: Firstly, it was not the will of God that these two disciples should recognize Jesus immediately when they met Him. That is what is meant by saying that “their eyes were holden, that they should not know him”. In other words, Jesus did not want them to recognize Him. He had deliberately made Himself strange to them so that they wouldn’t identify Him right away. Those people had been His disciples. They had known Him intimately during His mortality. The only reason why they should not have been able to recognize Him was if Jesus deliberately did not want them to recognize Him.

Secondly, we find that Jesus begins to “open the scriptures” to them, which means that He began to enlighten their minds as to their true meanings. At this point they experienced what they called “our hearts burn within us,” meaning that they got an intense feeling and exhilaration that what He was telling them was true. In fact, they were so impressed by what He told them that they begged Him to stay with them. Jesus, not wanting them to know who He was, at first pretended that He was going another way; but after they had “pressed him” (meaning that they begged Him a lot), He agreed to go with them to their house.

Thirdly, when Jesus finally decided to reveal His identity to them, it says “their eyes were opened,” which means that the Lord decided that that was the right moment that He should make His true identity known to them, at which point He immediately vanishes out of their sight. This proves that He just did not want to converse with them with His identity fully revealed to them. Perhaps that was because He did not want them to ask Him all kinds of curious questions that they might have otherwise been tempted to ask Him.

It was Jesus who had decided to hide His identity from them for a wise purpose, and it was Jesus that decided to reveal His identity to them at the time of His own choosing. It had nothing to do with the “burning in the bosom” experience. The “burning in the bosom experience” relates exclusively to the “scriptures that He opened to them”. In other words, the Holy Sprit witnessed to them that what He was teaching them out of the scriptures was true. It had nothing to do with the hiding and disclosing of His identity to them. That had a different wisdom, motive, and purpose behind it. You have twisted the scriptures an awful lot to reach the conclusion that you have reached.

amgid

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

From my POV the difference in Catholic and Mormon apologetics lies within authority.

We need first to define our terms. Apologetics literally means defending the Christian religion against (intellectual) attack by unbelievers. Are you sure you are discussing “apologetics” and not “Mormon proselyting methods”? You need to define that first, because our terms of reference will be different, depending which discipline it is that you are actually talking about. I have not discussed the rest of your post because I am not sure! You need to clarify that for me first, before I can discuss the remainder of your post.

amgid

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

Can you please clarify what you mean by “testimony?”

A testimony, as defined in LDS theology, is a witness of the Holy Spirit to someone that something is true, as stated in this verse:

Moroni 10:

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
This is what Peter had experienced in the following scripture:

Matthew 16:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
This is what we mean by the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

amgid

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

It boils down to believing the Bible and the first Christians. To believe Mormonism a person must discount many Bible verses and the teachings of the first Christians.

I think that the opposite is true.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

A testimony, as defined in LDS theology, is a witness of the Holy Spirit to someone that something is true, as stated in this verse:

Moroni 10:

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

This is what Peter had experienced in the following scripture:

Matthew 16:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This is what we mean by the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

amgid

So, its entirely subjective. As I stated earlier:

“But how does this effect others? If subjective religious experience is used as a valid channel for truth, the only person it is valid for is the individual. It has no bearing whatsoever on others, for it cannot be verified. In order for it to be effective for others it has to be verified by something outside the individual. This is where logic, reason, history, and theology come into play. If my personal religious experience tells me something contrary to reality, i.e. the church was restored under Joseph Smith in the 1800’s after 1700 years of some mysterious apostasy, then I must reject this experience and hold fast to reality. The evidence simply does not support the claims of Joseph Smith, therefore no matter what “experience” one has, it must be rejected.”

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

I think that the opposite is true.

amgid

Proof, please.

Peace

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

I believe you have mis-understood Luke 24.
Jesus called them fools because they did not beleive the holy prophets even though they had scriptures opened and experienced the physcial sensation. Jesus was known to the disciples with the breaking of the bread … sounds very Catholic.

Luke 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Could you back up words that “I think that the opposite is true”. Since this off-topic open another thread and I will glad to discuss this topic. I would disagree with you that Catholics discount bible verses and the teachings of the first Christians.

For example Mormons discount the following verses:

Luke 1
[68] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

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.

For example Mormons discount the following Early Father Teaching:

• there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word (Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD))

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

Evidences don’t interpret themselves. They have to evaluated as to whether they support a proposition or not. Sometimes the same piece of evidence can be used to support multiple, competing propositions. This is frequently the case in religous discussions.

True, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation but not their own evidence. Suppose two people find an arrowhead on the ground. One says that it was created by accident and the other says that it was designed. One is right and one is wrong. How you determine who is right is by examining their rationale. The same can be said for the ECF writings. If Justin clearly describes all 7 Catholic Sacraments, a liturgy strikingly similar to today’s liturgy, a hierachical Church like today’s, and monotheism we can take his subordinationalism with a grain of salt and harmonize it with his other writings.
mormon fool:

No matter how much scripture and history is consulted, spiritual confirmation is needed. I base this on my understanding of 1 Cor. 2, and not that I am trying provide an official interpretation of it or anything.

I think 1 Cor. 2&3 talk more of growing in faith rather that an initial conversion. Paul is condemning the Corinthians for acting on fleshly impulses rather than being guided by the Spirit, but these people were already christians. Catholicism isn’t purely scholastic, we do need to walk in faith and by the Spirit but we cannot rely on our senses (and a burning in the bossom is a fleshly sensation) for confirmation of what is true doctrine. Protestants all believe that they are led by the Holy Spirit and yet they disagree with each other about everything.
mormon fool:

I am not sure this is a fair comparison given that mormons make their infants wait 8 years for baptism while catholics take care of this immediately.

And Catholics wait until 7 or 8 for Confirmation and reception of the Eucharist. Baptism is the New Covenant circumcision and is the moment when we are born again and have the stain of original sin washed away. The reason why Catholics baptize infants is because it holds a much different significance than it does Mormons, it is not simply entrance into a community of believers but allows admission to the Kingdom of God (John 3:5)

 

[mormon_fool]

All,

Well I have got to get back to work for a few weeks, but there is always a possibility I won’t be able to self disclipline myself. A few parting comments.

ben_dy

I enjoy your getting your viewpoint on LDS apologetics. I will really take your critique to heart if I become more serious about my amateurish apologetics hobby. I considered balancing my comments with some in-house negativity to mormon apologetics. BTW, I invited Rory/3DOP to comment on this thread, but I don’t know if my PM will get to him or if he will accept the invitation. Yes, do check out the John Lynch interview! I don’t have iPod but I listened to it on Windows Media.

dennis

I have a little trouble understanding your points, even though I am trying to agree with you. Let me suggest that there are at least 3 distinct modes of searching for truth. At least it might be helpful to consider them as distinct before blurring distinctions. 1) the pre-conversion search (here preconceptions are only very tentatively held. 2) the relatively open minded post-conversion search (more commited to preconceptions but willing the modify them as needed). 3) an apologetic search (usually preconceptions are solidly held, the object of this search is to provide answers to challenges, and present favorable evidence and reasoning for a position) . Making these distinctions is not to say a person can’t switch hats as needed.

Your question about about how to recognize spiritual witnesses is a good one. Perhaps we can have a dedicated thread on this later?

arieh

Your position on that 1 Cor. 2 has more applicability to post-conversion process has me doing a double take. There is some thought in mormonism that access to the Holy Spirit to obtain spritual witnesses increases upon post-conversion, but to limit the role played in pre-conversion baffles me. I will concede that 21st century RCC evidences and rational argumentation are indeed awe inspiring and that a lesser, subjective leap of faith is required to embrace its truth claims.

Johnny,

I will grant that mormon apologists don’t spend as much time answering criticism that appear to be backed by solid Bible interpretation as you might like. But don’t you think that LDS apologists have a lot of ground to defend and can’t really afford to focus on just Bible and ECF knowledge? With that said, I admire your laser-like focus on reasoning from these sources.

Amgid,

Thanks for popping in and providing an alternative LDS view on this thread. Please be gentle on those who are gracious enough to allow us to correspond with them and entertain our thoughts. But regardless, thanks for picking up on things I have missed and being more articulate than myself.

later,
fool

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

arieh

Your position on that 1 Cor. 2 has more applicability to post-conversion process has me doing a double take. There is some thought in mormonism that access to the Holy Spirit to obtain spritual witnesses increases upon post-conversion, but to limit the role played in pre-conversion baffles me. I will concede that 21st century RCC evidences and rational argumentation are indeed awe inspiring and that a lesser, subjective leap of faith is required to embrace its truth claims.

I did not mean to say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t have a role to play in pre-conversion but that 1 Cor. 2&3 didn’t seem to fit at “subjective, burning-in-the-bossom, fleshly sensation”. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where we are told to seek a physical sensation for confirmation of divine truth (I get a burning in the bossom everytime I eat too much Mexican food ).

Your contribution to this forum will be missed while you are busy working. You are thoughtful and well informed, you would make a great Catholic

 

[ben_dy]

arieh0310:

Baptism is the New Covenant circumcision and is the moment when we are born again and have the stain of original sin washed away. The reason why Catholics baptize infants is because it holds a much different significance than it does Mormons, it is not simply entrance into a community of believers but allows admission to the Kingdom of God (John 3:5)

One of the things that confused me, in my second reading of the particular Mormon standard works, was how great an abomination infant baptism was taught to be in the BoM, and yet to read in Doctrine & Covenants 84 that John the Baptist was “baptized while yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old…”. I never bothered to see what the official LDS reply was as I simply assume it would have some explanation about how John the Baptist was a special case. (And to LDS who would make reply - there’s no need: this is just an off-topic observation that serves to illustrate only that there exists a need for Mormon apologetics when seemingly conflicting passages from the BoM and later revelations arise).

 

[dennisknapp]

Another problem I see with the Mormon approach is the acceptence of the argument from silence. Here’s how the argument works:

Mormon:
It was revealed to Joseph Smith in the 1800’s that the Church apostized after the last Apostle died, say around 100 AD.

Catholic:
Really, what evidence do you have for this besides the word of some man who lived 1700 after the fact?

Mormon:
There is no evidence. Once the Church apostized it destroyed all evidence of true Mormon belief. The fact that there is no evidence proves the Church apostized.

Catholic:
What? That lact of evidence proves the Church apostized? That proves nothing. I could say that lack of proof shows the opposite, that the Church stayed true to her call, it was Smith who was wrong.

Mormon:
No, the lack of evidence proves that Church apostized. It validates what the Prophet received from Christ.

Catholic:
That is circular reasoning and begging the question. It does not follow that the lack of evidence proves the existence of said evidence.

Mormon:
Well, this is not all we rely on. I have also had a personal testimony that these things are true.

Catholic:
Well, that is good for you, but is proves nothing to me. I need more concrete evidence than just your subject religious experience.

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

So, its entirely subjective.

I didn’t call it “subjective,” you are calling it that.

As I stated earlier:

“But how does this effect others? If subjective religious experience is used as a valid channel for truth, the only person it is valid for is the individual. It has no bearing whatsoever on others, for it cannot be verified. In order for it to be effective for others it has to be verified by something outside the individual. This is where logic, reason, history, and theology come into play. If my personal religious experience tells me something contrary to reality, i.e. the church was restored under Joseph Smith in the 1800’s after 1700 years of some mysterious apostasy, then I must reject this experience and hold fast to reality. The evidence simply does not support the claims of Joseph Smith, therefore no matter what “experience” one has, it must be rejected.”

I don’t know what you are talking about. You are the one who is saying “subjective” and “objective”. Jesus didn’t do either. If it was good enough for Peter and for Jesus, it is good enough for me.

amgid

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

Proof, please.

He hadn’t provided no “proof,” and neither did I.

amgid