Mormon apologetics...

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

Diddo.

I can’t say that I have tried to prove false the Mormon Church, but I have talked with many who have tried to do so, and I’ve always found one or more arguments to be lacking. Therefore, I’m pretty dang confident that there is nothing to prove it wrong. Also, I’m pretty dang confident that there is nothing to prove it true but God himself. Of course, I feel the same way about Catholicism (check out my new thread on that), so that is no surprise. Come now, Ben, I thought you understood my position. Apparently not.

My name is Dennis…anyway back to our conversation.

You have found one or more arguments to be lacking and conclude from this that Mormonism is true? Come on, you have to do better than that.

What do you mean that there is nothing that can prove it true but God Himself? Do you have a direct line to Him with which you can ask a question and recieve an answer?
Chris Jodrey:

Ever read the verses about how every knee will bend and every lip confess that Jesus is Lord? To you, when does that refer to? Seems to me that it won’t happen because of us “puny humans”, do you?

Now, missionary work is interesting. I can’t find much evidence that that kind of work involved human means to ‘prove’ Christianity to people - not in the Bible anyway. The closest I can find to that is where Paul would preach and “reason” with the Jews in the synagogues. I’m not convinced that this meant that he would actually cite science and history (besides what they all knew from their own religious history and what was written in scripture), especially since science to that point wasn’t the same as we think of it.

Actually, quite a bit may be chopped up to miracles, although I don’t think that’s all there is to it even when they are performed. Besides, that can be dangerous. Ever watched these religious healers on TV?

One of the best examples I can think of is Phillip and the Ethiopian. No miracles, no lengthy 'proof’s, just plain simple explanation and subsequent conversion. There should be other examples like this, but they slip my mind for the moment. Can you think of any more?

I don’t know what you are getting at here. I asked how you know you are not deceived, not about biblical conversion stories. How do you know you are not deceived, or better yet, how can I know you are not deceived?

I am still not convinced you can demonstrate your position without an appeal to subjective experience. You say all evidence is subjective and experience is subjective… what to you is objective and provable? Help me to understand that you are not a relativist.

Peace

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

!!!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=71795

I ran across this thread just now. How enlightening. Of course, I have spoken with atheists before, but this reminded me of how this applies here.

You know, many atheists are atheists because it can’t be proven to them that God exists. Sure, there might be other reasons that people go atheist, but I’m sure that if you could prove Christianity true by science and history then they would have to accept it, right?

So, not only can you not prove to an atheist that God exists (nevermind the actual nature of that God), but such means as ‘science’ actually work against Christians. Seems to me like non-Mormon Christians take a very Mormon approach to apologetics there. For example, prove that the world was created 6,000 years ago and not millions or even billions of years ago as most scientists today now concede. Can you do it? Not effectively. Oh well.

 

[dennisknapp]

!!!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=71795

I ran across this thread just now. How enlightening. Of course, I have spoken with atheists before, but this reminded me of how this applies here.

You know, many atheists are atheists because it can’t be proven to them that God exists. Sure, there might be other reasons that people go atheist, but I’m sure that if you could prove Christianity true by science and history then they would have to accept it, right?

So, not only can you not prove to an atheist that God exists (nevermind the actual nature of that God), but such means as ‘science’ actually work against Christians. Seems to me like non-Mormon Christians take a very Mormon approach to apologetics there. For example, prove that the world was created 6,000 years ago and not millions or even billions of years ago as most scientists today now concede. Can you do it? Not effectively. Oh well.

Did anyone else see that red-herring go by? Wow, they are fast! What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Why do you find it so hard to answer simple questions?

Peace

 

[majick275]

But the age of the earth is not necessary for a Catholic. Whatever science determines it’s age to be does not conflict with Catholic doctrine.

I think (as someone else posted earlier) that there are things that CAN be disproven and those are of relevance as well. This seems to be the primary focus of “Mormon apologetics”. There are so many things that seem to obviously disprove LDS claims and LDS defenders seem to focust their efforts on finding ways that it could still be a true church in spite of the evidence. This is where I think mosr non-LDS see the Mormons as grasping at straws and not being very realistic in their attempts at apologetics.

Obviously we can go to extremes with your atheist example and go even further with relativistic theory and get all “matrix-ey”. What is real? However to do that in the context of Catholic/LDS comparison is ludicrous. There is a start point with a similar enough frame of refernce that we can base our discussion on it.

I think if we start with a belief in Jesus Christ and his original church we are on pretty solid ground. The scwerpunkt seems to be the “great apostasy”. If we show that at some point after the death of Christ the entire church apostatized and lost all divine authority then we have a case for further investigation of LDS claims. (although we can’t discount at that point other restorationists) If we don’t find this universal deviation from Apostolic teaching of sufficient scale to strip authority away from the heirs of the Apostles then we have reason to further investigate RCC claims. (once again we shouldn’t at that point dismiss EO claims)

Do you agree?

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

I ran across this thread just now. How enlightening. Of course, I have spoken with atheists before, but this reminded me of how this applies here.

You know, many atheists are atheists because it can’t be proven to them that God exists. Sure, there might be other reasons that people go atheist, but I’m sure that if you could prove Christianity true by science and history then they would have to accept it, right?

Chris,

I didn’t read the thread, just noted that it concerned atheists, and this brings up an interesting point that can be validated because it involves times recent and people of notoriety (in the good sense of the word - as in well-known) who were atheists.

Go back no more than 150 years or so (so that we remain in times of both the LDS and Catholic churches) and consider the number of people who were atheists but who converted to Catholicism. The steps usually ran thus: first an interest to disprove the religion false; then by undertaking a study of Catholicism so as to be equipped to be able to establish an ‘anti-Catholic, anti-theist’ argument based on reason; then the unexpected - a realization that Catholicism is proven true by reason, rather than false; then a time of reflection, usually, talking to and reading others who argue both sides; and finally, faith - wholly unexpected, a completely opposite result of the original goal. And some of these atheists have gone onto become some of the finest Catholic apologists around.

History is replete with men and women who followed this path - modern history has its share, and every parish has a few converts who travelled this path. It’s not always the same - you may not remember Bishop Fulton Sheen from his television days but he was well-known not only for his inspirational oration but for his mastery of apologetics coupled with a happiness and joy of Christ that made him somewhat of a charismatic figure (although, if you ever spoke to those who knew him, that is not how he wished to be viewed. Nonetheless he was one of the most well-known American Catholics of his time, even before he became a television personalty, and he was sought out by those equally well-known atheists who were coming to have doubts about their doubts. Heywood Broun - the great journalist, socialist, and communist. Clare Boothe Brokaw (later Luce, after marrying Henry Luce), one of the most brilliant, and most atheistic, women of the twenty-century. A magazine editor before she married a publishing tycoon. A woman of literary skill and a playwright whose “The Women” is still on stage today, has already been through films and is being remade yet again for a 2006 release. A congresswoman and and ambassador. Not a dull woman - but one whose path from atheist to convert was guiding by the reasoning and spiritual direction of Bishop Sheen. Henry Ford II - not as commanding as his grandfather and having none of his namesakes outspoken anti-semitism - was yet another unbeliever who found faith because of personal quest and the help of one man.

If Bishop (he died an Archbishop) Sheen could help these three non-believers who were well-known and willing to make their new-found religion known, how many more might there be who were not as famous, who had no Bishop Sheens? One of my brother-in-laws who had only me and my brother (as he was convinced my sister brainwashed).

There may be - and if there are, I would love to read the stories - of the famous or the not-so-famous coming from atheism to Mormonism by reason. In fact, I realize that I’m setting myself up - that if you can show me half a dozen atheists who came to believe in the LDS church by means of reason I will definitely have to back up and look at the historicity of the LDS church again for myself, to see if I have missed something. Of course, I’m not an atheist yet theism, alone, is not any more ‘proof’ for me than it is for the atheist. But, if there are examples, let us know. You’re holding your best ‘weapon’ in reserve, at this point, if you’ve examples plenty.

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris,

I am still not convinced you can demonstrate your position without an appeal to subjective experience. You say all evidence is subjective and experience is subjective… what to you is objective and provable? Help me to understand that you are not a relativist.

Help me to understand you are not deceived.

Peace

 

[Phaedrus]

After reading the posts in this thread, it is obvious to me why there is no Mormon Catechism, and why there never can be. Anyone who tried to make sense of the muddled mess that is LDS theology would only expose how illogical and improbable it is, and would likely cause thinking people to leave the church in droves.

Because whenever you think about the claims that the LDS Church makes, you run into problems. Take the claim that the Church fell into apostasy after the death of the apostles. Now, consider the implications of that claim. It means that all the great saints and holy men of the Church, like Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Benedict, Thérèse of Lisieux, Aquinas, Ignatius, all the way to Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa, were all apostates, regardless of the fact that they loved God with all their hearts, souls, and minds. Further, it means that these holy men and women, many of whom were brilliant and studied the Bible more carefully than any of us can claim to have done, somehow missed or misunderstood all those scriptural references to the Great Apostasy, and remained deluded all their lives. Every one of them. It means that these saints, whose only goal was a closer and more intimate relationship with God, never grasped the truth – that the Church which they loved was no longer the Church of the God they worshipped. Think about that. It is no small thing to smugly dismiss the saints as many of the Mormons on this board have done. It takes an incredible degree of pride and arrogance to make that kind of judgment. And it should make one tremble to contradict such an overwhelming and unanimous testimony. Or at the very least make one pause and reconsider.

As for me, the idea that the saints were all deluded simpletons or demonic Satanists is too outrageous to believe. Given the choice between Saint Augustine and the burning bosoms of every Mormon that ever lived, I’ll take Saint Augustine, thank you very much.

But there is a further implication of this Great Apostasy claim: God had to be in on it. After all, he could just as easily have revealed the truth to any one of the saints as to the rather un-saintly Joseph Smith. The fact that he didn’t means that he was content to allow his Church to wallow in apostasy for nearly 1800 years. During that time, all those saints were crying out to Him and seeking His guidance. He ignored them. Why? Was it a game? This type of behavior on God’s part contradicts everything we know about Him from the scriptures. When the Israelites sinned, God punished them, but he never abandoned them. He certainly never left them for 1800 years and then started fresh with a new people.

So I urge the LDS folks on this board to study the early Church. Put the things the LDS Church has told you to the test by reading non-LDS histories of Christianity. Or sign up for an RCIA class in your nearest parish. If, after that, you are still convinced that the LDS Church is the True Church, then at least you gave the other side a fair hearing.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[dennisknapp]

Phaedrus:

After reading the posts in this thread, it is obvious to me why there is no Mormon Catechism, and why there never can be. Anyone who tried to make sense of the muddled mess that is LDS theology would only expose how illogical and improbable it is, and would likely cause thinking people to leave the church in droves.

Because whenever you think about the claims that the LDS Church makes, you run into problems. Take the claim that the Church fell into apostasy after the death of the apostles. Now, consider the implications of that claim. It means that all the great saints and holy men of the Church, like Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Benedict, Thérèse of Lisieux, Aquinas, Ignatius, all the way to Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa, were all apostates, regardless of the fact that they loved God with all their hearts, souls, and minds. Further, it means that these holy men and women, many of whom were brilliant and studied the Bible more carefully than any of us can claim to have done, somehow missed or misunderstood all those scriptural references to the Great Apostasy, and remained deluded all their lives. Every one of them. It means that these saints, whose only goal was a closer and more intimate relationship with God, never grasped the truth – that the Church which they loved was no longer the Church of the God they worshipped. Think about that. It is no small thing to smugly dismiss the saints as many of the Mormons on this board have done. It takes an incredible degree of pride and arrogance to make that kind of judgment. And it should make one tremble to contradict such an overwhelming and unanimous testimony. Or at the very least make one pause and reconsider.

As for me, the idea that the saints were all deluded simpletons or demonic Satanists is too outrageous to believe. Given the choice between Saint Augustine and the burning bosoms of every Mormon that ever lived, I’ll take Saint Augustine, thank you very much.

But there is a further implication of this Great Apostasy claim: God had to be in on it. After all, he could just as easily have revealed the truth to any one of the saints as to the rather un-saintly Joseph Smith. The fact that he didn’t means that he was content to allow his Church to wallow in apostasy for nearly 1800 years. During that time, all those saints were crying out to Him and seeking His guidance. He ignored them. Why? Was it a game? This type of behavior on God’s part contradicts everything we know about Him from the scriptures. When the Israelites sinned, God punished them, but he never abandoned them. He certainly never left them for 1800 years and then started fresh with a new people.

So I urge the LDS folks on this board to study the early Church. Put the things the LDS Church has told you to the test by reading non-LDS histories of Christianity. Or sign up for an RCIA class in your nearest parish. If, after that, you are still convinced that the LDS Church is the True Church, then at least you gave the other side a fair hearing.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

The fact that these were holy men and women is not an issue for Mormons. Its not as though those living in apostasy go to hell, they just don’t become gods. They will go to the heaven ooccupied but the Godhead, which is fine because that is where we want to go anyway.

For my part I am more concerned for the destiny of the Mormon. If Catholics are wrong, we go where we want to go. If the Mormon is wrong…well, I trust in the mercy of God, so I wont go there. Nevertheless, given both our theologies, the Mormon is in the more vulnerable position. This is one reason why being informed to sooo important. It does not just affect this life, but the one to come.

Peace

 

[Phaedrus]

dennisknapp:

The fact that these were holy men and women is not an issue for Mormons. Its not as though those living in apostasy go to hell, they just don’t become gods.
Peace

So Mormons believe that it is possible to be holy and apostate at the same time? That doesn’t make any sense. Do they think that belief in the correct doctrines alone is what qualifies one for the “Godhead”?

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

I am still not convinced you can demonstrate your position without an appeal to subjective experience.

I am puzzled by your post Dennis. I don’t know whether you are genuinely being inquisitive, or whether you are just being argumentative. If you are being argumentative, then I am not interested in continuing with the discussion. If you are genuinely being inquisitive, then the LDS position on your question has been made clear enough. The LDS position is that the truth of Mormonism can only be determined, ultimately, by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You seem to insist that that experience must necessarily be what you call “subjective”. That depends on your definition of “subjective”. If God has revealed to me that something is true, by a personal revelation to me, then that revelation remains a personal experience for me. I cannot convey or transmit that experience to another person. If that is what you mean by “subjective,” then you are right, it is subjective. If, however, by “subjective” you mean it is something that is inherently unreliable and untrustworthy (which is what you apparently do mean by it), then I disagree. I can have an encounter with God that can be as real to me as anything can be to you. Just because it is an experience that I cannot ready convey to you, it does not prove that it must be any less real or trustworthy (to me).

You say all evidence is subjective and experience is subjective… what to you is objective and provable?

You can save yourself and anyone else the effort of trying to define what is “objective and provable”. If you are expecting me or anyone else to “prove” to you that Mormonism is true, I can save you a lot of trouble from the start by telling you up front that that is not possible. If anyone has told you anything different, then they don’t know what they are talking about. Furthermore, I would go further and inform you that you cannot “prove” the truth of any religion, not just of Mormonism. More fundamentally, you cannot even “prove” the existence of God. If you cannot prove the existence of God, how can you prove the truth of any religion, which is based in the first instance on belief in the existence of a God?

Help me to understand that you are not a relativist.

I don’t know what that means, and I don’t care to know. I don’t deal with philosophical terminologies.

Help me to understand you are not deceived.

Nobody can; neither Catholic, nor Mormon, nor any other believer in religion. I think that you are deceived. Prove to me that you are not.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

I am puzzled by your post Dennis. I don’t know whether you are genuinely being inquisitive, or whether you are just being argumentative. If you are being argumentative, then I am not interested in continuing with the discussion. If you are genuinely being inquisitive, then the LDS position on your question has been made clear enough. The LDS position is that the truth of Mormonism can only be determined, ultimately, by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You seem to insist that that experience must necessarily be what you call “subjective”. That depends on your definition of “subjective”. If God has revealed to me that something is true, by a personal revelation to me, then that revelation remains a personal experience for me. I cannot convey or transmit that experience to another person. If that is what you mean by “subjective,” then you are right, it is subjective. If, however, by “subjective” you mean it is something that is inherently unreliable and untrustworthy (which is what you apparently do mean by it), then I disagree. I can have an encounter with God that can be as real to me as anything can be to you. Just because it is an experience that I cannot ready convey to you, it does not prove that it must be any less real or trustworthy (to me).

This is the crux of the issue. It may be true to you, but I have no way of verifying it for me. How do I know the HS told you it is true? In all possibility it could be the HS, or it could not, I have no way of knowing. That is why I need other sources to validate what you are saying. I can’t just take your word for it, now can I? That would not be wise or prudent. I need something other than what goes on inside your head. Plus, your church makes some pretty huge claims regarding the Truth of its origin and purpose. I feel such a huge claim should come with some evidence to back it up.

I can also claim alot, but I hope you would want some evidence before believing me. This is all I am asking. I am not being argumentative, just trying to find my way through all the assertions to find the truth.

amgid:

You can save yourself and anyone else the effort of trying to define what is “objective and provable”. If you are expecting me or anyone else to “prove” to you that Mormonism is true, I can save you a lot of trouble from the start by telling you up front that that is not possible. If anyone has told you anything different, then they don’t know what they are talking about. Furthermore, I would go further and inform you that you cannot “prove” the truth of any religion, not just of Mormonism. More fundamentally, you cannot even “prove” the existence of God. If you cannot prove the existence of God, how can you prove the truth of any religion, which is based in the first instance on belief in the existence of a God?

I am not trying to prove a religion true or false, I am trying to prove historical events as to whether they happened or not, big difference.

amgid:

I don’t know what that means, and I don’t care to know. I don’t deal with philosophical terminologies.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, I hope you love wisdom. Philosophical terminologies help us to understand the world around us.

amgid:

Nobody can; neither Catholic, nor Mormon, nor any other believer in religion. I think that you are deceived. Prove to me that you are not.

amgid

I have all of history and Scripture to show I am not deceived. In the least I will not tell you to “just take my word for it” as you seem to be implying. Nor will I tell you to take the Catechism into the back room and pray over it to see if it is true. BTW did that with the BoM and nothing happened, quess I couldn’t wish it true hard enough.

Peace

 

[kamz]

catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp

catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp

catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp

catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The LDS position is that the truth of Mormonism can only be determined, ultimately, by the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

But so do the various Protestant sects, many of them think they have the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when they read and interpret the Bible. They think the Holy Spirit is guiding them to all truth and He is not saying that Joseph Smith found some gold plates. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit guides us into all Truth because of Christ’s promises to set up His Church that shall never be overcome, with Peter at the helm to bind and loose, and to feed the sheep. Since the Holy Spirit guides us into all Truth, and He’s not telling us about any Lamanites or Nephites I’m thinking someone has to be wrong here. God can be neither deceived nor can He deceive.

You seem to insist that that experience must necessarily be what you call “subjective”. That depends on your definition of “subjective”.If God has revealed to me that something is true, by a personal revelation to me, then that revelation remains a personal experience for me. I cannot convey or transmit that experience to another person. If that is what you mean by “subjective,” then you are right, it is subjective. If, however, by “subjective” you mean it is something that is inherently unreliable and untrustworthy (which is what you apparently do mean by it), then I disagree. I can have an encounter with God that can be as real to me as anything can be to you. Just because it is an experience that I cannot ready convey to you, it does not prove that it must be any less real or trustworthy (to me).

There are people who are convinced that God tells them to kill nonbelievers or to set up cults etc. etc. Your “personal revelation” is subjective-your beliefs don’t dictate Truth.

But here is the main thing I am waiting for, I want the LDS to bring out archaelogical evidence that their lost civilizations of ancient Jews that immigrated to the New World are real. If a civilization existed, SOMETHING would have survived for us to find especially in light of all the things the BofM claims existed in the New World. I have seen NOTHING to even begin to back up the claims of the BofM.

The Bible may have a few historical inaccuracies but nothing so glaringly false as the BofM.

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

The LDS position is that the truth of Mormonism can only be determined, ultimately, by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You seem to insist that that experience must necessarily be what you call “subjective”. That depends on your definition of “subjective”. If God has revealed to me that something is true, by a personal revelation to me, then that revelation remains a personal experience for me. I cannot convey or transmit that experience to another person. If that is what you mean by “subjective,” then you are right, it is subjective. If, however, by “subjective” you mean it is something that is inherently unreliable and untrustworthy (which is what you apparently do mean by it), then I disagree. I can have an encounter with God that can be as real to me as anything can be to you. Just because it is an experience that I cannot ready convey to you, it does not prove that it must be any less real or trustworthy (to me).

amgid

In the first post on this thread I said this:

dennisknapp:

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

First, presuppose the Mormon position to be true.

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

Finally, when doubt enters your mind, take out a copy of the BoM, pray for the burning in your bosom.

Once this is received, repeat first step.

Peace

So, I was correct in my assessment of Mormon apologetics.

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

This is the crux of the issue. It may be true to you, but I have no way of verifying it for me.

I am not asking you to “verify” it. Nobody is asking you to “verify” it.

How do I know the HS told you it is true?

You don’t, until you obtain that witness for yourself.

In all possibility it could be the HS, or it could not, I have no way of knowing.

That is right, you don’t.

That is why I need other sources to validate what you are saying.

There is only one “outside source” that can “validate” for you what I am saying, and that is the testimony of the Holy Ghost; the same thing that “validated” it for me. There is no other way.

I can’t just take your word for it, now can I?

No you can’t. When did I ask you to?

That would not be wise or prudent.

I am sure it wouldn’t be.

I need something other than what goes on inside your head.

I am sure you do!

Plus, your church makes some pretty huge claims regarding the Truth of its origin and purpose. I feel such a huge claim should come with some evidence to back it up.

Yes, it is called the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

I can also claim a lot, but I hope you would want some evidence before believing me.

That depends on what you are claiming.

This is all I am asking. I am not being argumentative, just trying to find my way through all the assertions to find the truth.

I still don’t know what you are asking. Is what I am saying really that difficult for you to understand?

I am not trying to prove a religion true or false, I am trying to prove historical events as to whether they happened or not, big difference.

What historical events are you looking for?

I have all of history and Scripture to show I am not deceived. In the least I will not tell you to “just take my word for it” as you seem to be implying.

I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. I hope you do.

Nor will I tell you to take the Catechism into the back room and pray over it to see if it is true.

Neither would I!

BTW did that with the BoM and nothing happened, quess I couldn’t wish it true hard enough.

The reason for that is obvious enough to me. I don’t need to Einstein to figure that out.

amgid

 

[majick275]

It is obvious to me aas well. That is NOT how the Lord works. WE have to follow the advice of Christ’s Apostles and compare the teachings to what they taught, what Jesus taught and within the context of what was already in scripture when they taught it. Then we have to use our God given abilities to search for the answers that are already there.Only then can we truly understand what the Holy Spirit is telling us. Obviously many people are mistaken about spiritual witness. Martin Harris gave testimony of the truth of Shaker “scriptures”. David Koresh was willing to die for what he believed and there are people throughout the world who die for their beliefs (and/or kill for them) because they think they received a spiritual witness.

I know my own experience has brought me to the Catholic church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It took more than just reading one book and praying once, even with all the faith and sincerity I am capable of. I had to blend faith and works to learn what the Lord was calling me to.

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

I am not asking you to “verify” it. Nobody is asking you to “verify” it.

Question: Is Mormonism true or not? If you think it is true you have just made a claim that makes my beliefs false. Before I accept Mormonism to be true and my beliefs false I need more than assertions and an appeal to an emotional religious experience. Why is this so hard to understand?

amgid:

You don’t, until you obtain that witness for yourself.

What good is a witness if I can deceive myself? Maybe you recieved a witness because you WANT Mormonism to be true.

amgid:

That is right, you don’t.

If I have no way of knowing what you say if true we are back to square one: Why believe you when the historical events says not to.

amgid:

There is only one “outside source” that can “validate” for you what I am saying, and that is the testimony of the Holy Ghost; the same thing that “validated” it for me. There is no other way.

This is no test for truth. Are you saying anyone can claim anything and then validate it by saying, “God revealed it to me by the testemony of the HS.” Again, we need something other than an experience that goes no further then you. Don’t you see, you are trying to validate an objective truth with subjective experience.

amgid:

No you can’t. When did I ask you to?

When you decided to defend Mormonism. You think it true (and what I mean by this that it is TRUE for everyone, not just you) therefore it should stand against those who say otherwise.

amgid:

I am sure you do!

Then give me something substantial. This esoteric validation gets us nowhere.

amgid:

Yes, it is called the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

So you assert. What if I say it is not? How can you counter that?

amgid:

That depends on what you are claiming.

What if I claim to be a Prophet with direct revelation from God, and as a Prophet I command you to leave your church and follow everything I say? If you want proof, just believe hard enough and the HS will give you testemony of what I say.

amgid:

I still don’t know what you are asking. Is what I am saying really that difficult for you to understand?

I am asking for something more than subjective experience.

amgid:

What historical events are you looking for?

The Great Apostasy, Israelites in the New World, Mormon theology in the early Church, you name it.

amgid:

I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. I hope you do.

What I am talking about if verifiable evidence, I have it, you don’t.

amgid:

Neither would I!

This is what every Mormon missionary has asked me to do. Do you deny this is what they do?

amgid:

The reason for that is obvious enough to me. I don’t need to Einstein to figure that out.

amgid

Are you saying I don’t have enough faith, therefore I did not recieve a testemony of the HS?

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

Question: Is Mormonism true or not? If you think it is true you have just made a claim that makes my beliefs false. Before I accept Mormonism to be true and my beliefs false I need more than assertions and an appeal to an emotional religious experience. Why is this so hard to understand?

What good is a witness if I can deceive myself? Maybe you recieved a witness because you WANT Mormonism to be true.

If I have no way of knowing what you say if true we are back to square one: Why believe you when the historical events says not to.

This is no test for truth. Are you saying anyone can claim anything and then validate it by saying, “God revealed it to me by the testemony of the HS.” Again, we need something other than an experience that goes no further then you. Don’t you see, you are trying to validate an objective truth with subjective experience.

When you decided to defend Mormonism. You think it true (and what I mean by this that it is TRUE for everyone, not just you) therefore it should stand against those who say otherwise.

Then give me something substantial. This esoteric validation gets us nowhere.

So you assert. What if I say it is not? How can you counter that?

What if I claim to be a Prophet with direct revelation from God, and as a Prophet I command you to leave your church and follow everything I say? If you want proof, just believe hard enough and the HS will give you testemony of what I say.

I am asking for something more than subjective experience.

The Great Apostasy, Israelites in the New World, Mormon theology in the early Church, you name it.

What I am talking about if verifiable evidence, I have it, you don’t.

This is what every Mormon missionary has asked me to do. Do you deny this is what they do?

Are you saying I don’t have enough faith, therefore I did not recieve a testemony of the HS?

Peace

I don’t think that it is a case that you can’t understand. I think it is a case that you don’t want to understand. That brings our conversation to an end. I think I have more profitable ways to spend my time than to engage in this kind of shallow debate.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

I don’t think that it is a case that you can’t understand. I think it is a case that you don’t want to understand. That brings our conversation to an end. I think I have more profitable ways to spend my time than to engage in this kind of shallow debate.

amgid

Shallow debate? If what way is it shallow? I have been trying to get some substance out of you since we started this dialog.

You are right though, I just don’t wish Mormonism to be TRUE like you do. I want it to able stand up to criticism, silly me. I feel I’'m listening to Jimmy the Cricket in Pinocchio telling me to just wish upon a star.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Speaking of discussions with substance. I’ve been hoping for some Mormons to contribute at this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=84302

I hope you can, amgid.

Peace