Mormon Church Trying to Keep the Wheels On

[Horton]

Well Tom, I believe I will continue to believe what I know to be true rather than what I know to be false i.e. the LDS interpretation of what Jesus said.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

On a purely intellectual level, nothing you mentioned changes the fact that the Book of Mormon cannot be explained from a secular perspective and therefore must be supernatural (and a handful of other objective facts weighed).

Tom, you keep saying this and backing it up with a quote by your ex-Mo LGBQT supporter, as if presenting a BoM-believing ex-Mo somehow adds credence to your argument. It doesn’t. The only thing that quote shows is that there are some believing ex-Mo’s out there who left the church for other reasons besides a lack of belief in the BoM. Completely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make about divine origins.

I totally reject your claim that the BoM could not have been produced by secular means. You keep erroneously saying this over and over again as if it’s indisputable fact. That is the basis of your argument. The problem is that the basis of your argument is false. The BoM certainly could have been produced by secular means, as other more qualified historians than you have already demonstrated multiple times over the years. Your refusal to accept their conclusions is your choice, but stop presenting your claim as if it’s indisputedly true. There is too much good research out there showing that Joseph Smith produced the BoM himself from the materials and events of his own time and environment. And he didn’t have to be a genius to do it, contrary to what your ex-Mo said.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormonsim is a religion based on emotion, not facts

I believe when you take the sum total of all the Mormon posters that appeared on CAF, it is clear that belief by faith only is the basis of Mormon belief. Faith in the Mormon President, faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and faith that the Book of Mormon is ‘true;’ whatever true means. If they mean 19th century American fiction, then it is true.

Moroni’s challenge is a good example.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

I’m really tired of Mormons making the argument that the BoM has to be true or else Joseph Smith had to be a total genius to write it (but Joseph was a simple man with a poor education, hint, hint.). This argument uses the false premise that those are the only two options. The third option is I believe the correct one–that Joseph Smith was a proven con man who had a good knowledge of the bible, local religious practice and Native American lore and combined them all into a narrative he made up. He “borrowed” heavily from the KJV of the bible, changed/borrowed names, events, etc. from the bible and other sources and fron his own life experiences on the frontier with religious revivals and doctrine. The stories in the BoM scream 19th century Protestantism of the American frontier. The anachronisms scream fraud. Parts of the BoM are directly plagerized from other texts. The list goes on and on. And don’t get me started on the Book of Abraham, which is a total fraud so easily exposed.

 

[RuthAnne]

but Joseph was a simple man with a poor education, hint, hint

I beg your pardon, sir, but I homeschool my children. To say that homeschooled kids have a poor education is just wrong. Little Joe was homeschooled by his parents. He probably had a superior education.

 

[lilypadrees]

Did the Bride of Christ apostatize (die)? Yes this happened.

When did this happen, TOm? Please show us something from the Catholic Church proving your claim.

Did death prevail over Christ’s Church? No, it was restored through Joseph Smith.

Since you have claimed that certain Catholic clergy support your Mormon beliefs, kindly prove, using Catholic sources that Joseph Smith restored Christ’s Church.

Also, please state the reason, that if Joseph Smith had truly restored Christ’s Church, he plagiarized parts of the Bible (and commentaries) and the writings of others to come up with various things in the Book Of Mormon.

One truly called by and led by God to restore His Church wouldn’t have felt the need to resort to such measures.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Is this a joke? Either you are being coy or you completely misinterpreted my post. There is nothing about homeschooling in the post. Nothing.

 

[RuthAnne]

Is this a joke? Either you are being coy or you completely misinterpreted my post. There is nothing about homeschooling in the post. Nothing.

I was being silly. Really, I know almost nothing about Mormonism, but I know that Joe was accused of having a poor education when, indeed, he was home schooled. In fact, I think his father was a school teacher. When people say that he was poorly schooled, it seems an affront to home schooled kids (and us mommies who do the home schooling)! We think that home schooling is anything but poor education.

Did not mean to offend!

 

[robertmidwest]

The third option is I believe the correct one–that Joseph Smith was a proven con man who had a good knowledge of the bible, local religious practice and Native American lore and combined them all into a narrative he made up

Didn’t he borrow heavily from Masonic writing too?

 

[TOmNossor]

Well Tom, I believe I will continue to believe what I know to be true rather than what I know to be false i.e. the LDS interpretation of what Jesus said.

Horton,
You are welcome to your beliefs. But, you are demonstrating that they are not intellectual beliefs.
The post to which you responded references CATHOLIC (not LDS) interpretation of what Jesus said.
The post to which you responded also explains that when you were first confronted with these Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 you claimed it was “taken out of context” but when that was addressed by quoting an entire section of text (about 2 pages) you fell silent.
This is fine for someone who does not want to be bothered by intellectual arguments.
This is fine for someone who knows what they believe and doesn’t want to be bothered by contrary ideas.
But, this is not an intellectually informed position. It is not whatyou claimed to hold earlier in this thread.
I asked you if your intellect was so perfect that through it ALONE you know you are right and I am wrong. You responded in the affirmative. It is my position that this and other things demonstrate that it is not your informed intellectual assessment of these issues that results in your position, but a blind faith that doggedly refuses to look at evidence that might upset the apple cart.
Again, this is fine, but it is not debate and it is not the way true intellectual certainty is produced. Your position should IMO be viewed as a faithful position, not an intellectual position.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

Did the Bride of Christ apostatize (die)? Yes this happened. Did death prevail over Christ’s Church? No, it was restored through Joseph Smith.

Please provide believable (non LDS) sources for this claim.

That being said, I don’t think there is a different way to view what God said to Joseph Smith other than that there was something amiss in the churches of his day that needed to be restored

That is if one believes God ever said anything to Joseph Smith, which all of Christianity reject.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Did the Bride of Christ apostatize (die)? Yes this happened.

When did this happen, TOm? Please show us something from the Catholic Church proving your claim.

Did death prevail over Christ’s Church? No, it was restored through Joseph Smith.

Since you have claimed that certain Catholic clergy support your Mormon beliefs, kindly prove, using Catholic sources that Joseph Smith restored Christ’s Church.

Also, please state the reason, that if Joseph Smith had truly restored Christ’s Church, he plagiarized parts of the Bible (and commentaries) and the writings of others to come up with various things in the Book Of Mormon.

One truly called by and led by God to restore His Church wouldn’t have felt the need to resort to such measures.

Lily,
I have never claimed that Catholic clergy or scholars support the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration by God of Christianity. It is true that Jordan Vajda was a Catholic priest when he claimed there was a great deal of truth to the LDS concept of deification, but Jordan Vajda is now a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
My claim was that Catholic scholars do not ALL see Matthew 16:18 as proving that the Catholic Church is God’s church. I have demonstrated this (here continued here) and show an extensive quote from a Catholic scholar who referenced 2 other Catholic scholars who agreed with him.

Anyway sorry if I caused you to misunderstand what I was claiming.

BTW, scripture such as the Book of Mormon typically references other scripture. The Book of Mormon does not and did not hide these references. Just as Old Testament references in the New Testament were not hidden.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Yes Joseph was a Mason, and he borrowed heavily from Masonic thought and especially from Masonic rituals. Not so much for the BoM but for later doctrinal developments such as the temple ceremonies. Mormon temple ceremonies we’re basically copied and tweaked from Masonic rituals. Just another of the many problems with Mormonism.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Did the Bride of Christ apostatize (die)? Yes this happened. Did death prevail over Christ’s Church? No, it was restored through Joseph Smith.

Please provide believable (non LDS) sources for this claim.

The idea that the Catholic Church was/is in apostasy is not uncommon. I could provide links, but I think it might be against the rules and it seems unlikely to me that you would read them anyway. If you would like some to read, send me a PM.
The idea that someone would believe Joseph Smith restored Christianity and yet they are non-LDS is a pretty tall order. In fact, I suggest you contemplate this question. I can help by suggesting that I want you to show me a non-Catholic scholar who believes the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

That being said, the Book of Mormon has so impacted many non-LDS that it is taken seriously by numerous non-LDS some of whom even say Joseph Smith restored ancient Christian beliefs. Margaret Barker, Lynn Ridenhour, and even Paul Owen. Oh and I might mention the entire Bahai faith many of whom see Joseph Smith as a “Seer” and the Book of Mormon as scripture.

So, do you really think it is a strong intellectual point if I cannot find non-LDS who believe Joseph Smith restored Christianity?
Is it a point in my favor that you can find scarcely any non Catholic who considers the Pope the Vicar of Christ?
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

by quoting an entire section of text (about 2 pages) you fell silent.

There was no point in responding to such drivel. You want to think you “won” that argument, but really it just wasn’t significant enough for me to continue to respond to your nonsense arguments. You believe only your interpretations of scripture and quotes of writings are correct, you also very often take those quotes out of context. I went to search for information on this author Michael Winter. The only place he shows up is on Mormon sites. Red flag 1. Next his books show up on sales sites. Red flag #2. Then on another site were some reviews that were not kind. My guess you LDS choose him for what you think he said rather than his standing as a scholar.

I asked you if your intellect was so perfect that through it ALONE you know you are right and I am wrong. You responded in the affirmative. It is my position that this and other things demonstrate that it is not your informed intellectual assessment of these issues that results in your position, but a blind faith that doggedly refuses to look at evidence that might upset the apple cart.
Again, this is fine, but it is not debate and it is not the way true intellectual certainty is produced. Your position should IMO be viewed as a faithful position, not an intellectual position.

Debating my position with you, a folly for sure, does not make my claim less intelligent. In fact, not debating you seems to make me more intelligent. I am a faithful, emotional, deep feeling Catholic who choose to accept Catholicism based on intellect, knowing with all certainty it is the one true Church founded by Christ in 33AD.

 

[Stephen168]

There was no point in responding to such drivel. You want to think you “won” that argument, but really it just wasn’t significant enough for me to continue to respond to your nonsense arguments.

I didn’t see Winter contradicting Catholic teaching, contrary to what the Mormon websites were claiming. I know that is why I didn’t say anything.

 

[Stephen168]

A belief in the the Great Apostasy is not biblical.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

by quoting an entire section of text (about 2 pages) you fell silent.

There was no point in responding to such drivel. You want to think you “won” that argument, but really it just wasn’t significant enough for me to continue to respond to your nonsense arguments. You believe only your interpretations of scripture and quotes of writings are correct, you also very often take those quotes out of context. I went to search for information on this author Michael Winter. The only place he shows up is on Mormon sites. Red flag 1. Next his books show up on sales sites. Red flag #2. Then on another site were some reviews that were not kind. My guess you LDS choose him for what you think he said rather than his standing as a scholar.

Horton,

You began by claiming I took him out of context. I demonstrated that I did not. Now you claim "I went to search for information on this author Michael Winter. The only place he shows up is on Mormon sites." This and your other argument about "red flags" has nothing to do with his argument, but it is absolutely false in any case.

Stephen K. Ray references Winter 3 times in his apologetic work, Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early

But, that is not near so ringing of an endorsement as the following:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=1,21&q="michael+m.+winter"&hl=en

Winter is cited by well over 100 times and I don’t think there is a “Mormon” or “LDS” citation in the list.

Again your dismissive attitude towards things that call into question your deep-seated beliefs suggests that you do not hold your beliefs for intellectual reasons. This is still fine, but I am attempting to demonstrate to you and others that your claim to intellectual certainty is not a product of thorough intellectual investigation of these issues.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Horton:

There was no point in responding to such drivel. You want to think you “won” that argument, but really it just wasn’t significant enough for me to continue to respond to your nonsense arguments.

I didn’t see Winter contradicting Catholic teaching, contrary to what the Mormon websites were claiming. I know that is why I didn’t say anything.

I claimed that Winter, two other Catholic authors, and virtually ALL non-Catholic authors do not believe Matthew 16:18 demonstrates what Horton claims it does.
Winter is today largely and was previously thoroughly orthodox in his Catholic faith. His book Saint Peter and the Popes was originally published in 1960 and has been celebrated and re-published a handful of times. It is as you say thoroughly Catholic. I have read about a quarter of it and it is IMO better than Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess (which is a more modern book and ALSO CITES Winter a number of times).
All I claimed before and all I claim now is that Winter believes and demonstrates that Matthew 16:18 is being misused by Horton and many modern Catholic apologists.

Instead of addressing what he said, Horton claimed it was taken out of context. So I reproduced the entire section and demonstrated it was not taken out of context. Then Horton claimed that Winter is somehow a second rate, only sited by Mormons author. I have now demonstrated this is not true.

These claims are not intellectual claims to be taken as evidence of an intellectual position. Instead, they are ad hominem claims that are not even accurate.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I claimed that Winter, two other Catholic authors, and virtually ALL non-Catholic authors do not believe Matthew 16:18 demonstrates what Horton claims it does.

You are wrong