Mormon Claims

[LongJourney]

It is another example of Mormon logic. They have to believe in an apostasy in order to accept the BoM. So long as they believe that the BoM is what they believe it to be, they must believe in an apostasy.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It is another example of Mormon logic. They have to believe in an apostasy in order to accept the BoM. So long as they believe that the BoM is what they believe it to be, they must believe in an apostasy.

And since the Book of Mormon story has been proven to be demonstrably false… ???

 

[Mike2010]

Though there have always been small “apostasy” here and there, there has been, and never will be, a total Apostasy. Jesus made promises that preclude such an Apostasy. It would be an awfully weak God who could not keep His Church together.

You are correct here. I have a couple of additional points:

1. How can mormons believe the New Testament is true, and also deny the authority of Christ’s Church who canonized the Bible. Sounds a little ironic to me.
2. How about we talk about the only real apostacy in the Bible: In John 6 Jesus says to eat His body and drink His blood. Yet some of his disciples could not believe what Christ had told them, saying that teaching was too hard to believe. They left Jesus and stopped believing.

So I would like to ask mormons why they join in on this real apostacy and reject what Christ said?

The fact is that the Catholic Church as always had this doctrine correct since Christ founded His Church. Though others have decided to reject Christ’s word throughout the centuries, and even to His face when He said those words, this doctrine has never been corrupted.

 

[LongJourney]

And since the Book of Mormon story has been proven to be demonstrably false… ???

They are still arguing with Jockers & Criddle’s study, or refuse to take a look at it because it is a “threat to their faith”

Or, as Dale says, until “someone” writes a textual analysis using possible sources, his old study, and and Jockers & Criddle, etc.

Even then, the most powerful and hypocritical leaders of the church would read it, and lie to discount it and say that it is not worth reading. Protecting Mormonism is just a matter of picking and choosing what one wants to look at. Look at those Mormons who refuse to touch a computer, because the internet is a product of the devil.

I would be very unhappy in such a world. And believe me, I was in one very similar to that, when I believed that Mormons were a trifle odd, but OK people.

 

[MelanieAnne]

They are still arguing with Jockers & Criddle’s study, or refuse to take a look at it because it is a “threat to their faith”

Or, as Dale says, until “someone” writes a textual analysis using possible sources, his old study, and and Jockers & Criddle, etc.

Even then, the most powerful and hypocritical leaders of the church would read it, and lie to discount it and say that it is not worth reading. Protecting Mormonism is just a matter of picking and choosing what one wants to look at. Look at those Mormons who refuse to touch a computer, because the internet is a product of the devil.

I would be very unhappy in such a world. And believe me, I was in one very similar to that, when I believed that Mormons were a trifle odd, but OK people.

Here’s my take on the entire business of Mormonism. God has asked us to be faithful to Him, but He never asked us to “check our brains at the door”. Some of the most intellectually accomplished persons (our current Benedict XVI is an excellent example) are Christians, so it’s not like the Christian faith is something reserved for those who believe in fairy tales. God has never asked us to “check our brains at the door”. There are numerous examples of very intelligent, very intellectual Christians.

But God also does not expect us to believe things that are demonstrably false. The Book of Mormon story has been proven to be demonstrably false in a variety of ways even if Mormons refuse to look at the evidence. The fact that Mormons may be very nice people, at least most of them, doesn’t change the facts. We can admire Mormons for their goodness, but that doesn’t convert the Book of Mormon from the status of fiction into something more credible.

And that’s the bottomline. The underlying structure of Mormonism is false. That’s just a fact. It doesn’t matter how many nice Mormons there are, that doesn’t change the fact that the underpinnings of Mormonism are utterly false. Mormons would do better to get out of the Mormon faith and join a true Christian faith, whatever it might be (of course I would prefer it would be the Catholic faith!)

Mormonism is obviously evolving their theology (and I won’t listen to claims to the contrary, there have been WAY TOO MANY pieces of evidence that it has shown just that) and these days, as opposed to times past, Mormons seem to be interested in being part of “mainstream Christianity” and that’s fine, except for the fact that none of the other parts of “mainstream Christianity” accept Mormons as part of their group because of the Mormon view of Theology, particularly of their definition of God/the Godhead.

Since Mormons have a clearly obvious habit of evolving their doctrine to suit the times, it is just possible that they may evolve their doctrine, and discard along the way whatever doctrines that went before that do not fit, in order to match their theology to other Christians. We shall see.

 

[Jerusha]

But God also does not expect us to believe things that are demonstrably false. The Book of Mormon story has been proven to be demonstrably false in a variety of ways even if Mormons refuse to look at the evidence.

That is the reason why I got into cognitive psychology. If God gave us brains, he gave them to us to use them for His glory, not to stifle them for the sake of doctrinal orthodoxy. If doctrines stand up to intellectual inquiry, then they are doctrines of God. If I had been male, I woud have been a Jesuit. Early Mormon missionaries in France avoided the Jesuits like the plague.

With the S/R theory, one can even make a window in the back room, figuratively, and admit that there might have been something supernatural happening with what he wrote, a satire on religious fundamentalism. Too complicated to explain on one post, but MAYBE they can exit from the trap they have made for themselves with some sense of dignity.

 

[SirThomasMore]

excellent posts and points

 

[LongJourney]

Exactly. God gave us our brains for a reason. We are obligated to respect that gift by using our bra(name removed by moderator)ower for His glory.

Any faith that does not stand up to honest intellectual inquiry, and which does not encourage the psychological health of the individual and society is either not of God, or has strayed from its foundation.

The beauty of pursuing S/R to its logical conclusion is that one can put a window in the back room, admitting that there might have some supernatural influence in Spalding’s original text, which was a satire on religious fundamentalism. This might be a way for them to reform with some sense of dignity. But I won’t bet money on it.

 

[soren1]

I think you will find Mormons will never give ‘historical’ facts. What you will get are Mormon beliefs which contradict the Catholic Church. Because the beliefs are different, Mormons believe there was an apostasy. Now they cannot prove unique Mormon beliefs were held by the early Church, but they don’t let ‘historical’ facts get in the way of their beliefs. They believe what they believe even when it is contrary to science, history, or reason.

I wouldn’t say that LDS arguments for the Great Apostasy are unhistorical at every point, but I do agree that they are circular. They have no evidence for a lot of the claims they make, or rather, they interpret evidence always according to the presupposition that there was an apostasy. A really good example of this is a book by the LDS Apostle James Talmage called The Great Apostasy. I recommend it to historically knowlegable Catholics who want to get an insight into just what the LDS perspective on Christian history is: it is a widely read account of how the Apostasy happened, and Talmage’s works in general have classic status. One thing that really stands out, especially in the chapters dealing with beginnings of the Apostasy, is just how light on evidence Talmage’s speculations really are. For instance, he claims the Roman persecutions contributed to the destruction of the Church heirarchy, because the external pressure of persecution promoted instability from within. His evidence? Nothing more than the fact that persecutions happened. All else is based solely on the assumption that there was an Apostasy. He then interprets facts to fit. A lot of LDS literature follows the same path. Hugh Nibley’s The World and the Prophets is another major perpetrator with a wide Mormon readership.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I wouldn’t say that LDS arguments for the Great Apostasy are unhistorical at every point, but I do agree that they are circular. They have no evidence for a lot of the claims they make, or rather, they interpret evidence always according to the presupposition that there was an apostasy. A really good example of this is a book by the LDS Apostle James Talmage called The Great Apostasy. I recommend it to historically knowlegable Catholics who want to get an insight into just what the LDS perspective on Christian history is: it is a widely read account of how the Apostasy happened, and Talmage’s works in general have classic status. One thing that really stands out, especially in the chapters dealing with beginnings of the Apostasy, is just how light on evidence Talmage’s speculations really are. For instance, he claims the Roman persecutions contributed to the destruction of the Church heirarchy, because the external pressure of persecution promoted instability from within. His evidence? Nothing more than the fact that persecutions happened. All else is based solely on the assumption that there was an Apostasy. He then interprets facts to fit. A lot of LDS literature follows the same path. Hugh Nibley’s The World and the Prophets is another major perpetrator with a wide Mormon readership.

So you’re saying that they are basing their belief on a derivative of a speculation? And that’s supposed to be credible? How?

 

[SirThomasMore]

I wouldn’t say that LDS arguments for the Great Apostasy are unhistorical at every point, but I do agree that they are circular. They have no evidence for a lot of the claims they make, or rather, they interpret evidence always according to the presupposition that there was an apostasy. A really good example of this is a book by the LDS Apostle James Talmage called The Great Apostasy. I recommend it to historically knowlegable Catholics who want to get an insight into just what the LDS perspective on Christian history is: it is a widely read account of how the Apostasy happened, and Talmage’s works in general have classic status. One thing that really stands out, especially in the chapters dealing with beginnings of the Apostasy, is just how light on evidence Talmage’s speculations really are. For instance, he claims the Roman persecutions contributed to the destruction of the Church heirarchy, because the external pressure of persecution promoted instability from within. His evidence? Nothing more than the fact that persecutions happened. All else is based solely on the assumption that there was an Apostasy. He then interprets facts to fit. A lot of LDS literature follows the same path. Hugh Nibley’s The World and the Prophets is another major perpetrator with a wide Mormon readership.

I read the book. The book suffers from the fact that Talmage did not reasearch whether was an apoastasy and come to a conclusion after research that there was such an Apostasy. He starts with the premise that there was an Apostasy and then, through his research, found things that supported his premise. When one does that, they quickly learn how to fit whatever they find into the hole they created.

 

[why_me]

As an active LDS I heard many, many anti-Catholic diatribes from the pulpit and in classes at BYU. They would say that Catholics worship statues and pay to have their sins forgiven. They loved to tell the story of “Pope Joan” (a fiction, BTW). The faithful would snicker and laugh; it was all great fun.

It was hearing “priesthood leaders” tell anti-Catholic lies over and over, which I knew were untrue, that started me investigating the claims of Mormonism from an objective POV. Once you start doing that, it all falls apart very quickly.

I am sure that it was all great fun but can you please provide proof for your statements? I can also say many things that happened but never did if I did not need to show proof.

 

[why_me]

Here’s my take on the entire business of Mormonism. God has asked us to be faithful to Him, but He never asked us to “check our brains at the door”. Some of the most intellectually accomplished persons (our current Benedict XVI is an excellent example) are Christians, so it’s not like the Christian faith is something reserved for those who believe in fairy tales. God has never asked us to “check our brains at the door”. There are numerous examples of very intelligent, very intellectual Christians.

But God also does not expect us to believe things that are demonstrably false. The Book of Mormon story has been proven to be demonstrably false in a variety of ways even if Mormons refuse to look at the evidence. The fact that Mormons may be very nice people, at least most of them, doesn’t change the facts. We can admire Mormons for their goodness, but that doesn’t convert the Book of Mormon from the status of fiction into something more credible.

And that’s the bottomline. The underlying structure of Mormonism is false. That’s just a fact. It doesn’t matter how many nice Mormons there are, that doesn’t change the fact that the underpinnings of Mormonism are utterly false. Mormons would do better to get out of the Mormon faith and join a true Christian faith, whatever it might be (of course I would prefer it would be the Catholic faith!)

Mormonism is obviously evolving their theology (and I won’t listen to claims to the contrary, there have been WAY TOO MANY pieces of evidence that it has shown just that) and these days, as opposed to times past, Mormons seem to be interested in being part of “mainstream Christianity” and that’s fine, except for the fact that none of the other parts of “mainstream Christianity” accept Mormons as part of their group because of the Mormon view of Theology, particularly of their definition of God/the Godhead.

Since Mormons have a clearly obvious habit of evolving their doctrine to suit the times, it is just possible that they may evolve their doctrine, and discard along the way whatever doctrines that went before that do not fit, in order to match their theology to other Christians. We shall see.

Well, you do realize that a protestant can paste and post this post with replacing the word mormon or mormonism with catholicism. And change a little here and there to make the protestant case for the reformation?

 

[Stephen168]

I wouldn’t say that LDS arguments for the Great Apostasy are unhistorical at every point, but I do agree that they are circular. They have no evidence for a lot of the claims they make, or rather, they interpret evidence always according to the presupposition that there was an apostasy. A really good example of this is a book by the LDS Apostle James Talmage called The Great Apostasy. I recommend it to historically knowlegable Catholics who want to get an insight into just what the LDS perspective on Christian history is: it is a widely read account of how the Apostasy happened, and Talmage’s works in general have classic status. One thing that really stands out, especially in the chapters dealing with beginnings of the Apostasy, is just how light on evidence Talmage’s speculations really are. For instance, he claims the Roman persecutions contributed to the destruction of the Church heirarchy, because the external pressure of persecution promoted instability from within. His evidence? Nothing more than the fact that persecutions happened. All else is based solely on the assumption that there was an Apostasy. He then interprets facts to fit. A lot of LDS literature follows the same path. Hugh Nibley’s The World and the Prophets is another major perpetrator with a wide Mormon readership.

Yes, read it and agree that is a litany of facts which mean nothing. I remember thinking while reading it,’ “So when did it happen?” It did inspire me to read ‘Ecclesiastical History’ by Eusebius of Caesarea.

 

[why_me]

Mike, that feature is almost used when a Mormon cannot handle the Catholic Poster. They cannot fool them, or distract them, or they get tired of hearing the truth they try to ignore. Usually, LDS posters use this feature against former Mormons. Former Mormons know too much

And what about the mormons who have been put on the ignore feature? Does you thesis still apply? I have been put on ignore by twopekinguys, rebecca, pauldupre etc. I suppose that I can also use your thesis to apply to myself.

Thank you for the compliment.

 

[SirThomasMore]

And what about the mormons who have been put on the ignore feature? Does you thesis still apply? I have been put on ignore by twopekinguys, rebecca, pauldupre etc. I suppose that I can also use your thesis to apply to myself.

Thank you for the compliment.

Dunno…I guess it depends what side of the fence you are riding on in any given day.

 

[Returning_Home]

I wouldn’t say that LDS arguments for the Great Apostasy are unhistorical at every point, but I do agree that they are circular. They have no evidence for a lot of the claims they make, or rather, they interpret evidence always according to the presupposition that there was an apostasy. A really good example of this is a book by the LDS Apostle James Talmage called The Great Apostasy. I recommend it to historically knowlegable Catholics who want to get an insight into just what the LDS perspective on Christian history is: it is a widely read account of how the Apostasy happened, and Talmage’s works in general have classic status. One thing that really stands out, especially in the chapters dealing with beginnings of the Apostasy, is just how light on evidence Talmage’s speculations really are. For instance, he claims the Roman persecutions contributed to the destruction of the Church heirarchy, because the external pressure of persecution promoted instability from within. His evidence? Nothing more than the fact that persecutions happened. All else is based solely on the assumption that there was an Apostasy. He then interprets facts to fit. A lot of LDS literature follows the same path. Hugh Nibley’s The World and the Prophets is another major perpetrator with a wide Mormon readership.

I agree 100% but you have to boil it down to its simplest terms: the Mormon apostacy occurred immediately after the last of the Apostles died and the true gospel was absent from the face of the Earth, restored only by Joseph Smith. That’s what texts teach, period.

The current church is friendly and fuzzy and not what Joseph Smith created, so modern Mormon apologists will tell you this or that, using an endless stream of amendments, loopholes, and conditions under which their own works and scriptures can be used. That’s what trips most people up when debating Mormons. There’s a language barrier between us and them; they use the same terms we do, but affix very different meanings to them, perhaps even using them to intentionally make us think that they believe the same way we do.

The only way to know what the church teaches and believes is to read their teaching manuals and guides. They are official publications of the church and therefore tell us what the church really wants its congregants to believe.

 

[Returning_Home]

Well, you do realize that a protestant can paste and post this post with replacing the word mormon or mormonism with catholicism. And change a little here and there to make the protestant case for the reformation?

A classic dodge: redirect the conversation away from yourself so as not to answer the charges levelled against he false teaching of Mormonism.

We’re not talking about Catholicism versus Protestantism here; I’m sure there are dozen of other threads about that on the site so please stay on topic.

 

[Returning_Home]

Mike2010,

I think you did fine using the quote function.

The words “total apostasy” would mean “loss of pure doctrine and loss of divinely sanctioned authority.”

Two historical examples are (1) when some members asserted that someone besides the Apostle John held keys or authority that were more important in directing the church than the authority John held, from about 60 or 70 AD through about 100 AD; and (2) when some leaders asserted that the key of David was held by Peter and could thus be passed on to bishops, when this was entirely untrue and non-Biblical. The key of David was held by Christ, or in other words placed on His shoulder only, always.

Any doctrinal impurity would mean that the doctrine was no longer pure, so even though “apostasy” is a strong word for that condition (and there are even stronger words used in the Bible), that is what is being described.

There have been many threads talking about these kinds of issues. If you would like to know of one or more, you could let one of us know. No need to rehash the same subjects and conversations over and over.

Peace and good will to you.

You provided two individual examples of apostacy, neither of which amounts to the global apostacy that was supposed to be cured by Joseph Smith and then you try to escape by not wanted to cover the same ground. The problem is that those other who have covered the topic before us haven’t been able to show that the alleged apostacy occurred either.

 

[MelanieAnne]

There’s a language barrier between us and them; they use the same terms we do, but affix very different meanings to them, perhaps even using them to intentionally make us think that they believe the same way we do.

This touches on something I have thought about a lot. While I can believe that those who are brought up in the Mormon faith do not know about the different “language” that is out there beyond the Mormon world, I cannot believe that the Mormon hierarchy does not know about it, and I fault them for their obvious deceit in failing to correct the distinctions.

This same Mormon hierarchy is content to let people believe, and this extends to both their naive missionaries as well as potential converts, that the words and terms they use in Mormonism mean the same thing as the same words and terms in Christianity when they clearly DO NOT. The obvious deceit is reprehensible if not intrinsically evil.

The bottomline is this ~ when discussing Mormonism, you cannot rely on your own understanding of the words and terms used. Each word and term needs to be clearly defined. It’s almost as if they are speaking a different language. Mormons pretend to be just another sect of Christianity, but they are clearly not. Indeed, many (if not all) Christian faiths do not consider the Mormon faith Christian, Mormon baptisms are not accepted as valid. I don’t say this to insult Mormons, it’s just a fact.

Mormonism has a disordered view of Christianity from the point of view of most Christian faiths. As such any discussion with a Mormon needs to be preceded by an in depth discussion of the terminology to be used so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

Just as an example ~ The Mormon God is not even the same as our God. Mormons believe that God was once a man who, because he proved himself to be worthy, progressed to becoming a God, and that we humans can make a similar progression if we are worthy. Mormons believe that God has a body of “flesh and bone” and that Joseph Smith saw Him (at least in one of the many versions of this story!) Mormons believe that God (who they call “Heavenly Father”) has a wife (who they call “Heavenly Mother”) and together they have populated the earth with their spirit children, just as worthy Mormons will go on to do when they are Gods and Goddesses of their own worlds.

Clearly this sort of belief is at odds with what most Christians understand as God, but Mormons won’t tell you all of this in the process of conversion. My opinion is that this is a form of deceit, at least on the part of the hierarchy who clearly should know better. In any event, every single word from a Mormon needs to be clearly and precisely defined. Otherwise, you might as well be speaking English while they are speaking Chinese.