Mormonism; there are many ways of proving it wrong.

[ricko]

Rick,
Mormons believe that God actually had a plan when He organized this earth, including a plan about how He would send humankind to earth from their pre-mortal life and allow them to grow by making their own choices in all kinds of areas in life, including religious choices. Why would God defeat His purpose by “proving” using tangible mortal proofs, what choice people should make? How limited do you think God is? The Bible’s existence has not resulted in only one church. People have a vast number of choices they can make about religion. They can have all of their own reasons. They can listen to all sorts of opinions and “experts”.

But when it comes to real spiritual knowledge, the kind that is irrefutable by mortal means because it did not come from a mortal source, then God has promised to be involved and is willing to be involved, ready to be involved, and will not be defeating His purpose to be involved. He is anxious to be involved, but as noted by Isaiah in the verse you quoted from Isaiah 2:9, He will only be involved if those doing the searching and the asking are humble, and do not follow the beliefs and practices of the world at large around them.

There is nothing wrong with God allowing human reasoning (a gift of the Holy Spirit) to abound and be guided by evidence in at least some things. God does not ask us to be unreasonable in believing anything or everything without evidence. In that school of thought we would then (as we actually do) have people making all kinds of religious claims which rely on faith alone and leading many people astray.

The Shroud of Turin is a fine example of a religious miracle being held up to the light of day. Over 10 scientists of different faiths studied the Shroud with the evidence provided to the world. However, with the LDS, we have a different story as evidence of something is viewed as “disgusting” and faith only should be used. To say that we should shun evidence because it would “taint” the believing process somehow is denying the use of the very gifts that God has gave us to determine truth from lies.

 

[PaulDupre]

The Bible’s existence has not resulted in only one church.

The Book of Mormon’s existence has not resulted in only one Mormon church, either. There are dozens of Mormon sects, each with its own “true prophet”. The LDS church in its very brief history (less than 180 years) has fragmented more quickly and in more bizzarre fashion than the early Christian church ever did.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

There is nothing wrong with God allowing human reasoning (a gift of the Holy Spirit) to abound and be guided by evidence in at least some things. God does not ask us to be unreasonable in believing anything or everything without evidence. In that school of thought we would then (as we actually do) have people making all kinds of religious claims which rely on faith alone and leading many people astray.

The Shroud of Turin is a fine example of a religious miracle being held up to the light of day. Over 10 scientists of different faiths studied the Shroud with the evidence provided to the world. However, with the LDS, we have a different story as evidence of something is viewed as “disgusting” and faith only should be used. To say that we should shun evidence because it would “taint” the believing process somehow is denying the use of the very gifts that God has gave us to determine truth from lies.

You took the words out of my mouth. Setting aside reason for the sake of “faith” is not part of God’s plan, unless you want to believe that God gave us the power of reason but did not intend for us to use it. I think faith and reason go hand in hand, and one need not be sacrificed for the other.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Book of Mormon’s existence has not resulted in only one Mormon church, either. There are dozens of Mormon sects, each with its own “true prophet”. The LDS church in its very brief history (less than 180 years) has fragmented more quickly and in more bizzarre fashion than the early Christian church ever did.

That’s a bold claim. The Church has fought heresy from the very beginning.

Peace,
Robert

 

[why_me]

You should not presume to judge what is in people’s hearts and worry about what is in your own.

And I would assume that you would respond the same way to a mormon who would start an attack on the catholic church in an opening thread? Something tells me you would not be so kind toward him or her by telling your fellow catholics not to judge the mormon’s heart. Right?

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s a bold claim. The Church has fought heresy from the very beginning.

Peace,
Robert

True, Robert. We are fighting heresy even on these fora. And the early church defeated many heresies. Those heresies and the successful arguments against them are well documented in the writings of the early Church fathers. But the LDS here love to cite factions and heresies in the first few centuries of Christianity as proof that Christianity is “apostate” while ignoring even greater factions and heresies in their own religion, which occur with greater frequency than in the first 180 years of Christianity.

They also love to imagine that Christian doctrine has changed over the centuries, when in fact LDS doctrine has shifted many times in 180 degree increments, and LDS ordinances, supposedly revealed in their pure form by living prophets, have radically changed in a very short time.

Mormonism is like the old Soviet Union, where they said “The future is known; it is the past that is always changing.” What was revealed doctrine and ordinances from the mouth of God’s holy prophets in past generations is now only “opinion”. Mormons these days say of the doctrines taught universally in the LDS church only 20 years ago, “I never heard that”.

It is a wonder to behold.

 

[why_me]

A methodist started this thread

Ahhhh, yes, but her soul is catholic… If a baptist would be posting OP’s like this about the catholic church claiming that they had a mormon soul I would have to disagree that they had a mormon soul.

 

[why_me]

Actually, a Methodist who is studying to become a Catholic started this thread. If we are going to be factual, let us, by all means, be factual.

Actually she already has a catholic soul…which makes her more catholic than methodist. Also, if you notice the catholic posters have no problem with that at all: to be methodist and catholic at the same time as long as she attacks the lds church.

 

[ParkerD]

There is nothing wrong with God allowing human reasoning (a gift of the Holy Spirit) to abound and be guided by evidence in at least some things. God does not ask us to be unreasonable in believing anything or everything without evidence. In that school of thought we would then (as we actually do) have people making all kinds of religious claims which rely on faith alone and leading many people astray.

The Shroud of Turin is a fine example of a religious miracle being held up to the light of day. Over 10 scientists of different faiths studied the Shroud with the evidence provided to the world. However, with the LDS, we have a different story as evidence of something is viewed as “disgusting” and faith only should be used. To say that we should shun evidence because it would “taint” the believing process somehow is denying the use of the very gifts that God has gave us to determine truth from lies.

Rick and Robert,
I hope you haven’t thought I have ever believed that human reasoning should not be involved in deciding religious questions. I agree that it should. The Holy Spirit is a ratifier in that kind of a case, not a “decision maker” or the source for the decision itself. Reasoning plays an important part.

One would need to be grounded in Biblical comprehension through study and through living the principles taught in the Bible (including the commandments), absolutely. A charismatic speaker could not lead someone off on some tangent if they are grounded in the Bible and in living the gospel as taught plainly in the Bible.

One would also need to be gounded in having studied Biblical prophecies, and having thought about their fulfillment. The Old Testament prophecies, many of them, clearly look toward the end times of the earth’s history before the Second Coming of Christ.

So one does not engage in prayer about this kind of subject starting from a “blank page”. One has to have put forth a great deal of individual effort, study, thinking, cross-referencing, letting go of any pre-conceived ideas outside of the Bible itself. Then I think faith can play a valid part if someone asks God for answers to sincere questions, honestly.

 

[why_me]

True, Robert. We are fighting heresy even on these fora. And the early church defeated many heresies. Those heresies and the successful arguments against them are well documented in the writings of the early Church fathers. But the LDS here love to cite factions and heresies in the first few centuries of Christianity as proof that Christianity is “apostate” while ignoring even greater factions and heresies in their own religion, which occur with greater frequency than in the first 180 years of Christianity.

It is a wonder to behold.

Of course we do not want to inform how the catholic church defeated heresies in the past. It was not a pretty picture at all. I have said it often, all faiths have areas where people can attack them. In the end, it does not serve any purpose. An atheist would have a wonderful time documenting how the catholic church dealt with heresy. And a catholic would be hard pressed to defend the church against those attacks. There is no question that if JS existed during the middle ages, he would have been put to death by church leaders or tortured into confession.

Intolerance is a terrible human characteristic.

 

[dianaiad]

The Book of Mormon’s existence has not resulted in only one Mormon church, either. There are dozens of Mormon sects, each with its own “true prophet”. The LDS church in its very brief history (less than 180 years) has fragmented more quickly and in more bizzarre fashion than the early Christian church ever did.

Well…that’s not quite true. The biggest difference seems to be that back then, the winners got to do nasty things to the losers…and they got to write the history.

We can’t do that nowadays, y’know.

 

[Ghoti]

It still does not change the fact that a catholic started this thread and mormons are naturally responding. It is not Parker’s fault that he is responding to this thread by defending his religion. Now if the so called catholic did not start this thread, Parker would not be here.

Now I can say that no true catholic with mercy and charity in their heart would start such a thread. And no catholic with mercy and charity in their heart would support such a thread.

And there no ways to prove it wrong. And that is why it is still around.

I assume you are talking about Mormonism.

Thing is, you can say the same thing about Catholicism. Or Orthodoxy. Or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I have never liked the arguments along the lines of “We’re still here…” since that applies to ALL existent religions. I lump that in with the arguments along with “the sign of contradiction” — i.e. “We’re persecuted and hated, therefore we’re true!” If that were the case, I’d have a brisket and convert to Judaism.

I do agree that some of the posts here are truly lacking in Christian charity. One should be able to argue the facets of religion without resorting to contempt. Granted, as a Catholic Christian, I believe that the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church – therefore, other religious groups are in error – the variable being the amount. However, even if a particular religion’s faith system were a theological house of cards that would be easily demolished by a simplistic “Dick and Jane”-level argument, it doesn’t work well in the sphere of conversions to insult. Generally people don’t respond well to mockery – even if the mocker is “right” – and the target is rarely (if ever) “moved” to the truth. I find that mockery, insults, etc is used usually for the benefit of those already “on board” – preaching to the choir – or to move those unsure observers. Mockery and insults are like persecution – they tend to push their targets into a more entrenched position – and in the battle to save souls, that’s totally counter-productive. I think it better to emulate St Francis of Assisi than Anne Coulter.

 

[Stephen168]

I love bald statements. I mean, they are so…clear headed. Or something.

I noticed you made no attempt to refute it. The Mormon understanding of baptism is irrational.
Mormonism wants baptism to forgive sin, but not believe in the sin it is removing. Taking one from column A and one from column B gets an irrational mess, which is Mormon theology.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Eh…not a bit. It’s something common to many different faiths and groups, especially forty to fifty years ago.

Things have changed a bit. Oh, not that getting married isn’t important any more; it most certainly is!

But the emphasis is on the 'get the degree and get married," not “get married and then put him through school.”

For both the guys and the girls. At least that’s what my daughters tell me. All three of them.

Good for you. Obviously you raised them right. Congrats!

 

[cthulhubryan]

I thought they all attended the Starfleet Academy.

Starfleet has some strict entrance standards!

 

[Stephen168]

PS: Please show the mormon church in the Early Church. Baker’s hat and white trousers with green aprons…please. How about, secret handshakes of Freemasons? Secret oathes to slit one’s own throat. Show me where polygamy was practiced by the Apostles. How about, the Eucharist being changed to a form of nothing…Wonderbread and tap water? Every 12 year old boy ordained as a deacon? A CEO-like president with two counselors?

This is the other half of the equation; the defense half of the equation. I know of one ex-Mormon Catholic who became Catholic after trying to find Mormonism in the early Church.

 

[ParkerD]

So you know the Mormon understanding is irrational, too. God is rational. The Mormon understanding of baptism is wrong and not ‘completely’ in accordance with the New Testament.

Stephen,
What I had said was that I could see why one such as yourself would think that Mormon understanding of baptism is irrational. If one thinks that baptism is to obtain “forgiveness” from “original sin”, then if they are observing the belief of someone who does not believe that the idea of “original sin” is correct, yet believes in baptism, their own personal belief is going to tell their own mind, “Well, that’s irrational!”

So of course I wasn’t saying I “know the Mormon understanding is irrational.” And it is “completely”, 100% in accordance with the New Testament. I could cite twenty or more examples, but that would put you in a defensive mode and I see no point in going there.

The LDS belief is that baptism enters into a covenant that is intended to be a life-time covenant, and in fact an eternal covenant, and that the atonement of Christ is central to those covenants. Baptism represents a personal covenant, based on a personal conviction that one is entering into the “gate” wherein the path leads to eternal life, through Christ. Baptism is not for forgiveness. Repentance is for forgiveness. Baptism is for entry into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
What I had said was that I could see why one such as yourself would think that Mormon understanding of baptism is irrational. If one thinks that baptism is to obtain “forgiveness” from “original sin”, then if they are observing the belief of someone who does not believe that the idea of “original sin” is correct, yet believes in baptism, their own personal belief is going to tell their own mind, “Well, that’s irrational!”

Conflicting with my beliefs does not make it irrational. Some Protestants have a ‘Believer’s Baptism’ which I don’t agree with but seems rational.

The LDS belief is that baptism enters into a covenant that is intended to be a life-time covenant, and in fact an eternal covenant, and that the atonement of Christ is central to those covenants. Baptism represents a personal covenant, based on a personal conviction that one is entering into the “gate” wherein the path leads to eternal life, through Christ. Baptism is not for forgiveness. Repentance is for forgiveness. Baptism is for entry into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

This is the first I’ve heard that Mormon’s don’t believe that baptism forgives sins. If that is true, then Mormon baptism is just ‘believer’s baptism’ invented during the reformation. Cool.

 

[RebeccaJ]

LDS Article of Faith #4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Stephen, maybe you should get a second opinion.

 

[Stephen168]

LDS Article of Faith #4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Stephen, maybe you should get a second opinion.

That is why it is good to have ex-Mormons around. Thanks.
Now we are back to the Mormon understanding of Baptism being irrational, and another Mormon caught with their ‘truth’ around their ankles.