Mormons, where did St. paul say that.....

[SpeSalvi]

SummitJim, you made a very important point. I wish I had read this earlier.

It is apparent that this Holy Spirit is a capricious being, for he confirms in a similar way the faith of many people who subscribe to diverse and often conflicting beliefs. How can this be? It is a great source of my agnosticism. The Mormon is confirmed by the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium is also, and the Evangelical likewise. How can one know the Truth? We either must rely on tradition, or on the views of experts. Every religion has both.

I am of the belief that the Holy Spirit, in sprite of its often very remarkable and sublime influence, is a psychological phenomenon and little more.

First off, does any LDS or former LDS here remember the parody “Choose The Sprite”? Good times!

I think that the “promptings” CAN be simply a psychological phenomenon, but that’s why faith and reason have to go hand in hand here. For every claim the Catholic Church makes, there is a reasonable line of thinking for it. To deny reason in favor of Faith isn’t the way God designed His Church, period.

 

[Weary_Pilgrim]

When I was a Mormon I often struggled with the teachings of the LDS church. I tried to ignore the litany of problems, that just made it worse. After much study and soul searching I realized that if Jesus Himself (God incarnate) could say that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and that He’d be with it 'till the end of time, and a* total *apostasy occurred, what would that say about Jesus and how could I have any confidence at all in a “restoration” that wouldn’t fail? Looking back it was a very tough, very confusing (wandered into Protestantism), and long road to Rome but I’m grateful for the journey

 

[TexanKnight]

I believe the Old Testament story of Moses suffers from a similar problem. William Dever is among the archaeologists most sympathetic to any historical veracity in the Bible, yet his own writings cast immense doubt over the whole thing. Modern research on the New Testament, such as that done by Bart Ehrman, is turning up equally difficult issues. The arguments you level against Mormonism are the same arguments that New Atheists level–with great confidence–against your Church also. It is unbecoming and hypocritical for us who walk by faith and not by sight, to criticize the faith of others by recycling the arguments of our own enemies. That’s just my opinion.

While I agree that Moses has some issues historically, it is true we CAN go to Egypt. We CAN go to the Red Sea. We CAN go to other places mentioned by Moses. Again, you can;t go to ANY Book of Mormon places. Your argument is another red herring.

 

[pmccombs]

While I agree that Moses has some issues historically, it is true we CAN go to Egypt. We CAN go to the Red Sea. We CAN go to other places mentioned by Moses. Again, you can;t go to ANY Book of Mormon places. Your argument is another red herring.

You CAN go to the American continents. It’s an issue of generalities; nevertheless, the winds of evidence suggest that all quasi-historical religious texts are works of fiction and that we ought not look to them for historical or literal truth. Your argument is another red herring.

 

[pmccombs]

First off, does any LDS or former LDS here remember the parody “Choose The Sprite”? Good times!

I think that the “promptings” CAN be simply a psychological phenomenon, but that’s why faith and reason have to go hand in hand here. For every claim the Catholic Church makes, there is a reasonable line of thinking for it. To deny reason in favor of Faith isn’t the way God designed His Church, period.

It seems that you are saying that these “promptings” are only not psychological phenomena when married to the “correct” reasoning and the “correct” faith. If so, I declare all spiritual promptings superfluous; for how is one to know what is the right line of reasoning, and the correct faith, in order to know that one’s promptings are legitimate?

I suppose the Mormons would agree with you, though, because they also believe to have faith and reason on their side, in addition to the voice of God. Spiritual feelings + Faith + Reason = Certainty In Truth. That’s the equation for, I suppose, quite a few adherents of very different religions who all are convinced and “know” their Church is true.

Besides, how do we know how God “designed” his Church? Because someone said so? And how can we know to trust them? Because it’s written in a book? And why should that convince anyone? Because it is tradition? And what claim has tradition on truth? So what–or whose-- “reason” is the proper reason to marry to this faith and to the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that every thoughtful religious person has cherry-picked a remarkable set of surprisingly compelling reasons as to why their faith must be the true one. They pick these remarkable coincidences (?) from history, by drawing parallels, by pointing to miracles, and so forth. I can read the Mormon apologists and be duly impressed. I can read the Catholic apologists and be duly impressed. And so it goes. Lots of “reason” to be found everywhere. No lack of faith, for sure. And God is whispering in the ears of all sincere believers, telling them that their beliefs are indeed the true ones.

You may be right, SpeSalvi. But I think the most probable scenario is that religion is entirely an invention of man, and that if there is a “true” one (whatever that really means), there is no sure way to know it, neither by the “Spirit” (which confirms all faithful), by the reason of man (which is limited), nor by faith (which is not sight). From one point of view, it’s all equally ridiculous, and even more so when the faithful of one church decries the faithful of another based on his own personal and subjective understanding of reason, spiritual feelings, or faithful inclinations.

 

[Weary_Pilgrim]

You CAN go to the American continents. It’s an issue of generalities; nevertheless, the winds of evidence suggest that all quasi-historical religious texts are works of fiction and that we ought not look to them for historical or literal truth. Your argument is another red herring.

But you won’t find ANYTHING that verifies that ANYTHING in the BOM *ever *happened. Unless you want to throw caution to the wind and hire a pseudo expert/ guide from the “Book of Mormon Archaeological Tours” LDS subculture. They can help you theorize that there were two Hill Cumorah’s, etc. The “winds of evidence” have long since turned the pages of The Book of Mormon and proven that it’s the work of Joseph Smith’s (or somebody else’s) fertile imagination…

 

[pmccombs]

But you won’t find ANYTHING that verifies that ANYTHING in the BOM *ever *happened. Unless you want to throw caution to the wind and hire a pseudo expert/ guide from the “Book of Mormon Archaeological Tours” LDS subculture. They can help you theorize that there were two Hill Cumorah’s, etc. The “winds of evidence” have long since turned the pages of The Book of Mormon and proven that it’s the work of Joseph Smith’s (or somebody else’s) fertile imagination…

It is, of course, as you say: Depending on whom you speak to, the Book of Mormon has much evidence for it, or none at all, usually decided by one’s religious convictions. Mormon apologists, many of them much smarter than me, would stridently disagree with your claim that the Book of Mormon has been “proven” to be the work of some fertile imagination. I’m personally acquainted with one senior university professor of ancient scripture, S. Kent Brown, who has done primary research and found remarkable extra-biblical sites in the Arabian peninsula that very closely match the names used in the Book of Mormon, along the route that Lehi and Nephi would have likely taken. And ideal spots along the coast match quite remarkably to the story as well. “Oh, but he’s a biased Mormon, in spite of his training, and his opinions don’t count.” Yes, just like all those faithful Christian biblical archaeologists who want, oh so badly, to see evidence of an exodus or of a David by drawing a bulls eye around some data points. It’s called “confirmation bias.”

So, yes, I tend to agree with you. The Book of Mormon is probably a work of fiction. As far as fiction goes, though, I say it’s quite good, with more going for it than its critics would like to admit. But I digress.

I don’t really see the point here with this particular argument, about the allegedly evidence-less Book of Mormon.

We might compare the legend of Robin hood with The Hobbit. Ah! The Hobbit is entirely fictional! But Robin Hood may have some seeds of historic truth in it. There are some plausible things and historical places. There might have even been a man called Robin Hood at one point, though the stories are obvious fabrications and exaggerations. The Church of Robin Hood is therefore superior to the Church of the Hobbit!

We might compare the Bible with the Book of Mormon. Ah! The Book of Mormon is entirely fictional! But the Bible may have some seeds of historic truth in it. There are some plausible things and historical places. There may have even been a man called Moses at one point, though the stories are obvious fabrications and exaggerations. The Church of the Bible is therefore superior to the Church of the Book of Mormon!

As I see it, one false church is as good as another, regardless of whose fiction is subjectively better. Just my opinion.

 

[TexanKnight]

You CAN go to the American continents. It’s an issue of generalities; nevertheless, the winds of evidence suggest that all quasi-historical religious texts are works of fiction and that we ought not look to them for historical or literal truth. Your argument is another red herring.

Red Herring.

There is even argument that it occurred in the Americas. Some LDS members believe it happened in the Far East.

But Egypt and the Red Sea are a lot more specific than “The Americas”. Hence the red herring. Where? Some LDS believe in the USA, some say South America. Soke say Central America. Nice try…but red herring

 

[TexanKnight]

It is, of course, as you say: Depending on whom you speak to, the Book of Mormon has much evidence for it, or none at all, usually decided by one’s religious convictions. Mormon apologists, many of them much smarter than me, would stridently disagree with your claim that the Book of Mormon has been “proven” to be the work of some fertile imagination. I’m personally acquainted with one senior university professor of ancient scripture, S. Kent Brown, who has done primary research and found remarkable extra-biblical sites in the Arabian peninsula that very closely match the names used in the Book of Mormon, along the route that Lehi and Nephi would have likely taken. And ideal spots along the coast match quite remarkably to the story as well. “Oh, but he’s a biased Mormon, in spite of his training, and his opinions don’t count.” Yes, just like all those faithful Christian biblical archaeologists who want, oh so badly, to see evidence of an exodus or of a David by drawing a bulls eye around some data points. It’s called “confirmation bias.”

So, yes, I tend to agree with you. The Book of Mormon is probably a work of fiction. As far as fiction goes, though, I say it’s quite good, with more going for it than its critics would like to admit. But I digress.

I don’t really see the point here with this particular argument, about the allegedly evidence-less Book of Mormon.

We might compare the legend of Robin hood with The Hobbit. Ah! The Hobbit is entirely fictional! But Robin Hood may have some seeds of historic truth in it. There are some plausible things and historical places. There might have even been a man called Robin Hood at one point, though the stories are obvious fabrications and exaggerations. The Church of Robin Hood is therefore superior to the Church of the Hobbit!

We might compare the Bible with the Book of Mormon. Ah! The Book of Mormon is entirely fictional! But the Bible may have some seeds of historic truth in it. There are some plausible things and historical places. There may have even been a man called Moses at one point, though the stories are obvious fabrications and exaggerations. The Church of the Bible is therefore superior to the Church of the Book of Mormon!

As I see it, one false church is as good as another, regardless of whose fiction is subjectively better. Just my opinion.

Some seeds of truth? Do not minimize the Bible to make a point about the Book of Mormon.

 

[SpeSalvi]

It seems that you are saying that these “promptings” are only not psychological phenomena when married to the “correct” reasoning and the “correct” faith. If so, I declare all spiritual promptings superfluous; for how is one to know what is the right line of reasoning, and the correct faith, in order to know that one’s promptings are legitimate?

I suppose the Mormons would agree with you, though, because they also believe to have faith and reason on their side, in addition to the voice of God. Spiritual feelings + Faith + Reason = Certainty In Truth. That’s the equation for, I suppose, quite a few adherents of very different religions who all are convinced and “know” their Church is true.

Besides, how do we know how God “designed” his Church? Because someone said so? And how can we know to trust them? Because it’s written in a book? And why should that convince anyone? Because it is tradition? And what claim has tradition on truth? So what–or whose-- “reason” is the proper reason to marry to this faith and to the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that every thoughtful religious person has cherry-picked a remarkable set of surprisingly compelling reasons as to why their faith must be the true one. They pick these remarkable coincidences (?) from history, by drawing parallels, by pointing to miracles, and so forth. I can read the Mormon apologists and be duly impressed. I can read the Catholic apologists and be duly impressed. And so it goes. Lots of “reason” to be found everywhere. No lack of faith, for sure. And God is whispering in the ears of all sincere believers, telling them that their beliefs are indeed the true ones.

You may be right, SpeSalvi. But I think the most probable scenario is that religion is entirely an invention of man, and that if there is a “true” one (whatever that really means), there is no sure way to know it, neither by the “Spirit” (which confirms all faithful), by the reason of man (which is limited), nor by faith (which is not sight). From one point of view, it’s all equally ridiculous, and even more so when the faithful of one church decries the faithful of another based on his own personal and subjective understanding of reason, spiritual feelings, or faithful inclinations.

I could have written that very thing about 2 years ago. Seriously, right down to the “well, if there is a true religion we’re never gonna figure it out”.

The difference between the two (and at one point in time, it came down to Mormonism vs Catholicism for me) is that the Catholic Church has historical evidence to back up Its claims. Not necessarily just history according to the Catholic Church, but actual records showing that it’s been around and has been continuously “kosher”, if you will. The LDS Church doesn’t really have that.

Now, this is only a personal experience, but the spiritual experiences I’ve had in the Catholic Church have made me realize that the ones I had in the LDS church were- oh, I don’t know- counterfeit, I guess? My LDS moments seemed strained; they seemed to disappear as quickly as they came. In the Catholic Church, I feel like every spiritual experience that I have is so pure and genuine. I guess the best way I could explain it was my first experience eating some amazing Belgian chocolate (I LOVE chocolate) that a friend got while in Germany. I had grown up on Hershey’s, and until I tasted the Belgian chocolate I had never conceived that there was anything better than Hersheys. That’s the same gist when I compare the two churches; Sure the LDS church was fine and all, but goodness gracious- If I had known what I was missing out on; if I had realized how powerful and beautiful and glorious my religious experience could be, I wouldn’t have wasted so much time floundering about.

Believe me, I’m one stubborn lady and it took a lot to get me to even consider that the Catholic Church may well be the “right” one. I’m not going to bother with trying to convince you, because I know I can’t. But, having been on both sides of the proverbial fence, I can promise that I’ve never been more happy or fulfilled because of a Church. I hope that one day I’ll be able to welcome you home like so many have done for me

 

[pmccombs]

Red Herring.

There is even argument that it occurred in the Americas. Some LDS members believe it happened in the Far East.

But Egypt and the Red Sea are a lot more specific than “The Americas”. Hence the red herring. Where? Some LDS believe in the USA, some say South America. Soke say Central America. Nice try…but red herring

And I call red herring-times-infinity on you!

Because even if the Book of Mormon is pseudo-historical fiction, and the bible is historical fiction, you still have to deal with the essential fact that both texts are fictional in their accounts. So what if one of them is talking about real places and the other is less specific? To focus attention on the less-specific BoM to distract the argument from the fact that the Bible is equally bunk (in fact, since the Bible calls out specific times and real places, it’s much easier to demonstrate its wrongness) is to create a red herring.

 

[pmccombs]

Some seeds of truth? Do not minimize the Bible to make a point about the Book of Mormon.

Oh, I’ll leave the minimizing to the archaeologists and the atheists. They do a much better job than me, since I just repeat their arguments and am not entirely sure about them. I still think the Bible is a great religious text whose truth is found, not in its historicity, but in its teaching. And I find the same with the Book of Mormon.

 

[TexanKnight]

And I call red herring-times-infinity on you!

Because even if the Book of Mormon is pseudo-historical fiction, and the bible is historical fiction, you still have to deal with the essential fact that both texts are fictional in their accounts. So what if one of them is talking about real places and the other is less specific? To focus attention on the less-specific BoM to distract the argument from the fact that the Bible is equally bunk (in fact, since the Bible calls out specific times and real places, it’s much easier to demonstrate its wrongness) is to create a red herring.

You keep dodging the basic issue…and I do not blame you. You can walk Biblical Lands…you know where they are. Meanwhile, Mormons can;t even agree on what COUNTRY the Book of Mormon took place in.

All your red herrings and excuses and dodging can overcome that

 

[TexanKnight]

Oh, I’ll leave the minimizing to the archaeologists and the atheists. They do a much better job than me, since I just repeat their arguments and am not entirely sure about them. I still think the Bible is a great religious text whose truth is found, not in its historicity, but in its teaching. And I find the same with the Book of Mormon.

Fine…I will go to Jerusalem and you go to Zerehemla and we will see who get there first

 

[pmccombs]

I could have written that very thing about 2 years ago. Seriously, right down to the “well, if there is a true religion we’re never gonna figure it out”.

The difference between the two (and at one point in time, it came down to Mormonism vs Catholicism for me) is that the Catholic Church has historical evidence to back up Its claims. Not necessarily just history according to the Catholic Church, but actual records showing that it’s been around and has been continuously “kosher”, if you will. The LDS Church doesn’t really have that.

Now, this is only a personal experience, but the spiritual experiences I’ve had in the Catholic Church have made me realize that the ones I had in the LDS church were- oh, I don’t know- counterfeit, I guess? My LDS moments seemed strained; they seemed to disappear as quickly as they came. In the Catholic Church, I feel like every spiritual experience that I have is so pure and genuine. I guess the best way I could explain it was my first experience eating some amazing Belgian chocolate (I LOVE chocolate) that a friend got while in Germany. I had grown up on Hershey’s, and until I tasted the Belgian chocolate I had never conceived that there was anything better than Hersheys. That’s the same gist when I compare the two churches; Sure the LDS church was fine and all, but goodness gracious- If I had known what I was missing out on; if I had realized how powerful and beautiful and glorious my religious experience could be, I wouldn’t have wasted so much time floundering about.

Believe me, I’m one stubborn lady and it took a lot to get me to even consider that the Catholic Church may well be the “right” one. I’m not going to bother with trying to convince you, because I know I can’t. But, having been on both sides of the proverbial fence, I can promise that I’ve never been more happy or fulfilled because of a Church. I hope that one day I’ll be able to welcome you home like so many have done for me

SpeSalvi, I’m encouraged by your candor and the way in which you relate your experiences. There is much I admire in the Catholic Church (in spite of what my occasional nihilistic/agnostic rants may suggest!), and maybe someday I’ll be in it. Who knows? I’m a very active, participating Mormon at the moment, however.

 

[pmccombs]

Fine…I will go to Jerusalem and you go to Zerehemla and we will see who get there first

I’ve been to both places and back again many times… in the only way that really matters to me.

 

[Stephen168]

So, yes, I tend to agree with you. The Book of Mormon is probably a work of fiction.

Which makes the founder of Mormonism a liar.

 

[pmccombs]

You keep dodging the basic issue…and I do not blame you. You can walk Biblical Lands…you know where they are. Meanwhile, Mormons can;t even agree on what COUNTRY the Book of Mormon took place in.

All your red herrings and excuses and dodging can overcome that

Who cares if you can walk biblical lands? It’s the stories that really count. Fake stories on real lands and fake stories on unknown lands are about the same in my book. You’re the issue-dodger!

 

[pmccombs]

Which makes the founder of Mormonism a liar.

As are the founders of all religions.

 

[TexanKnight]

I’ve been to both places and back again many times… in the only way that really matters to me.

lol…nice try…

let me guess…your “spiritual eyes”…the same way Martin Harris said the witnesses saw the plates.

Got it