Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[Socrates4Jesus]

Thank you, soc!

It is sort of a dense read and somewhat difficult for me to break down because of my own limitations. One of those being that, I know little to nothing of Philosophy. But in my opinion, from what I’ve seen, people with a knowledge of Philosophy seem to make wonderful Theologians! I think there must be something to that.

One of the key things I hear in listening to Pope Benedict’s teaching is that Faith and Reason have a common source, which is in God. I believe that if one or the other is frustrated, it is impossible to be truly free. We should - and better said - we must be able to apply reason to our faith. One way to do that is by looking at evidence. We really can look to history and find evidence to support our beliefs. Obviously that adds to our reasoning capabilities. When what we try to accept on faith is constantly challenged by real evidence, lack of any evidence at all, or worse - contradictory evidence, reason becomes frustrated. We should be able to hold up our faith to history and evidence and find something reasonable. But I’m looking mostly at one side of the equation here. The other side of course is what exactly is truth and how do we know it when we find it and how can we put our faith in it? In Christianity, Truth itself is a Person. As Pope Benedict said in his speech, Truth means more than knowledge. "The purpose of knowing the truth is to know what is good. This is also the sense of Socrates’ way of questioning: What good thing makes us true? Truth makes us good and goodness is true. This optimism dwells in the Christian faith because it was allowed to see the Logos, the creative Reason that, in God’s incarnation, revealed itself as that which is Good, as Goodness itself leads to goodness and Christ is Goodness itself’.

I hope this is making some sense. I am not the best at explaining things and I am still learning myself. So at some point, and I know you are busy with many things right now, but if you do find time, I would love to hear your thoughts and impressions.

The Lord bless you, and keep you;
The Lord make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon you,
And give you peace.

Tami

Yes, you are making perfect sense, Tami! You have done an excellent job of expressing yourself clearly, concisely and cogently.



Let me prayerfully consider how to respond before i do.

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Couple of things that I found peculiar about Mormons of course the polygamy issue, though eventually, due to pressure from social norms they got away from it. Another was the Mormon churches doctrine on blacks, and this is really disturbing, their teaching was, up until the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s, that blacks were satans representation on earth. The leaders decided to meet on this mid 60’s I believe, and some who were not there claim that it was a tongues of fire and gusting wind due to the presence of the Holy Spirit as on Pentecost, while discussing and meditating on this subject. Yet, one of the leaders that was there claimed that it was just a calm and peaceful meeting, to where they concluded that blacks were not a representation of satan on earth.
They obviously came to that conclusion, because they knew that the world could never accept them as a legitimate religion with that kind of mentality,
Than look at the Catholic church, where we have had black popes and saints through out our long history.
I guess my post was a con.

Thank you, Gio.

 

[zerinus]

Would you say, WhyMe, that Joseph Smith was not perfect in everything but he was perfect in his transmitting the Book of Mormon and other sacred LDS texts?

Being true is not equivalent to being perfect. We claim that the Book of Mormon is true. That is not equivalent to saying that it is “perfect” in every possible, conceivable, and imaginable way.

zerinus

 

[rikkk1958]

No. I could have been clearer, but I was not speaking of historical issues/errors at all (though it looks like I am about to do so).

I mean that inerrancy is not something that LDS demand of our scriptures, but that IMO the absence of this should not be used to question any specific teaching in the scriptures as they are all accepted by common consent.
So, in a small minority of cases I have occasional seen LDS apologist suggest that a specific verse may be part of the Bible that is not “’translated’ correctly.” I discourage this adamantly, since we accept the Bible and the rest of LDS scriptures by common consent.

I believe there are historical problems for the Bible and the BOM, but I believe both to be ancient documents. I generally do not believe in a world wide flood or young earth creationism. I believe the Exodus was not near so grand as the Bible claims it to be and this is why we have basically no historical or archeological evidence of this huge event. I hold similar “not near so grand” views concerning battles in the BOM. But on the whole, I think the Bible and the BOM present reasonable history consistent with what is determinable via archeology and textual remnants in the relevant regions.
The historical strength of the BOM in the absence of a historical pedigree (the BOM unlike the Bible or Homer’s Iliad burst upon modern America >1000 years later than the event therein purportedly occurred) indicates something supernatural. If the BOM is best explained (using approved methods of ethno history upon a translated document) as an ancient document, something extraordinary occurred in 1830. If it could be explained via the theories offered by our critics (numerous and varied they are since our critics instinctively know they have failed to explain the BOM), then perhaps nothing too revolutionary occurred in 1830. I think the authentic theories are superior to the fraud theories and thus before seeking spiritual confirmation, I think something extraordinary occurred in 1830.

Charity, TOm

I always use logic in thinking and analyzing analogies by people of intellegence and knowledge. Tom is trying to defend the BOM according to what he thinks happened in 1830. Adding that he wanted to be advocating theories by his master even if it was a fraud. I find this knowledge to have been discussed sometime in the early part of Christianity. We called them agnostism. Am I right? althought I am not a scholar, I always thought that logic is still the best way. First, let say Tom doesn’t believe the archeological truth in the Bible but why would Joe Smith use it to prove his theory? I always believe the power of knowledge can get may followers and thats what JS used to pursuade many but the fraudulent evidences clearly devalues his story. It is just sad to see followers of mormons giving in to this.

 

[TOmNossor]

I’m also surprised at your openness to the idea that even Joseph Smith is not immune …

Joseph Smith was one of Joseph Smith’s greatest critics. He knew he was not perfect. I believe him.

… i’d like to know more about what you believe the essence of Jesus and the Holy Ghost to be. That is, i’d like to explore your opinions on how they are like the Father and how they differ. I’ve heard some from the critics on Mormon beliefs about the nature of God and …

This thread has a lot of my thoughts on the Trinity from almost 4 years ago. I do not think I have changed a great deal since then. Perhaps a minuscule elevation of the “emergent nature of divinity” within the communal unity of the Social Trinity with a minuscule lessening of the “fons totius divinitatis” within the Father.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=64642&page=2&highlight=barth

LDS beliefs in reality go from largely Tri-theist LDS to modalist LDS. Our critics impute to us an even wider range of views.

…yet you have also said that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are infallible in doctrinal teaching. Of course, i might be misunderstanding you.

The Catholic apologist within me must say that books may/may not be inerrant and people may/may not be infallible.
Next, the inerrancy of LDS scriptures is not a point of doctrine like it is within Protestantism and most Catholic thinkers (for the Bible).
I just argue that the LDS scriptures including the Bible are reliable, sufficient, and “functionally inerrant.”

Now, before I tackle how we know the LDS scriptures are reliable and yet we generally reject the Iliad as teaching sound theological truth, let me discuss what the scriptures are for and thus what they reliably do for us.

The Bible does not lay out a theological system that provides some of what one might think are the most basic answers. The Bible does not make clear the nature of the Trinity. There are UU who are modalist and take their theology from the Bible. There are JWs who are Arians and take their theology from the Bible. There are volumes of Protestants who embrace an Eastern or Western Trinity (when I am feeling surly I might say a neo-modalist Trinity with different emphasis on being and person). If the purpose of the Bible was to teach the nature of God such that thickheaded humans “got it” the Bible is a failure. Likewise we cannot agree upon sanctification and justification. Paul and James, inspired Biblical authors, having read the Old Testament, cannot agree upon how Abraham became the one who would be the father of Judaism. What are the rest of us dunderheads to do?
The Catholic and the LDS can certainly invoke our God-sourced authority to answer in these matters and this is appropriate when the question is, “What do I need to believe concerning the Free Will?” or ???
But, I would suggest that the main purpose of the Bible and other LDS scriptures is not to teach DETAILED theological principles. The purpose of the scriptures is to introduce us to God in such a way that we can go meet Him personally. The scriptures tell us that the God of the universe is waiting to have a relationship with little old us. They tell us about prayer, visions, inspiration, and about the men who met God before us. No man and no book can give God to us, but we can learn that He stands at the door knocking and all we must do is open it. This is the main purpose of the scriptures and their main message. Things like pride, lust, greed, and … can build walls between us and God so the scriptures devote time to them. Our family relationships can help us come to know God so these relationships are discussed. Our relationships with other humans can help us come to know God (and indeed I would suggest when we become one as the Father and Son are one, we simply must have learned to love each other). Some time is devoted to the wondrous blessings available to those who enter into a relationship with Him (least we choose to hang out with interesting folks like Christopher Hitchens instead). Much time is spent on showing that God first loved us. And …, but all of it is to teach us and inspire us to come into a relationship with God.

So, that Mark likely mixed up the words of Isaiah and Malachi does not make the Bible less able to invite us into relationship with God. The Bible and the rest of the LDS scriptures are able to do this.
God tells us in various ways that He loves us and wants us to know Him and love Him. It will be our choice, but if we desire Him, He desires us. This is the message of the scriptures (and indeed the message of all churches built upon even the smallest amount of truth). We can commune with God in a loving relationship here now, and more perfectly throughout eternity.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Before I answer as to why the scriptures are reliable, “functionally inerrant,” let me talk about why the restoration if the Bible teaches us to have a relationship with God.

Some views (Calvinism being egregious) that developed over time can hamper our relationship with God. Calvinism is not a show stopper for everyone; but it and other INCORRECT views can be hindrances to relationship with God. Truths like “no fornication” may keep some from seeking God, but fornication will inhibit the relationship anyway. Falsehoods like Calvinism can be corrected. Also, there were many who believed “the heavens were closed." This also gave a false impression as to how God would interact with His people through His church and needed to be corrected. So the Bible could and did point to a relationship with God, but after hundreds of years of well meaning, but authority absent, Catholic teaching of errors a restoration was necessary.

On to “why reliable?” Let me start with why valuable.

I think reason can direct us to ask questions of the scriptures. This direction comes either through the observation of folks who use the scriptures in their lives or in some instances the observation of the person who was inspired and brought us the scriptures. On occasion direct interaction with the scriptures can offer us reason to pursue them further in the absence of direct interaction with other people.
Our reason and our faith work together as we have enough faith to test the teachings of the scriptures and discover that they are true. We then continue on this faith to test, test, know. This is Alma 32 which is a good introduction to faith (and reason in matters of faith even).
At some point I believe reason can indicate it is appropriate to seek direct answers from God concerning the scriptures or the truth of this or that. It is silly to seek direct answers from God if you do not believe there is a God so this is why some of this earlier faith, test, know, repeat is important. Additional contributions to this before taking such things to God can be evidential in nature. The complex arguments about the empty tomb and the actions of the apostles and many other arguments (Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel and …) may offer some of this. The more simple evidence of the good within Catholicism, Mormonism, or some given Protestant revival may offer some of this. Nahom and other evidences of ancientness within the BOM may offer some of this (evidence of ancientness has never inspired me to pray about the theology of the Iliad, but if the BOM is ancient, there is something remarkable since it was first published in 1830). None of these are absolute proof and by some accounts of Satan, some of this can be counterfeited.

All of McDowell and Strobel are insufficient to prove that the Bible is the word of God. Also, while I think the BOM stands on stronger evidentiary grounds than the Bible, there is still the possibility it does not come from God.

So, I would say that to seal the book as useful in the areas yet untested via faith, test, know; we should seek confirmation from God. This is doubly important as it not only points us to the reliability of the book, but it is a major part of developing the relationship with God that He desires us to have.
I have no choice but to follow the evidence and acknowledge that some who pray to know if the Bible is the word of God do not perceive an affirmative. The same is true of the BOM. I cannot fully embrace some of the simple explanations such as “they really didn’t want to know,” “they were secretly an adulterer,” or …. Instead, I just acknowledge what I know and that God has His ways.

All of the above gets us to the place where we recognize the Bible and/or the BOM are from God. I do not believe they get us to inerrant or functionally inerrant. I do not believe the Bible or the BOM teach that they are inerrant, but one might argue that “functional inerrancy” is taught. I would however suggest that it is the Catholic Church and the LDS Church that seal our respective scriptures as inerrant or functionally inerrant. For the Catholic it is the apostolic authority that seals the Bible with a small does of common consent. For the LDS it is the apostolic authority with a large dose of common consent.
As a LDS our scriptures and our leaders teach us that the highest seal of reliability is the acceptance by common consent. The scriptures have received this across the entire church and new members essentially covenantally agree to be included in this witness. This IMO moves us from reliable to functionally inerrant.

For the Catholic who does not like the idea that “common consent” is part of their doctrine, Cardinal Newman found it important and quoted Augustine “Securus judicat orbis terrarum;”
Here is a thread with a few posts between me and two Catholics on this:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofiversion/index.php/t9111.html

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

rikkk1958:
I always use logic in thinking and analyzing analogies by people of intellegence and knowledge. Tom is trying to defend the BOM according to what he thinks happened in 1830. Adding that he wanted to be advocating theories by his master even if it was a fraud. I find this knowledge to have been discussed sometime in the early part of Christianity. We called them agnostism. Am I right? althought I am not a scholar, I always thought that logic is still the best way. First, let say Tom doesn’t believe the archeological truth in the Bible but why would Joe Smith use it to prove his theory? I always believe the power of knowledge can get may followers and thats what JS used to pursuade many but the fraudulent evidences clearly devalues his story. It is just sad to see followers of mormons giving in to this.
I do not understand what you are saying, but I think I get enough to know you do not understand me.
Just so you know:
Gnostics are those who seek after some secret knowledge and there was a time in the 1st and 2nd century when they were quite a powerful force within Christianity (heretical Christianity if you like). There were remnants of gnosticism in the so called “orthodox” ECF BTW.
Agnostics are folks who believe they cannot (and some say nobody can) know if there is a God.

Anyway, I think there is good evidence that the BOM and the Bible are ancient texts that present real history. I think the problems with the BOM are comparable to the problems with the Bible if you take into account the volume and specificity of the evidence available to prove and disprove the ancientness of either.
I also think noting that the Bible is ancient is about as valuable as noting that the Iliad is ancient, but noting that the BOM is ancient means something extraordinary occurred in 1830.
Charity, TOm

 

[rikkk1958]

I do not understand what you are saying, but I think I get enough to know you do not understand me.
Just so you know:
Gnostics are those who seek after some secret knowledge and there was a time in the 1st and 2nd century when they were quite a powerful force within Christianity (heretical Christianity if you like). There were remnants of gnosticism in the so called “orthodox” ECF BTW.
Agnostics are folks who believe they cannot (and some say nobody can) know if there is a God.

Anyway, I think there is good evidence that the BOM and the Bible are ancient texts that present real history. I think the problems with the BOM are comparable to the problems with the Bible if you take into account the volume and specificity of the evidence available to prove and disprove the ancientness of either.
I also think noting that the Bible is ancient is about as valuable as noting that the Iliad is ancient, but noting that the BOM is ancient means something extraordinary occurred in 1830.
Charity, TOm

First, thanks for enlighening me about gnostics and agnostics and I stand corrected. I do not understand why you would compare the Bible to the BOM on ancientness? It is I think incomparable. JS is on 1830 and a fraud. His theory the way you and your colleagues explained it here describes fascinating stories and they are mere theories. Anybody can make there own interpretations and the mormons are way out of bounds. although you may have good social structures among your flock I find it suspicious enough that everyone is being dictated by the power of influences and wrong promises. But I do not wish to interfer with what they believe. It is just you are here in a catholic forum and discussing things that are way beyond truth.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Con: The most obvious and easiest answer of them all…Mormonism is not a true Christian sect…by nature of their invalid, non-Trinitarian formula for Baptism, in addition to their countless heretical beliefs.

Do you even need another Con…that would nip it in the bud for me.

I’m the kind who, when i make up my mind that something is the right course to pursue, stays on that path until i reach my destination or die trying. I’ve decided to seriously consider whether Mormonism is the right way for me.

Please tell me what you think is the best, strongest, most convincing reason to accept or reject Mormonism. More importantly, please tell me why. I’m hoping for a wide range of opinions pro and con.

http://101151.agchurches.org/SiteFiles/101151/Content/Media/One_way.jpg

 

[why_me]

Would you say, WhyMe, that Joseph Smith was not perfect in everything but he was perfect in his transmitting the Book of Mormon and other sacred LDS texts?

One problem that JS had with members was that he was too human. Some would see him and say: can this be a prophet? JS would love to wrestle and laugh. He was very human and many during his time believed that he just didn’t fit the prophet name. Even one of the future presidents of the lds church claim when seeing him for the first time that JS was not fitting the prophet image with his floppy work hat and work clothes.

Now was he perfect in everything that he transmitted as prophet? I don’t know. I do believe that JS did believe that he received a revelation about plural marriage and I even believe that he also questioned this revelation. I know that it caused him trouble and anguish to put it into practice. But he also felt that he needed to do so.

JS was a good man and he meant well. Regardless of what people say on this forum, he gave his life for what he believed in and by doing so, he saved lives. And we must not forget that his brother also gave his life for what he believed in…the restoration of the gospel along with his brother Joseph. It was Hyrum, out of love for his brother, that he volunteered to go with Joseph, knowing that they may die in the process.

The lds story is not so simple.

 

[why_me]

Con: The most obvious and easiest answer of them all…Mormonism is not a true Christian sect…by nature of their invalid, non-Trinitarian formula for Baptism, in addition to their countless heretical beliefs.

Do you even need another Con…that would nip it in the bud for me.

Here is the problem: Con: The most obvious and easiest answer of them all…catholicism is not a true Christian sect…by nature of the invalid vows of celibacy and infant baptism, in addition to their countless heretical beliefs.

Do you even need another Con…that would nip it in the bud for me.

Now I don’t actually believe what I wrote but it certainly can be said by anticatholics.

 

[why_me]

First, thanks for enlighening me about gnostics and agnostics and I stand corrected. I do not understand why you would compare the Bible to the BOM on ancientness? It is I think incomparable. JS is on 1830 and a fraud. His theory the way you and your colleagues explained it here describes fascinating stories and they are mere theories. Anybody can make there own interpretations and the mormons are way out of bounds. although you may have good social structures among your flock I find it suspicious enough that everyone is being dictated by the power of influences and wrong promises. But I do not wish to interfer with what they believe. It is just you are here in a catholic forum and discussing things that are way beyond truth.

Maybe you shouldn’t be so judgemental about mormonism. Most mormons are here because their faith is attacked and the mormons seek to defend their faith. It makes sense if you think about it.

And if I really do think about it…perhaps all humans are frauds if only because we are human. And if humans are perhaps not frauds, they are still filled with contradictions which can make them frauds.

 

[Jerusha]

It is nice that you recognize that there are multi-generational LDS who are Mormon intellectuals, some prefer to say that there are no intellectuals within Mormonism.
Most intellectuals within LDS who have any moral character are on the outer fringes and face being ex-ed if they really say what they think. Bushman and Givens are my favorites.

It would seem to me your point is that it is only those heavily invested in the error that is Mormonism that seem to offer (or attempt to offer) intellectual reasons for our teachings. I would advocate that my ideas and the ideas of multi-generational LDS be evaluated upon the merits of the reasoning and not other factors.
No-- perhaps the “leading edge” is people who are disillusioned with the multigenerational lies, and are gently leading people out of the LDS.

And I do believe that you are losing the battle and do not know it
Do you really think you can make that judgment?

Are you a Vatican II rejecter?
No-- although I think American Catholics embraced Ecumenicism too heartily.

Also, the view that Mormonism is falling apart (or that post Vatican II Catholicism is falling apart) is quite overblown by my observation.
I never said that- there is an intense period of readjustment when any organization makes revolutionary changes. Falling apart is not the necessary result, unless the changes are so grossly overdue that that is the end result. Anyone want to say Protestant Reformation??

I think you should not use the term “New doctrine,” but I understand Newman’s theory of development. Point accepted
Charity, TOm

 

[majick275]

One problem that JS had with members was that he was too human. Some would see him and say: can this be a prophet? JS would love to wrestle and laugh. He was very human and many during his time believed that he just didn’t fit the prophet name. Even one of the future presidents of the lds church claim when seeing him for the first time that JS was not fitting the prophet image with his floppy work hat and work clothes.

Now was he perfect in everything that he transmitted as prophet? I don’t know. I do believe that JS did believe that he received a revelation about plural marriage and I even believe that he also questioned this revelation. I know that it caused him trouble and anguish to put it into practice. But he also felt that he needed to do so.

JS was a good man and he meant well. Regardless of what people say on this forum, he gave his life for what he believed in and by doing so, he saved lives. And we must not forget that his brother also gave his life for what he believed in…the restoration of the gospel along with his brother Joseph. It was Hyrum, out of love for his brother, that he volunteered to go with Joseph, knowing that they may die in the process.

The lds story is not so simple.

I disagree with you on this. JS was NOT a good man he was a womanizing con man who preyed upon the foolish. I don’t believe he intended to give his life it just happened that way. I don’t believe that was a worthy cause either. Hyrum was in on it. whose lives did JS save? I think he caused deaths of innocent people.

 

[Andytnm]

You should take the mormon missionary lessons. They will be able to explain what the doctrine of the church really is. And do not believe anyone who tells you they are not Christian. Read the book of Mormon for yourself and you will see that it only testifies of Christ. Talk to any member of the church and they will tell you how much Jesus means to them. If you are uncomfortable with seeing missionaries. Go to lds.org or mormon.org to find out more information.

 

[Mapi]

I disagree with you on this. JS was NOT a good man he was a womanizing con man who preyed upon the foolish. I don’t believe he intended to give his life it just happened that way. I don’t believe that was a worthy cause either. Hyrum was in on it. whose lives did JS save? I think he caused deaths of innocent people.

I totally agree with you. Even his own wife wanted to divorce him at some point.

 

[Chris-WA]

I think you misunderstand the Pope’s authority. Vatican I when defining Papal infallibility specifically said that the Pope cannot reveal new things. There is no indication within the Vatican I documents of your interpretation, (there will not be a need to reveal so God will not reveal). Instead the Pope’s authority is infallibly (via a GC) defined as limited in a way that Peter’s authority was not. Here are two quotes.

So, we can see that it is not that the Pope possesses the same ability as Peter and it is latent; rather, the Pope does not possess this ability at all. Do you now agree?

No I do not. You keep equating “ability” with “authority.” The pope possesses the same authority as Peter to lead the Church. As I’ve said before, that has nothing to do with the ability to receive revelation from God. Anyone can receive revelation–God chooses who, where, and when. And throughout salvation history, God did not limit public revelation to the current leader of the Jewish religion. God used whomever he pleased, whenever he pleased. That does not take away authority from the one who was in charge. So the pope has all of Peter’s authority. Who received public revelation was up to God, and varied from time to time. We can all agree that Peter was the first head of the church. If you’re going to argue against that we might as well give up the discussion. But most of the public revelation recorded in the New Testament is not from Peter, is it? Most of it was given through Paul, but he was never one of the twelve nor the leader of the Church. Since you as an LDS believe in continuously new public revelation, then by the example of the New Testament you must accept that public revelation would not be limited to the current Mormon prophet. But this is not how it works within Mormonism, right?

Also, having read the ECF, it is obvious that Peter’s supposed successors had very little concept of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome that would develop. You do not need to take my word for this, you can read Catholic scholar Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy

. In his book he shows numerous instances where the Bishop of Rome does not appear to be prime AND he debunks the favorite of Catholic apologists. I have read Jesus, Peter, and the Keys (Butler, Dahlgren and Hess), and Eno does a much more thorough job of examining the evidence available to us.
I have also read the ECF’s and it seems quite clear to me that from very early on the bishop of Rome was regarded as prime. The bishop of Rome settled disputes among the different churches. Now, as a person who also understands that the Church was first built in a world without satellite communications, jet airplanes, telephones, automobiles, and other modern conveniences, I don’t demand or believe that Jesus Christ handed Peter an instruction manual on how to build the church step-by-step. It took time for the Church to get off the ground. It wasn’t built overnight, but over centuries. Those who expect that kind of organization are living in fantasy land.

Yes, the revelatory ability is latent at times, but the head of God’s church possesses it.

I disagree. Sometimes the head of the church possessed it, sometimes he didn’t. God decided through whom and when he would reveal things, and it wasn’t a continuous flow. It is not a requirement.

I would never say “God failed.” I think your view above is a good Catholic view which I do not hold.
Christ died, but death did not prevail over Him since He was resurrected.
Christ’s church apostatized, but apostasy did not prevail over her, since she was restored.

That’s a good LDS view IMO.

That is the LDS view, but I am always struck just how little credit Mormons give to the early Church. To think that Christ would let his Bride, the Church, for whom He died and was resurrected, completely apostatize within one generation is so ludicrous a concept that I can barely fathom how one could entertain the possibility, unless that person desperately needed such a conclusion in order to justify the very existence of their own religion. How can you have so little faith in the early Church that Christ established? How can you possibly believe that it was removed so easily and so early? How little Mormons must think of the early Church. It’s actually pretty sad, and it makes no sense apart from the fact that they need the Church to apostatize in order to justify their own existence.

By the way, Tom, the last time I read your posts you were talking about how much you admired the Eucharist. Have you made any headway along those lines or are you satisfied with the symbolic bread and water you take every Sunday at sacrament meeting? Seems to me you were on the right track to something more than a cheap imitation of the real thing.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Being true is not equivalent to being perfect. We claim that the Book of Mormon is true. That is not equivalent to saying that it is “perfect” in every possible, conceivable, and imaginable way.

zerinus

In what ways is the Book of Mormon less than perfect?

 

[zerinus]

In what ways is the Book of Mormon less than perfect?

It has been transmitted through human agents. Both those who created it originally (the Nephites); as well as those who translated it, copied it, recopied it, typeset it, proof-read it, and printed it were humans; and wherever human agency is involved in the creation and production of anything, a margin of error exists, no matter how small that margin might be.

Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as the “most correct of any [sacred] book”. He did not describe it as a perfect book.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Thank you, soc!

It is sort of a dense read and somewhat difficult for me to break down because of my own limitations. One of those being that, I know little to nothing of Philosophy. But in my opinion, from what I’ve seen, people with a knowledge of Philosophy seem to make wonderful Theologians! I think there must be something to that.

One of the key things I hear in listening to Pope Benedict’s teaching is that Faith and Reason have a common source, which is in God. I believe that if one or the other is frustrated, it is impossible to be truly free. We should - and better said - we must be able to apply reason to our faith. One way to do that is by looking at evidence. We really can look to history and find evidence to support our beliefs. Obviously that adds to our reasoning capabilities. When what we try to accept on faith is constantly challenged by real evidence, lack of any evidence at all, or worse - contradictory evidence, reason becomes frustrated. We should be able to hold up our faith to history and evidence and find something reasonable. But I’m looking mostly at one side of the equation here. The other side of course is what exactly is truth and how do we know it when we find it and how can we put our faith in it? In Christianity, Truth itself is a Person. As Pope Benedict said in his speech, Truth means more than knowledge. "The purpose of knowing the truth is to know what is good. This is also the sense of Socrates’ way of questioning: What good thing makes us true? Truth makes us good and goodness is true. This optimism dwells in the Christian faith because it was allowed to see the Logos, the creative Reason that, in God’s incarnation, revealed itself as that which is Good, as Goodness itself leads to goodness and Christ is Goodness itself’.
…

Tami:

I’m afraid what i have to say will certainly pale in comparison to the wisdom of the Pope, but i will tell you what i know. In Plato’s dialog Euthyphro there are two topics of discussion Socrates has with the religious sage who is taking his own father to court for causing the death of a slave:

1. 
   *]The meaning of piety (or holiness)
   *]The source of piety (or holiness) and wisdom
   Regarding (2) i believe i understand Socrates fully. Regarding (1) i still have no clue. Euthyphro is one of the shortest of the Plato’s dialogs, and also one of the most difficult for me to grasp. If only i had Socrates to ask, or perhaps someone who understands him better than i do! I’ve asked God for wisdom, but so far He has seen fit not to shed light on the words of old Socrates.
   
   Regarding the source of piety and wisdom (2), Socrates does an excellent job of showing that these virtues do not originate with people, nor with the pagan deities. After he asks Euthyphro to define piety (or holiness), and Euthyphro says that piety is what is pleasing to the gods, Socrates asks the following:
   
   Socrates. And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are they of a like nature [to the quarrels of men]?Euthyphro. Certainly they are.Soc. They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honorable and dishonorable. There would be no quarrels among them, if there were no such differences, would there now?Euth. You are quite right.Soc. Does not each party of them love that which they deem noble and just and good, and hate the opposite?Euth. Very true.Soc. But, as you say, one party regards as just the same things as the other thinks unjust–about these they dispute, and so, there are wars and fightings among them.Euth. Very true.Soc. Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?Euth. It appears so.Soc. And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?Euth. So I should suppose.*Soc. *Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious; but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And, therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hesphaestus but unacceptable to Hera, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion.The conclusion, then, is that the pagan gods (just like people) are not wise enough to agree on what is holy, and good, and just, and do not have the wisdom to come to a consensus on what is unholy, evil and inequitable. Therefore, the logical conclusion one might draw from the Socratic dialog is that truth or wisdom must originate from some source outside of the human race and from some authority above the pagan gods.
   
   Socrates does not mention the one who is the source of truth and wisdom in his discussion with the religious authority Euthyro, but he does speak at length about this source, whom he calls his God, to his disciples on the eve of his death in *Phaedo, *which is another one of Plato’s dialogs.
   
   This is why i like to say that, just as John the baptist paved the road for Jesus for the Jewish people, Socrates paved the road for Jesus to the Greek and Roman people.