Pros and Cons of Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zerinus said:
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
Click to expand...
Thank you, Zerinus.

Has the Book of Mormon been translated from ancient manuscripts, as has the Bible, or from some other source?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
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.
Click to expand...

  1. Fascinating, soc! This is the first I have ever read any of this. I appreciate you sharing it with me. I am almost afraid to respond at all though, other than to say thank you, because this is so far out of my realm but…

    if I am understanding correctly, Socrates himself realizes the need for a true religion, where truth cannot (or will not) contradict itself and that God Himself is Truth? That sounds like a biblical understanding of our Lord Jesus Christ to me! I can see why you say you believe that Socrates paved the way for Christ for the Greek and Roman people. 🙂

    As to the meaning of piety or holiness, does that not take us right back to God Himself? Am I being overly simplistic? :o

    Again, don’t worry about answering soon. Unless you feel inspired to do so. 😉 Either way… I’ll be around. 🙂

    God bless.
    Tami
 
Jersua:
*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. *
So it would seem that now you are questioning my moral character.
Also, I have met both Bushman and Givens. I assure you that they would be surprised to find that they are about to be ex-ed if they say what they think. In addition to this, they do not consider themselves “on the outer fringes.” I am pretty sure Bushman is the Stake Patriarch. You absolutely do not know what you are talking about.
Have your read Givens and Bushman?
Jersua:
Do you really think you can make that judgment?
I have devoted considerable time to assessing the available evidence. I have come across folks like you who think Bushman and Givens are on the “outer fringes” for some reason.
It is my opinion that I am better informed on these issues than you are, so at least relative to many folk, am much better situated to make that judgment.

Also, I am just quoting 2 of the 4 or 5 evangelical scholars who have paid enough attention to Mormonism that their opinion is worth noting. So I stand on LDS and non-LDS shoulders when I say that you are losing the battle and you do not know it.
Jersua:
I never said that
I withdraw my falling apart comment.
You really should read Mosser and Owen’s paper. They specifically deal with two of the arguments you offer here. They explain that your view is popular, but unfounded.
Here is the link:
http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html
Charity, TOm
 
zerinus said:
Hebrew

zerinus
Click to expand...
It was supposedly recorded in reformed Egyptian to save space though, right? But I read somewhere that Hebrew is actually a very compact language and should have been a better much choice than hieroglyphics of any kind.
 
zerinus said:
It was translated from an ancient manuscript by the gift and power of God.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Actually, it wasn’t translated from a manuscript, at all. The LDS have always taught he translated them from gold plates which were taken back after he was finished. Convenient, no one ever saw them, except through “spiritual eyes”, then they’re taken away, so no one can ever examine them. Then, we have to take Joseph Smith’s word for it, that his story is true.
 
mjf001 said:
Actually, it wasn’t translated from a manuscript, at all. The LDS have always taught he translated them from gold plates which were taken back after he was finished. Convenient, no one ever saw them, except through “spiritual eyes”, then they’re taken away, so no one can ever examine them. Then, we have to take Joseph Smith’s word for it, that his story is true.
Click to expand...
This “no one ever saw them except through, ‘spiritual eyes’” is a fair tale that many folks wish was true.
Add to this the fact that a number of folks claim to have experienced them, through other PHYSICAL MEANS and you are left with an almost certainty that there were in fact plates.
mormanity.blogspot.com/2006/09/did-witnesses-actually-see-plates-with.html

Some critics have turned from the “spiritual eyes” idea to plates made of various materials.
Some critics postulate that the BOM fraud was a huge conspiracy by multiple folks.

I find the witnesses to be a definite strong point for the BOM.
Charity, TOm
 
Chris-WA said:
No I do not. You keep equating “ability” with “authority.” The pope possesses the same authority
Click to expand...
as Peter to lead the Church. As I’ve said before, that has nothing to do with the ability to receive revelation from God
I accept that correction. Sorry.
Chris-WA said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you have noted that I specifically speak of “supernatural public revelation” then your above statement is in opposition to Catholic teaching. No Catholic claims that any person, including the Pope can receive supernatural public revelation. Catholics specifically claim that there is to be no more and will be no more (presumably until Christ returns).
Chris-WA said:
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?
Click to expand...
LDS would generally view Paul as one of the twelve, but if I were Catholic, I would lean away from including him within the twelve.
Actually, all members of the 12 and the first presidency are sustained as prophet’s seer and revelators. Nothing would come out without the approval and seal of the president, but there are certainly times when councilors receive the guidance from God for direction of His church, and I have received specific council from a member of the twelve (in a Stake leadership meeting or something) in which we were told that this was how things worked.
Chris-WA said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the view espoused by Catholic apologists, but rejected quite often within scholarly writings including by Catholics.
Clements letter to the Corinthians is not an example of Roman Primacy and according to Father Francis Sullivan, Clement was most like a member of a group of presbyters who lead the Roman church and not a mono-episcopal bishop.

I will need to go over the rest of you post later.
Charity, TOm
 
so christ had 12 apostles but the LDS have 15 and that’s a restoration?
 
truthsilence said:
…
if I am understanding correctly, Socrates himself realizes the need for a true religion, where truth cannot (or will not) contradict itself and that God Himself is Truth? That sounds like a biblical understanding of our Lord Jesus Christ to me! I can see why you say you believe that Socrates paved the way for Christ for the Greek and Roman people. 🙂
…
Click to expand...
I do not want to give the false impression that Socrates understood God the same way Roman Catholics do. Rationally, Socrates was able to discern that there must be a God who is greater than all the pagan gods because He is the source of all wisdom and truth. Rationally, he also discerned that souls are reincarnated again, and again, and again, until they reach a sufficient understanding of truth and wisdom.

Socrates did not understand what you or i understand, that:

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

(Hebrews 9:27-28)

The lesson i glean from this is that someone cannot obtain the full truth about God and the way to heaven by reason alone. One also needs the revelation that we have in the Bible. As Isaiah wrote:

Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.

(Isaiah 45:15)

There are some things about God and how to know Him, not only for time but for eternity, that you or i cannot grasp unless He reveals it to us. The question is, how does he reveal it to us? To me, it appears that the clearest and best way to receive such revelation is through reading the Word of God. As our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ prayed for us:

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

(John 17:17)

So, yes, use reason as much as you are able, for loving God with rational thought is part of the greatest commandment:

Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

(Matthew 22:37-40)

But do not neglect the word of God. Read the Bible and pray for wisdom from the Bible every day. The Word should be the song by wich we live.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

(Colossians 3:16)

I believe He wanted me to tell you, Tami. 🙂
 
zerinus said:
It was translated from an ancient manuscript by the gift and power of God.

zerinus
Click to expand...
What do you mean, “by the gift and power of God.” To whom was the gift given and by what means was the power of God manifested?
 
why_me said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, WhyMe, i’m not questioning Joseph Smith’s character; i’m asking if you believe he perfectly recorded the words of God in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (i’m assuming he was the one who recored the original autograph of each of these documents).
 
Zerinus:

Should i assume that you do not desire to help me understand the meaning of this passage?

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
**
🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
I do not want to give the false impression that Socrates understood God the same way Roman Catholics do. Rationally, Socrates was able to discern that there must be a God who is greater than all the pagan gods because He is the source of all wisdom and truth. Rationally, he also discerned that souls are reincarnated again, and again, and again, until they reach a sufficient understanding of truth and wisdom.

Socrates did not understand what you or i understand, that:

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

(Hebrews 9:27-28)

The lesson i glean from this is that someone cannot obtain the full truth about God and the way to heaven by reason alone. One also needs the revelation that we have in the Bible. As Isaiah wrote:

Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.

(Isaiah 45:15)

There are some things about God and how to know Him, not only for time but for eternity, that you or i cannot grasp unless He reveals it to us. The question is, how does he reveal it to us? To me, it appears that the clearest and best way to receive such revelation is through reading the Word of God. As our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ prayed for us:

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

(John 17:17)

So, yes, use reason as much as you are able, for loving God with rational thought is part of the greatest commandment:

Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

(Matthew 22:37-40)

But do not neglect the word of God. Read the Bible and pray for wisdom from the Bible every day. The Word should be the song by wich we live.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

(Colossians 3:16)

I believe He wanted me to tell you, Tami. 🙂
Click to expand...
Soc,

You are listening. Of that I am completely convinced.

I’m sitting here with my husband watching the movie Cast Away and right before I came here to see your reply I told him I need to be reading the Bible instead of watching this movie. In the short term I’ve been inspired to read through the NT as part of my Lenten devotions. In the long term, I know I need to read His word from the Bible daily and pray for wisdom, as you have advised me to. Reality is, I know I have finally found where God was leading me, in communion with the Catholic Church, and the truth is, I’m still just a baby in Christ.

Thank you, soc.

BTW, you didn’t give any false impressions. I’m sure I was just looking at the words of Socrates and seeing God through my own Christian eyes.

Tami
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yes, WhyMe, i’m not questioning Joseph Smith’s character; i’m asking if you believe he perfectly recorded the words of God in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (i’m assuming he was the one who recored the original autograph of each of these documents).
Click to expand...
That is not an easy question. I would say that a mormon would say: yes, he did. A catholic would say: he made it all up. One is right and one is wrong. We all need to choose which is it. I see nothing to doubt his prophethood at this time. But I always leave the door a little open.
 
I would like to share my personal feelings about why Mormons are Christian. It is simple our faith and our salvation is founded upon the rock of Jesus Christ and not on Joseph Smith.
Joseph himself authored the Articles of Faith to answer the question of what do the mormons believe. It is here we will find the beginning of our answer.
3. “We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved…”
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.
Should you chose to read all the articles of faith you will find that Joseph does not mention himself once. He instead reiterates the importance of Christ.
Were this not enough please note a scripture or two from the Book of Mormon;
Helaman 5:9 “O remember, remember, my sons the words which King Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ…”
Helaman 5:12 “And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation…”
It is true that investigators are asked to pray for a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. This is because it is first and foremost a testimony of Jesus Christ and His divinity. Second it is a testimony of the divine ordination of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
I fully understand the concerns of critics when they read about people having to pass by Joseph Smith to enter into heaven. Let me give a simple answer. The Bible teaches (and therefore we believe) that the men who are in authority during given periods of history shall be responsible for judging the people who lived during their time ie; Moses will judge the people he lead, The Apostles of Old will judge the early Church and likewise Joseph will judge those of his dispensation.
I truly wish that people would stop sharing their own personal horror stories about other churches. There is no way for any of us to substantiate our claims, and it is truly insulting for a non-LDS, even an individual who was once a member and has since left the church, to propagate their own personal interpretations/opinions on what the church taught/teaches as though it should stand as a testimony against the church itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top