Pros and Cons of Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andytnm said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Book of Mormon does not teach Mormonism, Andy. It teaches 19th century Protestantism. It is only after accepting the Book of Mormon and joining the church that members are told about the weird doctrines of Mormonism, and only when (and if) they get into the temple that the full horror is exposed.

It is a common bait-and-switch tactic used by dishonest salesmen.

Paul
 
thirdnep11:

Why is it mormons use the book of mormon to support the Bible when they contend that the BoM was given to mankind to clarify the Bible’s purpose. You know: the Bible is “incomplete.” !!!]

And, what is so ASTOUNDINGLY stupid thirdnep11 [sorry, I can’t think of another way to put this] is that those BoM quotes are NOTHING but PARAPHRASES from the Letters in the NT.

mormon exegesis: cure for the common headache:banghead:

You’re great people but you’ve got some goofy ideas!

Robert
 
why_me said:
All religions have goofy ideas. That is what makes religion unique. 👍
Click to expand...
Try reading Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity. Sanity is the opposite of goofy. The truth may be surprising, awesome, marvelous. But it is not goofy. To be sane is to know the truth; to know what is real. So knowing the truth, especially the truth about God, brings us to sanity.

Jesus came so we could know the truth about Him and about us; Creator and creatures. The truth is He loves us. We are made to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him, and to be happy with Him forever. Amazing that the infinite Creator should die for His creatures, who are nothing without Him. Amazing,
 
thirdnep11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What sort of logic is this?

You can speak of good experiences about the LDS church, but you are not allowed to speak of bad experiences?

Its not insulting at all, but what is insulting is to insinuate that people are lying if they speak of their bad experiences. Its also not a road that you want to go down given that the BoM cant be substantiated.

If anything a church should encourage people to speak up about any bad experiences that they may have had, so that they can resolve the situation and fix any wrongs within the church.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
What do you mean, “by the gift and power of God.”
Click to expand...
By the “gif and the power of God” is meant just that, the gift and power of God.
To whom was the gift given . . .
Click to expand...
It was given to Joseph Smith.
. . . and by what means was the power of God manifested?
Click to expand...
The power of God is manifest by the end result, which is the Book of Mormon.

Your question is like somebody saying that Moses parted the Red Sea by the gift and power of God (which is what he actually did); and you asking: “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?” The answer is the same as above. The power was given to Moses, it was made manifest by the parting of the Red Sea, and the “gift and the power of God” is just that, the gift and the power of God. It was a miracle. Both events (the parting of the Red Sea and the translation of the Book of Mormon) were miracles; and you don’t explain a miracle. You just accept it (or you don’t, as the case may be).

zerinus
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
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)
**
🤷
Click to expand...
What do you want me to do for you to help you understand it any better?

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Quote:Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif 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)🤷

​
What do you want me to do for you to help you understand it any better?

zerinus
Click to expand...
Thank you, Zerinus. I do appreciate the time and patience you are devoting for my benefit.

I’m wondering about how, from a human point of view, i should understand spiritual discernment. What i hear you saying (please let me know if i’m mistaken) is that spiritual discernment is that which is not obtain through reason but through the Spirit of God. However, my difficulty is that i know what you believe but not why you believe it. Please let me explain by way of apology why learning why you believe is so important to me:

Lets suppose you are a great hunter in another time when wild animals were not nearing extinction. Lets say that i visit your trophy room and find the heads of a number of the wild beasts you have hunted displayed proudly on your wall. One such trophy is the head of a giraffe. Never seeing a giraffe before, i inquire as to the nature of the beast and you say it is the tallest of all your conquests.

Now me, being the skeptical sort, doubt this, for i have seen horses before, and this head is no bigger than that of a horse, which i know to be much shorter than an elephant, that has a much larger head. I make the mistake in judgment of believing that the larger the head, the taller the creature. In order for me to believe you, you will have to show me more. You have shown me the end of the giraffe, but not the beginning and the middle of it.

This illustrates my dilemma, for you have shown me the end of your belief, which is the conclusion, but you have not shown me the beginning and the middle. That is, you have not shown me the premises with which you start and the rational thought you use to show that the premises support your conclusion. Your conclusion is, to me, like the giraffe head on the wall: i know what you believe but have no idea why.

At this point, i have only your word and no way of determining whether what you say actually true. So, i really want to know the rational reasons why you believe that spiritual discernment requires no rational thought. If i am mistaken and you do not believe this, i’d like to know what you do believe about spiritual discernment and why. Knowing merely what you believe simply does not give me enough information to make up my mind as to whether it is true.

 
why_me said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, that seems a wise course of action, WhyMe. For me, i suppose i must eventually compare the Book of Mormon and other LDS sacred texts to the Bible to see if they contradict one another. If they do, i’d have to look at the evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible and the reliability of the LDS texts to see which has a higher probability of being most worthy of my trust.

Rational and revealed wisdom tells me God cannot contradict Himself. So, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon contradict one another, either one of them is flawed, or they are both flawed. I’d have to do some careful investigation of the evidence to determine the truth about the trustworthiness of each.
 
zerinus said:
By the “gif and the power of God” is meant just that, the gift and power of God.

It was given to Joseph Smith.

The power of God is manifest by the end result, which is the Book of Mormon.

Your question is like somebody saying that Moses parted the Red Sea by the gift and power of God (which is what he actually did); and you asking: “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?” The answer is the same as above. The power was given to Moses, it was made manifest by the parting of the Red Sea, and the “gift and the power of God” is just that, the gift and the power of God. It was a miracle. Both events (the parting of the Red Sea and the translation of the Book of Mormon) were miracles; and you don’t explain a miracle. You just accept it (or you don’t, as the case may be).

zerinus
Click to expand...
Yes, i see what you are saying. However, i’m not asking how God has that power to give the gift; i’m asking how Joseph Smith received that gift.

By way of example, if someone asked me how Moses received the 10 Commandments, i’d say God etched them on stone tablets while he was at the top of Mount Sinai. If someone asked how Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ, i’d say that he received the revelation, in part, when Jesus visited him and spoke to him after rising from the dead. I’m asking what form the gift of God took that He gave to Joseph Smith, or what was the method Joseph Smith applied to receive the gift.
 
My question is, why would Joseph Smith would get another revelation when he had the Holy Bible, and the NT is not only a revelation but Jesus Words and HImself as testimony that we should follow. My best guess is that JS wanted to make his own religion by making his own interpretations and that was done in fraudulent way. If mormons want to be called christians then they must adhere and stick to the original not from a fraud and self described prophet. Please! be sensible. Your rhetorics in diverting the whole meaning of the scriptures are good but not enough to convince me that it shiould mean this way or that way. You also made so many reference to many authors who wrote about scriptures but their knowledge is just proof of their denial of the original. If you think that the scriptures are ambiguous in nature, sorry, we catholics stick to what it is and our traditions.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yes, that seems a wise course of action, WhyMe. For me, i suppose i must eventually compare the Book of Mormon and other LDS sacred texts to the Bible to see if they contradict one another. If they do, i’d have to look at the evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible and the reliability of the LDS texts to see which has a higher probability of being most worthy of my trust.

Rational and revealed wisdom tells me God cannot contradict Himself. So, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon contradict one another, either one of them is flawed, or they are both flawed. I’d have to do some careful investigation of the evidence to determine the truth about the trustworthiness of each.
Click to expand...
You will not see many contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. A lot of the Book of Mormon was directly copied from the Bible and even many of the stories are very similar. The major contradictions are found in the Book of Abraham and the extra scriptural doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, especially after 1840.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yes, i see what you are saying. However, i’m not asking how God has that power to give the gift; i’m asking how Joseph Smith received that gift.

By way of example, if someone asked me how Moses received the 10 Commandments, i’d say God etched them on stone tablets while he was at the top of Mount Sinai. If someone asked how Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ, i’d say that he received the revelation, in part, when Jesus visited him and spoke to him after rising from the dead. I’m asking what form the gift of God took that He gave to Joseph Smith, or what was the method Joseph Smith applied to receive the gift.
Click to expand...
Some miraculous events can be described in this way, but others can’t be. If I asked you to explain to me how Moses received the gift to divide the Red sea, what would your answer be?

zerinus
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Thank you, Zerinus. I do appreciate the time and patience you are devoting for my benefit.

I’m wondering about how, from a human point of view, i should understand spiritual discernment. What i hear you saying (please let me know if i’m mistaken) is that spiritual discernment is that which is not obtain through reason but through the Spirit of God. However, my difficulty is that i know what you believe but not why you believe it. Please let me explain by way of apology why learning why you believe is so important to me:

Lets suppose you are a great hunter in another time when wild animals were not nearing extinction. Lets say that i visit your trophy room and find the heads of a number of the wild beasts you have hunted displayed proudly on your wall. One such trophy is the head of a giraffe. Never seeing a giraffe before, i inquire as to the nature of the beast and you say it is the tallest of all your conquests.

Now me, being the skeptical sort, doubt this, for i have seen horses before, and this head is no bigger than that of a horse, which i know to be much shorter than an elephant, that has a much larger head. I make the mistake in judgment of believing that the larger the head, the taller the creature. In order for me to believe you, you will have to show me more. You have shown me the end of the giraffe, but not the beginning and the middle of it.

This illustrates my dilemma, for you have shown me the end of your belief, which is the conclusion, but you have not shown me the beginning and the middle. That is, you have not shown me the premises with which you start and the rational thought you use to show that the premises support your conclusion. Your conclusion is, to me, like the giraffe head on the wall: i know what you believe but have no idea why.

At this point, i have only your word and no way of determining whether what you say actually true. So, i really want to know the rational reasons why you believe that spiritual discernment requires no rational thought. If i am mistaken and you do not believe this, i’d like to know what you do believe about spiritual discernment and why. Knowing merely what you believe simply does not give me enough information to make up my mind as to whether it is true.

http://www.newportnauticaldecor.com/img/catimg/thumb/ba-kcha100g.jpg
Click to expand...
The answer to that I should have thought was obvious from the premise we started with, i.e. 1 Corinthians 2:14. You can only see the head of the giraffe with your natural eye. The rest of his body can only be seen with your spiritual eyes. As long as your spiritual eyes are closed, you cannot see it. You are insisting that I should make it visible to your natural eyes. That is an impossibility. It cannot be done. The question you want to ask is, what do I have to do to have my spiritual eyes opened to be able to see it?—not insist that I should make it visible to your natural eyes.

Let me quote you something interesting that Jesus said to the Jews. They too seemed to have difficulty accepting, or believing, what He told them. This is the reply that He gave them: “If any man will do his [God’s] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). The secret of knowing, understanding, or accepting God’s truth is to “do His will”. When you do that, God will open your eyes to be able to see it. In the absence of that, we will remain in the dark, and will know nothing.

zerinus
 
rikkk1958 said:
If mormons want to be called christians then they must adhere and stick to the original not from a fraud and self described prophet. Please! be sensible.
Click to expand...
Their problem is that the Book of Mormon is the foundation of their faith. Therefore, in order to continue being Mormon they are stuck with their view of the Book of Mormon as being sacred scripture. Since it has been refuted from many directions, they only have two choices: either their numbers will erode until they no longer exist, or they will do as the RLDS have done; demote the BOM from sacred scripture status, and change their name. Some, like Tom, will ignore the BOM, but that strategy is a dead end, for legal reasons that I do not care to explain here.
 
Elric said:
If anything a church should encourage people to speak up about any bad experiences that they may have had, so that they can resolve the situation and fix any wrongs within the church.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that the reason for that is that the LDS don’t believe that God forgives sin. Therefore they hide, cover over, and whitewash, both as individuals and as an organization.
 
TOmNossor said:
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).
Click to expand...
I know of no other kind of public revelation than “supernatural.” I totally agree with you here for I am fully aware of the Catholic position on the completeness of public revelation. I was referring to how God revealed things to the Old Testament prophets and the early New Testament Church. My point was that God chooses when and whom to reveal to (and Catholics still accept private revelation). But it was never a constant flow throughout salvation history within the Jewish religion or the early Christian Church, therefore I do not accept that new revelation must be a requirement for genuine authority.
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.
Click to expand...
You don’t really think Paul was a member of the 12 do you? He didn’t even consider himself a member of the 12, but an apostle nonetheless. How could he be an apostle but not a member of the 12? I know this is an impossibility to LDS, but that’s not a Catholic problem.
Actually, all members of the 12 and the first presidency are sustained as prophet’s seer and revelators.
Click to expand...
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.

I am totally aware of this claim, but until you can show me a recorded LDS public revelation given to someone other than the sitting prophet that the church put forth to its members as scripture, I cannot accept your comparison to how things worked in the early church. No, in the early church God used different people for different purposes. All the revelation clearly did not come from the one leader, but from numerous people chosen by God. The Church ultimately canonized the revelation as scripture. That is a huge difference with how the LDS Church works today.
This is the view espoused by Catholic apologists, but rejected quite often within scholarly writings including by Catholics.
Click to expand...
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.

Because the Catholic Church is so large, I am also aware that within you can probably find somewhere whatever support you want for whatever conclusion you want. I’m more interested in what the Magisterium of the Church has to say, not an individual priest scholar. That’s like me quoting something from Joe-blow Mormon scholar down the street in oder to disprove a teaching of John Paul the Great.
 
Jerusha said:
I would suggest that the reason for that is that the LDS don’t believe that God forgives sin. Therefore they hide, cover over, and whitewash, both as individuals and as an organization.
Click to expand...
Not true. The lds do believe that god forgives sin. But they don’t have to go to the bishop to confess venial sins. They can just ask god for forgiveness and attempt to be just a little more holier the next time.

I see no hiding, cover over and whitewashing.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yes, that seems a wise course of action, WhyMe. For me, i suppose i must eventually compare the Book of Mormon and other LDS sacred texts to the Bible to see if they contradict one another. If they do, i’d have to look at the evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible and the reliability of the LDS texts to see which has a higher probability of being most worthy of my trust.

Rational and revealed wisdom tells me God cannot contradict Himself. So, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon contradict one another, either one of them is flawed, or they are both flawed. I’d have to do some careful investigation of the evidence to determine the truth about the trustworthiness of each.
Click to expand...
That’s a good idea. What you will find is that the BoM is essentially in agreement with the Protestant version of biblical understanding. A large portion of the BoM is taken right out of the bible itself. Other than the claim that ancient Israelites came to the Americas and established advanced civilizations that left no evidence of their existence, you will not find the peculiar Mormon doctrines in the BoM. Now when you compare the Doctrine and Covenants with the bible, things will get weird very quickly. Mormons will always defer to the BoM or the Doctrine and Covenants over the bible. They will deny it, but in daily use the bible is on a lower pedestal because in their view it has been corrupted over the centuries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top