Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

I know of no other kind of public revelation than “supernatural.” … 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 …

“Supernatural Public Revelation” is my term to allow for what IMO is obvious within the trajectory of Catholic development. As Newman points out the Maxim of St. Vincent De Lerins is not sufficient to chart the march of Christian development. Sometimes views held by few emerge as dominant. The discussions and results of General Councils appear to those outside of Catholicism as connected little to God’s guidance. (I would go so far as to say that from my study of the data available the things that happen in councils appear less divinely sanctioned than the LDS extension of the priesthood that critics almost universally claim was done in response to societal pressure. I think the evidence for divine interaction in the LDS priesthood decision is stronger than for General Councils). All that being said, where I Catholic I would believe that General Councils were guided by a form of “natural public revelation.” To me there is no other Catholic choice because the data demands that if they are 100% God’s will, they must have been guided by God because the best read of pre-council Tradition would not always get you the council conclusion.
So “supernatural public revelation” as compared to “natural public revelation” is my attempt to create a space in which I could be a Catholic and understand history as a Catholic.

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.

This is not what I claim actually. I claim that when the fullness of God’s authority leads God’s church then supernatural public revelation is available.

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.

I would not agree that Paul did not consider himself a member of the 12, at least ultimately. Paul is quite interesting. At times humbly declaring that he was less than the 12. At other times suggesting that the more senior Apostles had no authority over him.

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.

Section 102 was not delivered solely to Joseph Smith. Same concerning Section 134.
Most obvious however is Section 135 which is written by Elder John Taylor (long before he became prophet).
Brigham Young received Section 136 before he was the President of the Church.
I personally have studied OD1 only a little, but OD2 was a joint revelation to all the highest leaders of the church. It was not written solely (I do not think even mostly, but in truth I do not know much nor think much is knowable about this) by Pres Kimball, and was delivered by President Tanner.

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.

The thing about Joe-blow Mormon scholar down the street is that faithful LDS scholars (who you and I also call apologists) have by my observations dealt with the data offered by those who write foundationally critical things about the church. Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Robert Sungenis, (perhaps most importantly in this context Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess) are either ignorant of the data or intentionally leave it out of their apologetic presentations. The LDS apologist IMO is on the leading edge of these discussions as they relate to the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. The type of dialogue that occurred in England among Newman, Pusey, and Darby was this leading edge stuff; but Catholic apologist by my observation have retreated to platitudes about Clement to the Corinthians. Father Francis Sullivan may be most similar to Richard Bushman in his semi-matter-of-fact way he presents issues, but I had read and discussed all of Bushman’s issues before Bushman wrote them. I do not see such discussions within Catholic apologetic circles.
Charity, TOm

 

[zerinus]

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 meaningless statement, and not true.

A large portion of the BoM is taken right out of the bible itself.

Not true. The Book of Mormon contains verbatim quotes of several chapters of the Isaiah at the beginning of it, and a few more passages from Micah and Malachi later on in the book; but these form a very small proportion of the book. The Bible also contains direct quotes from itself. The books of 1 and 2 Kings are for the most part identical to 1 and 2 Chronicles. Many identical phrases are shared between the Prophets and the Psalms. In the NT, the books of Mathew, Mark, and Luke contain much identical material between them. They also give verbatim quotes from the OT.

The Book of Mormon is an original book. Nobody who reads all of it with any intelligence will come to any other conclusion.

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.

The Book of Mormon is one of the sacred texts of the Church. We never deny that we possess other sacred texts through which God has revealed much additional knowledge to the Church.

Now when you compare the Doctrine and Covenants with the bible, things will get weird very quickly.

That is your opinion.

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.

Not true.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Not true. The Book of Mormon contains verbatim quotes of several chapters of the Isaiah at the beginning of it, and a few more passages from Micah and Malachi later on in the book; but these form a very small proportion of the book. The Bible also contains direct quotes from itself. The books of 1 and 2 Kings are for the most part identical to 1 and 2 Chronicles. Many identical phrases are shared between the Prophets and the Psalms. In the NT, the books of Mathew, Mark, and Luke contain much identical material between them. They also give verbatim quotes from the OT.

The Book of Mormon is an original book. Nobody who reads all of it with any intelligence will come to any other conclusion.

zerinus

Don’t forget Moroni 7:45, which is a shameless plagiarism of 1 Cor 13:4-6.

Paul

 

[thirdnep11]

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

I was quoting the BOM in order to support the true teachings of the church regarding the supremacy of christ over joseph smith and to show that christ is the foundation of our faith since some would contend that he is not…
It is not stupid that the BOM mirrors the Bible, it is in fact evidence that it is the same God speaking in two different books. To be completely honest I do not need to quote the BOM in order to support my faith in the church, the vast majority of the doctrines of the church are found in the Bible.

 

[thirdnep11]

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.

My point is that debating the truthfulness of any church based on the subjective experiences of individuals is pointless. I don’t like to bring up the recent problems the Catholic church has had with inappropriate behavior between Clergy and children, but this is a great example. I do not count these things against the Catholic church.
I believe the foundation of any discussion regarding doctrine should be the scriptures. I could just as easily falsify my positive opinion of the church as you could your negative. If we are to discuss whether Mormons are christian it should be based on the written teachings of the church not on subjective experiences.

 

[thirdnep11]

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.

Are you honestly insinuating that an uneducated and destitute 13yr old boy had aspirations of creating his own church?
Joseph had neither the education nor the means to “write” the BOM. Not to mention the persecution he endured from age 13-17 prior to bringing forth the BOM.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was quoting the BOM in order to support the true teachings of the church regarding the supremacy of christ over joseph smith and to show that christ is the foundation of our faith since some would contend that he is not…
It is not stupid that the BOM mirrors the Bible, it is in fact evidence that it is the same God speaking in two different books. To be completely honest I do not need to quote the BOM in order to support my faith in the church, the vast majority of the doctrines of the church are found in the Bible.

Let’s see, a record supposedly written centuries before the KJV of the Bible was produced, contains many direct quotes from said Bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My point is that debating the truthfulness of any church based on the subjective experiences of individuals is pointless. I don’t like to bring up the recent problems the Catholic church has had with inappropriate behavior between Clergy and children, but this is a great example. I do not count these things against the Catholic church.
I believe the foundation of any discussion regarding doctrine should be the scriptures. I could just as easily falsify my positive opinion of the church as you could your negative. If we are to discuss whether Mormons are christian it should be based on the written teachings of the church not on subjective experiences.

You believe that personal testimony is irrelevant? Are you sure about that?

As for that question, are Mormons Christian, the answer is of course NO. And that answer is not subjective, unless of course you are a mormon, then the question itself is highly subjective.

 

[Andytnm]

I just wanted to add that the Book of Mormon might have similar phrases because it comes from the same God who inspired the men in the Bible. But most of it is not verbatim to the bible. You should also look at the context when the BoM quotes Isaiah. The prophet Nephi is actually quoting Isaiah. Read for yourself the book instead of what someone else wrote about the book.

 

[Elric]

My point is that debating the truthfulness of any church based on the subjective experiences of individuals is pointless.

Why is that pointless?

I don’t like to bring up the recent problems the Catholic church has had with inappropriate behavior between Clergy and children, but this is a great example. I do not count these things against the Catholic church.

Well aside from your implied insult to those that were molested (with the whole “subjective” thing), its actually a good example of why you should listen to peoples experiences. I count these things against the cathloic church, but I also count how they handle these things and how they resolve and atone for what happened.

These individuals exposed something that was very wrong in the cathloic church by sharing their experiences, they also exposed another wrong when those experiences were initially covered up by those in power at the time and the priests who did these acts were unpunished and in cases continued to molest children.

Eventually these wrongs were found out and now the cathloic church is trying to repair the damage that was done, take steps to ensure this doesnt happen again and offer help to the victims that were involved (I dont agree with some of the actions that they have taken, like going to court over compensation for the victims, but at least they are doing something).

All this because of the “subjective experiences of individuals”.

I believe the foundation of any discussion regarding doctrine should be the scriptures.

That helps, but you also have to consider how they follow that scripture (or IF they follow that scripture) and how individuals (who make up the church) are treated by that church and representives of that church.

I could just as easily falsify my positive opinion of the church as you could your negative.

You could, but does that mean that everyone is a liar?

Does that mean that anyone that speaks about church experiences is not telling the truth?

Its not exactly charitable to automatically assume or say that they are liars. That kind of stance doesnt exactly help your church.

If we are to discuss whether Mormons are christian it should be based on the written teachings of the church not on subjective experiences.

Actually it should be based on both. But if you want to discuss scripture, I guess that we can do that.

 

[Chris-WA]

“Supernatural Public Revelation” is my term to allow for what IMO is obvious within the trajectory of Catholic development. As Newman points out the Maxim of St. Vincent De Lerins is not sufficient to chart the march of Christian development. Sometimes views held by few emerge as dominant. The discussions and results of General Councils appear to those outside of Catholicism as connected little to God’s guidance. (I would go so far as to say that from my study of the data available the things that happen in councils appear less divinely sanctioned than the LDS extension of the priesthood that critics almost universally claim was done in response to societal pressure. I think the evidence for divine interaction in the LDS priesthood decision is stronger than for General Councils). All that being said, where I Catholic I would believe that General Councils were guided by a form of “natural public revelation.” To me there is no other Catholic choice because the data demands that if they are 100% God’s will, they must have been guided by God because the best read of pre-council Tradition would not always get you the council conclusion.
So “supernatural public revelation” as compared to “natural public revelation” is my attempt to create a space in which I could be a Catholic and understand history as a Catholic.

I see what you’re getting at, but I would not make that distinction myself. Revelation is revelation is revelation. Revelation comes from God and is thus supernatural in every case. It can come in many forms such as an actual appearance by Christ or through an angel or by the still small voice. But each one is supernatural. The only distinction I would make is public revelation (meant for and binding on the whole Church) versus private revelation (meant for the individual and not binding upon the whole Church).

I would not agree that Paul did not consider himself a member of the 12, at least ultimately. Paul is quite interesting. At times humbly declaring that he was less than the 12. At other times suggesting that the more senior Apostles had no authority over him.

But in all of his writings, does he ever make a claim to be a member of the 12? No. This is quite a curiosity given the huge amount of material he wrote. I’m not aware of anyone who claims he was a member of the 12, other than LDS (although I’m sure you can dig up a Catholic scholar somewhere who does). Scripture does not support his membership in that organization. It’s only because the LDS retroactively apply their organizational structure upon the early Church that this idea is forced. Wouldn’t there reasonably be more data from scripture and history to support this claim?

The thing about Joe-blow Mormon scholar down the street is that faithful LDS scholars (who you and I also call apologists) have by my observations dealt with the data offered by those who write foundationally critical things about the church. Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Robert Sungenis, (perhaps most importantly in this context Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess) are either ignorant of the data or intentionally leave it out of their apologetic presentations. The LDS apologist IMO is on the leading edge of these discussions as they relate to the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. The type of dialogue that occurred in England among Newman, Pusey, and Darby was this leading edge stuff; but Catholic apologist by my observation have retreated to platitudes about Clement to the Corinthians. Father Francis Sullivan may be most similar to Richard Bushman in his semi-matter-of-fact way he presents issues, but I had read and discussed all of Bushman’s issues before Bushman wrote them. I do not see such discussions within Catholic apologetic circles.

I enjoy reading Catholic apologists very much. My favorite is Dr. Scott Hahn. But if I’m going to get into a discussion with somebody from another religion, I will generally stick to sources that I know are Church approved or at least from the highest levels of the magisterium. I will compare that to what Mormon prophets and/or general authorities have to say. That way I avoid getting into this apologist-vs-that apologist type debates when I don’t even know whether those apologists necessarily speak for their respective churches. It makes for great background study, but if I want to know what the LDS really believe or teach, I will tend to stick with their leaders rather than what a BYU professor has to say. (That BYU professor may end up losing his/her job anyway if they publish anything that contradicts the teachings of the prophets.)

 

[RC_Matt]

If we are to discuss whether Mormons are christian it should be based on the written teachings of the church not on subjective experiences.

I totally agree with you. Problem for you guys, assuming you want to be considered Christians, is that those teachings clearly indicate that Mormonism is NOT a Christian faith. You can consider yourselves Christians, and that’s fine, but you can’t expect many Christians who have more than a superficial knowledge of Mormon dogma to agree with you. That’s not by any means a criticism, it’s simply a statement of fact; I am unaware of any Christian church which considers the Mormon baptism to be valid.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

There are different kinds of knowing and different kinds of knowledge, so i think you Zerinus must be exaggerating, or careless, when you say that a person who does not do God’s will “will remain in the dark, and will know nothing.”

Most atheists, for example, do not seek to do God’s will, as they balk at the idea of there being a god. Yet they know something. Even they understand that 1 + 1 = 2, and that the letter A is a vowel, and that the moon revolves around the earth, and that matter is made up of atoms. So, when you say that a person who does not obey God knows nothing, i do not think you mean that such a rebellious person is ignorant of all knowledge.

What sort of knowledge, then, has obedience to God as its prerequisite?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

I would say Moses did his best, but God did the rest. He held up his staff, as God commanded. Only God parted the Red Sea.

Moses lifted his staff so that God would part the Red Sea. What specific act did Joseph Smith do to receive the words of the Book of Mormon from God, Zerinus?

 

[zerinus]

I totally agree with you. Problem for you guys, assuming you want to be considered Christians, is that those teachings clearly indicate that Mormonism is NOT a Christian faith.

You have got the whole thing the wrong way round. What you call “Christian faith” is actually Apostate Christian faith, and of course we are not of that Apostate faith. You have also got it all wrong that we want to “be considered Christians,” by which you mean your variety of Apostate Christianity. We have no desire to be considered such. We are the only true form of Christianity. Apostate Christianity is not true Christianity.

You can consider yourselves Christians, and that’s fine, but you can’t expect many Christians who have more than a superficial knowledge of Mormon dogma to agree with you.

You mean many Apostate Christians. Agreed! We have not desire to consider ourselves an offshoot of that Apostate Christianity. LDS is a Restoration of the original true form of Christianity, hence it is the only true Christianity around.

That’s not by any means a criticism, it’s simply a statement of fact; I am unaware of any Christian church which considers the Mormon baptism to be valid.

You mean “Apostate Christian church”. Agreed! Remember, we did not consider their baptisms valid long before they decided to retaliate by not considering ours. We do not consider their baptisms valid because they are not a true form of Christianity. Apostate Christianity is not Christianity. There is only one true form of Christianity in the world, and that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have no desire to be “considered” a part of Apostate Christianity.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

That’s excellent, Tami! I can think of no better way to get closer to Jesus than to read, and pray, and then obey what He says is best for you.

Pick a book of the Bible you like best, keep your place with a bookmark, and read it from the first chapter to the last, even if just a little each day. My favorites are the Gospel of John and the Psalms, but they’re all good!

Don’t forget to ask God to show you what He wants you to know:

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

*(James 1:5)*I think your hubby might be pleasantly surprised at how loving a wife Jesus helps you become as you spend time with Him.

Blessings to you,

Soc

 

[zerinus]

There are different kinds of knowing and different kinds of knowledge, so i think you Zerinus must be exaggerating, or careless, when you say that a person who does not do God’s will “will remain in the dark, and will know nothing.”

Most atheists, for example, do not seek to do God’s will, as they balk at the idea of there being a god. Yet they know something. Even they understand that 1 + 1 = 2, and that the letter A is a vowel, and that the moon revolves around the earth, and that matter is made up of atoms. So, when you say that a person who does not obey God knows nothing, i do not think you mean that such a rebellious person is ignorant of all knowledge.

What sort of knowledge, then, has obedience to God as its prerequisite?

Now that is a bit disingenuous. I was speaking in the context of what Jesus had said. Jesus was not talking about mathematics. Go back and read my post more carefully, and you will have your question answered.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I would say Moses did his best, but God did the rest. He held up his staff, as God commanded. Only God parted the Red Sea.

Moses lifted his staff so that God would part the Red Sea. What specific act did Joseph Smith do to receive the words of the Book of Mormon from God, Zerinus?

Why did Moses have to “lift up his staff so that God would part the sea”? Seems a silly thing for him to have to do!

zerinus

 

[TOmNossor]

I see what you’re getting at, but I would not make that distinction myself. Revelation is revelation is revelation. Revelation comes from God and is thus supernatural in every case. It can come in many forms such as an actual appearance by Christ or through an angel or by the still small voice. But each one is supernatural. The only distinction I would make is public revelation (meant for and binding on the whole Church) versus private revelation (meant for the individual and not binding upon the whole Church).

I do not know exactly which direction you are going. First, I included the “public” to acknowledge that Catholics do not reject that “private” revelation can occur.

The most clear thing I can read from your reply to my examples associated with the development of Christian doctrine is that you are suggesting that Councils were governed in some way by private revelation. It might be possible to suggest that individual bishops were inspired in x or y direction, but I just do not see how this in toto can be viewed as the guiding force that explains what I claim to see in the navigation through 21 councils to modern Christian doctrine.
Alternatively you may question what I claim to clearly see (though you surely did not in your reply). If this is the course you take, you would be suggesting that no form of revelation is associated with the perfect and infallible course charted by the Catholic Church through 21 infallible decisions. This in my opinion is radically foreign to what I observe in that the course was far from obvious based upon the council preceding histories.
I am interested in what you meant, but I suspect I will still be in the same boat (and if I have energy I may offer reasons you should get in the boat I have made even though there are problems with it too). If I were Catholic I would need to believe that while there was no continuation of supernatural public revelation, there was a “natural public revelation” that guided the authority of the Catholic Church to perfectly negotiate 21 councils.

Charity, TOm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Now that is a bit disingenuous. I was speaking in the context of what Jesus had said. Jesus was not talking about mathematics. Go back and read my post more carefully, and you will have your question answered.

zerinus

No disingenousness intended, Zerinus. I merely did not comprehend fully what you were trying to say.

Regarding Jesus, i understand Him to be saying to His critics that He was sent by God. The Jewish religious authorities were divided regarding this, as some believed the miracles He did were of the devil, and others said they were genuine miracles of God. The writings of the ancient Jewish rabbis also make many claims that Jesus received His powers from Satan.

Would you say, then, that those who disobeyed God did not believe Jesus was sent by God the Father, but only those who obeyed God believed He was indeed sent by God the Father?