Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[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?

I am saying nothing more or less than what Jesus had said: “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). “Doctrine” means teaching. In other words, those who wanted to know if His teaching, or message, came from God or not, if they were of the kind that did God’s will, they would know. How they would know it doesn’t say. It just says that they would know. And I am not going to take it any further than that.

zerinus

 

[TOmNossor]

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?

Very few members of the 12 claim to be members of the 12 in their writings or otherwise. We have the singular event in which Judas was replaced and only a few other references to 12. Yet, we have about 17 – 19 folks (if I remember correctly) called apostles in the New Testament. There is no explicit reason to view these folks in the way the Catholic should as opposed to the way the non-Catholic might. The very popular bit of LDS apologetics “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” is not without merit.
There are many Catholics who seem to take the Bible at its word and recognize Paul as an apostle, but a good Catholic apologist IMO cannot do this. If the apostles had successors who were apostles this make the who bishops as successors of the apostles problematic. So the Catholic must speak of the original 12 and the singular replacement to address Judas. Still this is not clear in the Bible.

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.)

I am going to make two quick points and then try to offer you a list of things you can think about.
#1 LDS (like the very early church) do not choose leaders with formal theological training. If you chose to avoid the faithful witness of LDS scholars because they are scholars and not leaders you will never be able to compare scholarship at the highest level to scholarship at the highest level.
#2 Catholics worship Mary! There may be responses to this charge in some material produced by a past Pope or something, but it is certainly something that your average LDS / Catholic came to grips with because of the arguments offered by Catholic apologists. Some things church leaders seldom (or never in a few LDS apologetic cases) deal with. Are you going to tell me that you either do not know the Catholic apologetic response to this charge or that you learned it from a Papal Bull or Council Decree? I would be shocked.
I will continue with some issues that I think Sullivan and Nibley discuss that apologist should address.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

When the apostles lived, there were apostles and co-workers of the apostles who generally traveled. There is at least one record that suggests that you can detect a false apostle by the fact that they do not move-on. The apostles and co-workers in virtually all non-Jerusalem churches left local leaders who were not to travel AND the best read of the evidence for a Catholic IMO is that these local leaders were actually GROUPS of folks who carried out the leadership duties of the local church. The best read IMO for the LDS is that there was certainly groups who lead, but there were successive local leaders giving the impression that multiple people were perfectly equal when in fact there was a local leader for a period of time who then supported another local leader.

The apostles died and ceased to lead the church. Their co-workers who traveled also ceased to lead the church as traveling folks. Local churches lead by groups or successive leaders continued to minister in their locals. Over time these groups of presbyters gave way to monoepiscopate bishops who served generally for life. This happened earlier in Asian churches and very late in Corinth and Rome. Evidence suggests that Rome was still lead by GROUPS as late as the middle of the 2nd century.

During the second half of the 2nd century generally all local churches were lead by monoepiscopate bishops. Bishop lists like those in Irenaeus are backward looking and point to leading presbyters (Irenaeus even uses the term Presbyter to describe folks that the modern Catholic apologist would demand were fully bishops). To be honest the confusion between the term apostle and bishop and presbyter contributes to what we see (and I even recall some of this dealt with in a semi-apologetic way), but the plurality of leaders that gave way to the singularity of leaders is still evident (as is the differences in the apostolic and non-apostolic ministries).

If you like, I can dive into Eno and Nibley again and offer a number of other reason to question the primacy of Rome beyond the fact that Peter’s supposed successor was not even the singular head of the Roman Church.

Do you see much of the above discussed by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess? I didn’t. What about Madrid, Akin, Hahn, or Keating?
Do you have opinions on the above?

Charity, TOm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

LOL!

I see you share my sense of humor, Zerinus! Yes, it is odd, and i’ve never thought about it being so until you mentioned it. I suppose a critic of Christianity might agree with us, and perhaps add that it was just as odd for our God to spit in the dirt to make mud and rub it into the blind man’s eyes.

I suppose that if these instances of peculiar behavior were honestly keeping an atheist from accepting the truth, i’d give him my best guesses as to why Moses held up a stick and Jesus put mud in a man’s eyes. However, if you would like to tell me your opinion on these, i’d like to hear what you have to say. It might be a good break from the serious subjects we have been discussing.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I am saying nothing more or less than what Jesus had said: “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). “Doctrine” means teaching. In other words, those who wanted to know if His teaching, or message, came from God or not, if they were of the kind that did God’s will, they would know. How they would know it doesn’t say. It just says that they would know. And I am not going to take it any further than that.

zerinus

Do you mean, Zerinus, that you will not discuss what Jesus meant, or you cannot discuss what He meant?

If you will not discuss this with me, please tell me why not. Do i try your patience, or have i offended you?

If you cannot discuss this with me, please explain why not. Is the reason beyond knowing?

 

[zerinus]

LOL!

I see you share my sense of humor, Zerinus! Yes, it is odd, and i’ve never thought about it being so until you mentioned it. I suppose a critic of Christianity might agree with us, and perhaps add that it was just as odd for our God to spit in the dirt to make mud and rub it into the blind man’s eyes.

I suppose that if these instances of peculiar behavior were honestly keeping an atheist from accepting the truth, i’d give him my best guesses as to why Moses held up a stick and Jesus put mud in a man’s eyes. However, if you would like to tell me your opinion on these, i’d like to hear what you have to say. It might be a good break from the serious subjects we have been discussing.

Thank you, but you seem to be interested in too many diversions, which I am not, because it means that one cannot properly focus on anything in particular. The main point is that your original question of “how” Joseph Smith received the gift and power of God to translate the Book of Mormon is not such an easy question to answer, and one that need not be asked if we want to know whether the translation was in fact made by the gift and power of God or not.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Thank you, but you seem to be interested in too many diversions, which I am not, because it means that one cannot properly focus on anything in particular. The main point is that your original question of “how” Joseph Smith received the gift and power of God to translate the Book of Mormon is not such an easy question to answer, and one that need not be asked if we want to know whether the translation was in fact made by the gift and power of God or not.

zerinus

I was not trying to debate about the truth of the Book of Mormon, i was just curious as to the method Joseph Smith used. I’ve heard some things from critics of Mormonism, and so i was wondering what truth there was to them.

For example, i was told that Joseph Smith said he received the words of the Book of Mormon one word at a time by staring at a stone that he placed inside his hat. They say he claimed the words appeared on the stone. My guess is that this is a fabrication, and so i wanted to know the real method he employed.

 

[zerinus]

Do you mean, Zerinus, that you will not discuss what Jesus meant, or you cannot discuss what He meant?

If you will not discuss this with me, please tell me why not. Do i try your patience, or have i offended you?

If you cannot discuss this with me, please explain why not. Is the reason beyond knowing?

What I mean is that I cannot think of many more things to add to what Jesus has said that would clarify His meaning. I think that what the Lord has said is clear enough by itself, without needing me to add anything more to it. He says that if you do God’s will, you will know whether His doctrine is of God or not. He has not attempted to explain how you would know, presumably because even He couldn’t; and if He couldn’t, I certainly can’t.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

What I mean is that I cannot think of many more things to add to what Jesus has said that would clarify His meaning. I think that what the Lord has said is clear enough by itself, without needing me to add anything more to it. He says that if you do God’s will, you will know whether His doctrine is of God or not. He has not attempted to explain how you would know, presumably because even He couldn’t; and if He couldn’t, I certainly can’t.

zerinus

I’ve been praying for wisdom and reading Jesus’ words, and i think i see him teaching how i would know. Are you interested in hearing what i have found and pointing out any error in my judgement?

 

[zerinus]

I was not trying to debate about the truth of the Book of Mormon, i was just curious as to the method Joseph Smith used. I’ve heard some things from critics of Mormonism, and so i was wondering what truth there was to them.

For example, i was told that Joseph Smith said he received the words of the Book of Mormon one word at a time by staring at a stone that he placed inside his hat. They say he claimed the words appeared on the stone. My guess is that this is a fabrication, and so i wanted to know the real method he employed.

Thank you. If you had got to the point from the beginning, we could have saved ourselves a lot of unnecessary postings and waste of time. The answer to that is that those stories come from second and third hand sources which do not have much credibility behind them. They are not reliable accounts. The real truth is that we do not know precisely how the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. Joseph Smith never described to anyone. In fact, he is on record as saying that it was not the will of the Lord that it should be revealed. The only thing that he ever stated categorically was that he translated it by means of the Urim and Thummim, the instruments found with the plates, which were intended to be used for its translation. That is all that he ever said about it. He never attempted to explain how the Urim and Thummim were used to accomplish that end, and we don’t know how it was done.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I’ve been praying for wisdom and reading Jesus’ words, and i think i see him teaching how i would know. Are you interested in hearing what i have found and pointing out any error in my judgement?

The way that the Lord has outlined for knowing the truth of the Book of Mormon is to read it impartially and with an open mind, with a sincere desire to know and obey the truth, and ask the Lord in faith to reveal the truth of it to you; which if you do, the promise is that God will reveal the truth of it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. If your answer is substantially different from that, it is probably the wrong one.

zerinus

 

[thirdnep11]

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.

My statement was that the foundation of any discussion should be doctrine.
Unless I’m mistaken there is much more to a building than a foundation.
You know it’s disappointing, I chose my words carefully in order to express my true feelings on these matters and yet someone always has to try to put words into my mouth.
I never said testimony is irrelevant. I never even hinted at it.

 

[thirdnep11]

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.

I can appreciate your view, as I was once anti-mormon, and thought along the same lines as you. I guess my only question is whether LDS should be excluded from the christian community? In other words can we agree to disagree but together stand for Christ in a world where we have fewer allies and more enemies?

 

[RebeccaJ]

My statement was that the foundation of any discussion should be doctrine.
Unless I’m mistaken there is much more to a building than a foundation.
You know it’s disappointing, I chose my words carefully in order to express my true feelings on these matters and yet someone always has to try to put words into my mouth.
I never said testimony is irrelevant. I never even hinted at it.

We do not have any writings from Jesus Himself. So where does Christian doctrine come from if not the personal witness, the written testimony, of the Apostles and other who followed Him and His disciples?

I was not twisting anything around, merely responding to what you said.

 

[Elric]

My statement was that the foundation of any discussion should be doctrine.
Unless I’m mistaken there is much more to a building than a foundation.
You know it’s disappointing, I chose my words carefully in order to express my true feelings on these matters and yet someone always has to try to put words into my mouth.
I never said testimony is irrelevant. I never even hinted at it.

Actually you did, with the “subjective” thing that you keep mentioning and this doozey:

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

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually you did, with the “subjective” thing that you keep mentioning and this doozey:

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

Exactly.

 

[Elric]

Exactly.

Thanks, I thought you might agree

 

[thirdnep11]

We do not have any writings from Jesus Himself. So where does Christian doctrine come from if not the personal witness, the written testimony, of the Apostles and other who followed Him and His disciples?

I was not twisting anything around, merely responding to what you said.

Ah, a valid point. But the scriptures contain both historical accounts and personal testimonies. Not to mention the testimonies are of the Apostles who lived and learned at the feet of Christ. By it’s definition “Apostle” means an authorized representative and we should therefore accept the words of ancient apostles as that of christ himself. This is not the same for an average individual who is bearing testimony (either for or against) the church.
The most important thing to find is a common ground for us both to stand on. If we are to discuss the validity of a given church we must first find a foundation we both agree on ie; the bible. It is (inside the christian world) accepted as fact and we can look at different doctrines in comparison to what the bible says.
For example I would not try to convince you of the validity of the practice of baptisms for the dead by using the D&C since you do not accept them as canonical. I could however show you scriptures in the Bible that I believe point to the practice of baptisms for the dead by the early church and we could have an intelligent discussion based on that.
This is in fact exactly what the book of Acts tells us to do:
Acts 17: 2, 11
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
• • •
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2 Tim. 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I probably should have quoted these scriptures in the beginning to silence the critics I have upset thus far, but the truth is the truth whether they believe it or not. (also notice I did not quote the BOM, I quoted the Bible which a few people have stated that LDS do not like to do)

 

[thirdnep11]

Actually you did, with the “subjective” thing that you keep mentioning and this doozey:

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

Perhaps my statement would be better stated “My point is that debating the truthfulness of any church based only on the subjective experiences of individuals is pointless.”

I apologize for not communicating clearly, I can see where my statement did not fully portray my thoughts.

 

[Elric]

Perhaps my statement would be better stated “My point is that debating the truthfulness of any church based only on the subjective experiences of individuals is pointless.”

I apologize for not communicating clearly, I can see where my statement did not fully portray my thoughts.

It happens.

Although I still object to the “subjective” statement. What is that saying “innocent until proven guilty”?