Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[zerinus]

Yes, and my goal is to discover this for myself, Zerinus. For i do not yet know, as you do, that what you say is true. I have been told, by Evangelicals and Catholics alike, that this is in incorrect way of determining truth. “It is from the pit of hell,” one of them tells me, “and it smells like smoke!” Having listened to their reasoning in the past, i came to the conclusion that they must be right; but i have been wrong before, and suffered for it.

Now, you are telling me that they are wrong, and that i am deceived, and so i seriously want to investigate fully whether what you say is true. For, as Socrates said of himself:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief. And I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception (when the deceiver is always at home and always with you) it is quite terrible… .

(Cratylus, 428)
I want always to avoid this terrible fate for myself.

That being said as my purpose, i believe your plan of action for discovering the truth about the way of discovering the truth is a good one. For, you have quoted several verses of the New Testament, which you say support your view that spiritual truth is received apart from reason and only by the witness of the Holy Ghost. If i can see what you see in the New Testament, the words of which i already trust, then i might come to a different conclusion from the one that the Evangelicals and Catholics have lead me.

Yes, that is right, thank you. It was the Lord that said: “Ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you . . .” I did not make that promise, the Lord did. Why not put it to the test? It was the Apostle James that said, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” I did not say that, James did. Why not put it to the test? He also added the proviso: “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” Why should your Evangelical and Catholic friends object to anyone’s trusting the Lord, believing in His promises, and praying to Him in faith for guidance and the knowledge of the truth? How could such an act be considered objectionable in any way? What ulterior and sinister motive could they have for giving you such an unholy advice? That is a question that you will have to answer for yourself.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I want to thank you, Zerinus, for sticking it out with me. Though i have tried your patience, you have been good to me. I do appreciate your assistance in my search for the truth. I suppose i see something of Jesus in your attitude toward me. I’m not interested in debate; i’m interested in discovery of the truth.

The method i want to use for knowing whether what you say is true will be to examine the meaning of the words of the passages of the New Testament you have quoted to support your view. I want to see if they say what you say they say, or if they say what the Mormon critics say they say. I want the truth to have its say, and let Him be my guide. As Paul advises me:

Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

(Romans 3:4)

Thank you. Keep searching; and if you search in the proper way, the truth can be yours. That is the promise that the Lord has made.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, that is right, thank you. It was the Lord that said: “Ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you . . .” I did not make that promise, the Lord did. Why not put it to the test? It was the Apostle James that said, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” I did not say that, James did. Why not put it to the test? He also added the proviso: “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” Why should your Evangelical and Catholic friends object to anyone’s trusting the Lord, believing in His promises, and praying to Him in faith for guidance and the knowledge of the truth? How could such an act be considered objectionable in any way? What ulterior and sinister motive could they have for giving you such an unholy advice? That is a question that you will have to answer for yourself.

zerinus

Yes, and that has been my prayer. James 1:5, which you quoted, is perhaps the verse of the Bible that i put into practice the most. I also find comfort and conviction from these words of John:

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

(1 John 5:14-15)

You see, i want to be certain it is God’s will before i pray about the Book of Mormon. If i am uncertain about this, then my prayer will be one of uncertainty (or doubt) that i am asking what God wants. As you pointed out, James cautions that the one who asks with such uncertainty should not expect to receive an answer.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, and that has been my prayer. James 1:5, which you quoted, is perhaps the verse of the Bible that i put into practice the most. I also find comfort and conviction from these words of John:

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

(1 John 5:14-15)

You see, i want to be certain it is God’s will before i pray about the Book of Mormon. If i am uncertain about this, then my prayer will be one of uncertainty (or doubt) that i am asking what God wants. As you pointed out, James cautions that the one who asks with such uncertainty should not expect to receive an answer.

Yes, that is right. I agree with that. Thank you. A lot of your questions will be answered, however, when you actually start reading the Book of Mormon. The knowledge of the truth will not come to you in a vacuum. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. That is how you will come to know if the book is true or not.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, that is right. I agree with that. Thank you. A lot of your questions will be answered, however, when you actually start reading the Book of Mormon. The knowledge of the truth will not come to you in a vacuum. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. That is how you will come to know if the book is true or not.

zerinus

Yes, and i think it will help alleviate my doubts if, before i continue reading the Book of Mormon, i know for certain that the Spirit of God imparts truth apart from reason. I think the best way for me personally to have that certainty is to start with what i trust, which is the New Testament. I’d like to hear what you have to say, again, about what the Bible has to say about the witness of the Holy Ghost.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, and i think it will help alleviate my doubts if, before i continue reading the Book of Mormon, i know for certain that the Spirit of God imparts truth apart from reason. I think the best way for me personally to have that certainty is to start with what i trust, which is the New Testament. I’d like to hear what you have to say, again, about what the Bible has to say about the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Go ahead. I have no objections to your doing that.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Go ahead. I have no objections to your doing that.

zerinus

Thank you.

Two of the passages of the New Testament you mentioned are:

“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)
and

“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)
Please tell me which of these you think will best help me understand what God would like me to know about the witness of the Holy Ghost. Or if you think a different verse will be better, please let me know what it is. Whichever you choose i will prayerfully read it in context and then come back to you if i do not understand something.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you.

Two of the passages of the New Testament you mentioned are:

“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)

and

“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)

Please tell me which of these do you think will best help me understand what God would like me to know about the witness of the Holy Ghost. Or if you think a different verse will be better, please let me know what it is. Whichever you choose i will prayerfully read it in context and then come back to you if i do not understand something.

You are going back to your old line of questioning, which have already been thrashed out before. I cannot answer that question. Why don’t you ask the Lord? He made the promise, I didn’t.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You are going back to your old line of questioning, which have already been thrashed out before. I cannot answer that question. Why don’t you ask the Lord? He made the promise, I didn’t.

zerinus

Yes, i will, and i’ll let you know what He says.

 

[majick275]

Let me return to the original purpose of this thread and give one Pro for the LDS church and that is it’s Priesthood organization.

1.We have a President/Prophet as was Peter.

no. Peter was not “the prophet” nor “the president” of the church.

2.He has 2 counselors like James and John as is evidenced by their presence at the raising of the daughter of Jairus and at the garden of gethsemane.

nowhere are they called/described as a “first presidency”. nothing resembling “counselors” (as meant in LDS organization) is described anywhere in the Bible

3.The original missionaries of the LDS church were the Apostles just as in biblical times. when the mission field grew too large for members of the Quorum to go themselves the prophet chose a quorum of 70 to go in their stead. This is exactly what happened in the bible.

only in faulty translations of the bible. actually it was 72. this was NOT described as an office either.

The field has grown so much that young men now serve missions bearing a portion of the Apostolic authority to preach the gospel. but the quorum of the 12 and the 70 are still intact today as they were in biblical times (both old and new testament for the 70)

JS started a church that had no “first presidency” that came later. the original Christians had 12 apostles including Peter, james and john. the LDS have 15 right now. the office of 70 was completely changed in the LDS church some years ago. in any case LDS organization is a modern innovation that has changed a few times within the history of the LDS church. these are NOT “restorations”. you won’t even find a first presidency in the BoM because JS hadn’t invented it yet. these are more likely Sidney Rigdon concepts.

4.The smallest organization in the church or “ward” is still headed by bishops just as in ancient times.

there were no “wards” or “stakes” back then and some groups were led by priests, some by deacons and some by lay people. nowhere do we see examples of LDS current organizational models.

5.Obviously we still have a quorum of 12 Apostles today.

you say that but you really have 15. the real apostles had all personally been taught by Jesus and witnessed his resurrection themselves. this was a special thing. they in turn ordained bishops as their successors because they were also bishops and the next generation had no one who could meet that criteria.

To my knowledge there is no other church that adheres in such exactness to the original structure of Christs church.

I would say that the LDS church today bears no resemblance to the early church described in either the Bible OR the BoM.

 

[Pa_Pa]

Socrates4Jesus,

I speak as a Catholic convert who has had some Mormon friends and distant in-laws. My advice to you before you do anything is to pray to Jesus that he sends you the Holy Spirit to guide you.

I am Mormon and second this. However pray to your Father in heaven in the name of Christ, and he will show you the truth of all things.

Pa Pa

 

[zerinus]

Yes, i will, and i’ll let you know what He says.

Thank you. As I told you before, you have come to a strange place to inquire about Mormonism. This place is teaming with apostates and anti-Mormons; and they are not going to leave you alone. They will do their darnest to stop you from freely investigating Mormonism. You need to make up your mind once for all who has the truth, us or them, and which side you want to listen to, and not keep wavering between the two. As James says, “For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed”.

One difference between me and them is that I conduct all my discussions in the open. I don’t try to influence people behind the scenes. If they have an argument to put forward, let them bring it here so that it can be discussed. The fact that they don’t should tell you something about them.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

that’s funny z. I heartily encourage an open investigation of mormonism. please by all means look at ALL the available evidence on this subject and let’s discuss it’s implications openly. I believe that will result in more LDS leaving their church and if they investigate christianity and christian history then I think they will end up here in the Catholic church where God is calling them.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

As James says, “For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed”.

And zerinus “wavereth” all over the place:thumbsup:

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

One difference between me and them is that I conduct all my discussions in the open.

Zerinus is SO open that he refers EVERY direct question about mormonism to his BLOG.

Where there is NO conversation of course.

mormon exegetes trying to reconcile BoM with Holy Scripture::whacky: :banghead: :hypno:

Robert

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus is SO open that he refers EVERY direct question about mormonism to his BLOG.

Where there is NO conversation of course.

mormon exegetes trying to reconcile BoM with Holy Scripture::whacky: :banghead: :hypno:

Robert

No brains no pains!

zerinus

 

[thirdnep11]

no. Peter was not “the prophet” nor “the president” of the church.
nowhere are they called/described as a “first presidency”. nothing resembling “counselors” (as meant in LDS organization) is described anywhere in the Bible
only in faulty translations of the bible. actually it was 72. this was NOT described as an office either.

JS started a church that had no “first presidency” that came later. the original Christians had 12 apostles including Peter, james and john. the LDS have 15 right now. the office of 70 was completely changed in the LDS church some years ago. in any case LDS organization is a modern innovation that has changed a few times within the history of the LDS church. these are NOT “restorations”. you won’t even find a first presidency in the BoM because JS hadn’t invented it yet. these are more likely Sidney Rigdon concepts.
there were no “wards” or “stakes” back then and some groups were led by priests, some by deacons and some by lay people. nowhere do we see examples of LDS current organizational models.

you say that but you really have 15. the real apostles had all personally been taught by Jesus and witnessed his resurrection themselves. this was a special thing. they in turn ordained bishops as their successors because they were also bishops and the next generation had no one who could meet that criteria.

I would say that the LDS church today bears no resemblance to the early church described in either the Bible OR the BoM.

Disagree if you like but there are a number of occasions where Jesus held Peter, James and John in higher esteem and allowed them to witness events that the other members of the quorum were not allowed to see ie; the daughter of Jairus, the mount of transfiguration, the garden of gethsemane, not to mention the promise to Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom of God. Also in the book of Acts we see Peter sitting in judgment of the saints. Peter also received special revelation regarding the consumption of what was previously unclean animals.

Our Quorum of Apostles numbers 12. It is true that the members of the 1st Presidency hold the office of Apostle, but they are no longer members of the Quorum. We do however see evidence in the Bible that the Quorum was to continue. After the death of Judas, Peter along with the other members, chose Mathias. The Apostles of old knew of the importance of having a quorum of Apostles with 12 members. I see no evidence of this in the Catholic Church. And while I’m on the topic of choosing church officers I should say that the LDS church follows exactly the example set in the book of acts.

It is true when the church was organized the first presidency did not exist. There were 6 members of the church at its organization, obviously they could not have a quorum at that time. Joseph and Oliver had been ordained apostles and affirmed by the members as the 1st and 2nd elder of the church. Later on 14th Feb 1835 the quorum of 12 Apostles was organized as has been extant since. Realize at its conception the church was not large nor mature enough to require a first presidency, but it has always been headed by an Apostle.

Again might I say that the functions of a given office may change with need, but the fact is the ancient church clearly had a president, 12 apostles, a quorum of 70 (also in Moses time) and they clearly understood the need for this priesthood structure to continue. Obviously it did not continue as the Catholic does not today, nor did it then chose new Apostles.

And as a side note, The office and title of Pope did not exist in the scriptures, nor in the earliest histories of the church.

 

[TOmNossor]

zerinus:
No brains no pains!

zerinus
It seems to me that while critics of the CoJCoLDS enjoy the back-patting intellectual superiority of claiming that to be intelligent, informed, honest, … (add many positive characteristics) is to cease to be a LDS; this is not only not the case it is often true that the opposite occurs.
Now, my observations and the observations offered by our critics hardly make for convincing arguments to be generalized across a population so …

There are a couple of studies that I occasionally like to mention (especially after nobody indicates they have read)
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

In one study the activity/engagement with ones religion was gauged relative to educational attainment.
This study (which I think was US only) showed that as you move from high school to college to post-grad to doctorate, there is a negative correlation with your religious activity/engagement. The more educated you are the less religious you are.

A very similar study was done for LDS that showed precisely the opposite trend.

Now, unlike what I see coming from LDS critics, I do not want to suggest that those who are more intelligent, informed, honest, … become and/or stay LDS. The above two studies cannot even demand such conclusions IMO. I just want to suggest that those who claim that Bushman and Givens are somehow so informed they are on the edges OR that apostates are the ones who followed the evidence with greater faithfulness to reason or whatever, are just misinformed.

Charity, TOm

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

It seems to me that while critics of the CoJCoLDS enjoy the back-patting intellectual superiority of claiming that to be intelligent, informed, honest, … (add many positive characteristics) is to cease to be a LDS; this is not only not the case it is often true that the opposite occurs.

Wow, that’s profound.

A real “neener, neener” there Tom. But the problem remains: there are more CONS to mormonism than PROS.

Do you want to discuss those??

Here’s one: every man a priest, every man a god with multiple wives.

Have at it, old boy!

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

There are a couple of studies that I occasionally like to mention (especially after nobody indicates they have read)

Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

Tom,

You are mistaking an in-house (mormon study to justify being mormon) conclusion based upon a given premise with an empirical study conducted outside of interests and influences.

Gee, why do mormons spend so much time going after the emotionally weak (check your missionary manual) and the illiterate?

More ‘milk’ less ‘meat.’

Peel away your quasi-academic language and you’re still spouting an arrogance that will ALWAYS be called into account.

Try Charity for once,

Robert