Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website

[TOmNossor]

hope:

Oh yeah this entire post as the ones following are off topic. Makes me wonder? Why you don’t stick to the subject but deflect from it?

The Book of Mormon cannot be supported by reason, so all he has is rationalizing why he left the church of his birth, the Church with the Eucharist.

I have demonstrated a great deal of support for the BOM with reason.

I have responded to criticisms of the BOM with reason.

This thread has some of that, but seldom are the things I say dealt with in a serious way.

The whole homoousian discussion was a product of a Catholic who suggested that there was a consistency in monotheism present through the Bible and the Catholic Chruch and absent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is not a strong position so I offered my thoughts.

Back to the BOM:

Did you read the article I linked in post #69?

Your response to post #83 was superficial and wrong. I pointed this out then you never responded, but instead later RETREATED by claiming that unlike what you had done before you actually focus on the “macro” reasons the BOM is false. Here is my response to that which you ignored:

Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website Non-Catholic Religions

I question your “I stay out of micro explanations” comment because it was YOU who brought up bees here and then when I told you you were mistaken you reasserted your same error. Now Lemuel tells you, you are mistaken and you “focus on the macro.” Probably best because your foray into the micro went poorly. However the faithful LDS reason Joseph Smith claimed the BOM was about ALL American Indians and was wrong about this is quite strong and perhaps you shouldn’t dismiss it because of your fa…

The 2nd and 3rd parts of this post could have resulted in hours of discussion:

Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website Non-Catholic Religions

A rational person uses one standard to find the truth. Mormons on CAF use two standards, which is irrational. I noticed, like in the past, you have avoided talking point 3. No Stephen a rational person does not adjudicate the rationality of something based on the rules and claims of something else. A rational person calls the Catholic Church false when the Catholic claims to be something she clearly is not (infallible with no change). A rational person does not call the Church of Jesus Ch…

Instead you dismissed it by claiming that Joseph Smith didn’t understand the Book of Mormon how I understand the Book of Mormon guided by LDS scholarship, therefore the BOM is not true. This has always been your go to position when you feel like not talking about BOM evidence (oh and misrepresenting Bushman too). Of course as I told you here and in the past, if the Book of Mormon didn’t come from Joseph Smith (as LDS claim), Joseph Smith not understanding well what it claims about geography, flora, fauna, and … is not evidence that the BOM isn’t from God, just evidence it is not from Joseph Smith (which is the LDS position anyway).

Charity, TOm

 

[McJenn929]

Hi Tom-

Apologies for adding another question to your plate so take your time responding.

In regards to the BoM, what are your personal thoughts/responses to the questions/issues raised in the CES Letter?

I have other questions, however, they are off topic so I’m wondering if maybe a general “Mormonism” thread would be wise…

Thank you

Edit: Considering how easy it is to misconstrue intent and/or tone online, I’d like to clarify that I ask out of genuine interest.

1. While I am solid in my own faith, I’m genuinely interested in all faiths.
2. I know a number of Mormons in ‘real life’ and have asked questions but received either deflective or defensive answers so I’m hoping you might be more direct without taking offense to my inquiries as I have no intention of provoking anyone into a state of defensiveness.

 

[TOmNossor]

In regards to the BoM, what are your personal thoughts/responses to the questions/issues raised in the CES Letter?

Hello,
The CES letter is very much like the Boettner List or its slightly more modern FBBC list. The issues are like a shotgun blast of criticism. Jeremy’s CES letter offers nothing positive from the dialogue on these issues that has been going on for decades. I had considered everything mentioned and seen multiple responses and discussions for each issue.

My ONLY personal thoughts are that the CES Letter is more an attempt to justify Jeremy’s departure from the CoJCoLDS than it is to get answers. Asking some CES director for answers to questions collected online is NOT a good way to receive answers.

I recognize that you didn’t ask for my personal thoughts/responses to the CES letter, but rather to the questions/issues raised in the CES letter. The bulk of my thoughts on these issues however are not personal but ideas I have gleaned from 2 decades reading about these issues. I have never walked the Frankincense trail and noted three places mentioned in the Book of Mormon and numerous geographical features, but I have read about it. Thus I have few ORIGINAL thoughts.

If I have anything original to offer the broader LDS community it comes in the comparing and contrasting of the CoJCoLDS with Early Church history and the Catholic Church. Two Catholic fellows and I became friends online about 2 decades ago. I have traveled to multiple times to meet or stay with one of them. I discovered Catholicism was more than I thought it was and they pointed me to the ECF. When I read my initial chunk, I came back with shock and they evidenced no shock, but pointed me to Cardinal Newman; which I also read. There is no substituted for diving into the faithful literature if you are “interested in all faiths.”

1. While I am solid in my own faith, I’m genuinely interested in all faiths.
2. I know a number of Mormons in ‘real life’ and have asked questions

You are lucky that you are on the Internet because you are not limited by “real life.” How many of the anti-Mormon troupes have you heard IRL. I would suggest to find answers to specialized questions on the Net, asking folks you know IRL is unlikely to produce results.

I am not offended, but concerned about time. One option for you is to do what I did which is to search for “anti-Catholic” and “call no man Father.”

That being said, I have written my first response to a CES Letter FALSEHOOD. I would like for you to answer a question from me, I will share the response, ask another question and we will take turns. This will ensure that you are interested and that I am not overwhelmed by the shotgun blast.

My question:
If as LDS claim, Joseph Smith did not write the BOM, is it a REASONED position for a LDS to believe that Joseph Smith was wrong about the geography in the BOM, or do you think it unreasonable for a LDS embrace the BOM as a record that represents real people with real artifacts in real places but not as Joseph Smith understood?
Hope this is agreeable.

 

[OKComputer]

Right. The reason they focus on subjective tests regarding your feelings is because every single objective test fails to prove that the Book of Mormon is anything but a fraud.

 

[TOmNossor]

every single objective test fails to prove that the Book of Mormon is anything but a fraud.

Hello!
It is not true that LDS believe there is no objective evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is also not true that “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud.”
I have told Stephen, he is misrepresenting Richard Bushman (who I met and who attended the class I taught last year). Bushman’s point is that he once expected his Protestant friends to be sympathetic to a “faith alone” reason for embracing the BOM, but they condemned this. Bushman however does note that LDS are searching for empirical evidence that PROVES the BOM. He and I agree that there is no proof. He and I probably agree that PROOF is unlikely to happen not because the BOM isn’t true, but because if the BOM is what it claims to be it means that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and such is no longer a matter of faith.

But, there is plenty of objective evidence. 2 Evangelical Scholars wrote “Loosing the Battle and not Knowing it: Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect.”

The increased sophistication of LDS scholarly apologetic is clearly seen in their approach to the BOM. Not only do they use scholarship to defend the Book against common criticisms; they are attempting to place it squarely into an ancient Near Eastern background. It is their contention that the BOM reflects the culture, language and customs of ancient Semitic peoples. This reflection is seen not only in the major story line but also in subtle and important ways which, they argue, Joseph Smith (or anyone else living in the nineteenth century) could not have extrapolated from the Bible.

Now, Someone here has pointed out that Mosser and Owen have further addressed this issue with a follow up letter AND with a book (both of which I have read). The book, The New Mormon Challenge I have recommended on this board. I would guess there is one poster (who seldom posts) who has read it. It is NOTHING like the CES letter (or Isaiah Bennett’s tome) and I recommend it for its tone and erudition. I find the LDS responses to each chapter/essay to be VERY strong, but there is much to discuss at this level IMO (I have also challenged folks here to recommend a book devoted to criticizing Catholicism that they find worth recommending. I can think of an online essay that is very much directed against Catholic truth claims that is worth reading and a few essays and books that provide evidence and analysis that has impacts upon Catholic truth claims, but I am a non-Catholic).

Anyway, I have offered objective evidence for the Book of Mormon on this thread. Stephen dismisses this with, “but Joseph Smith didn’t believe that about the Book of Mormon.” I find that reason for dismissal to be evidence of radically flawed and superficial. But I don’t dismiss what I have presented. You can, but such is classic anti-Catholicism and those who deride such views when employed against their faith (perhaps by saying, “kinda smart to be Catholic") are inconsistent.

 

[hope]

Homoousian. The charge was made that Catholicism is true because of the consistent monotheism that exists through the Bible and the Catholic Church and that LDS were not monotheists. It’s true that some Biblical authors were quite polytheistic, Jews shortly after Christ embraced a different view of monotheism than Christians, and other monotheistic inconsistency. But, I suggested that monotheism in Catholic Tradition hasn’t been consistent. Most of the Fathers at Nicea embraced the homoousian of Father and Son as a “generic” oneness, like Eusebius of Caesarea. Today the homoousian for the divine persons is in the “numeric” sense. All LDS believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian in the generic (mistakenly said numeric) so if that was monotheism, we would be monotheist and the argument from “consistent” monotheism excluding LDS would be proven false.

Homoousios was used in order to deny the Arainis position. The word was specifically used so that the Arians could not agree to a creed but have a different meaning to it. Homoousios means of the same substance and was meant to convey the meaning of the same being. There is no numerical or generic in the definition. This addition to the definition I believe is to try to make it conform to LDS beliefs. I reject these editions. The additions lead the way to worshiping multiple gods. The LDS do not worship one god but a multiple gods. I wanted to make this clarification to make it clear that the idea that Homoousios can accommodate the understanding of god that the LSD has is not compatible to the understanding that there is only one God.

 

[McJenn929]

Hey Tom,

Thanks for responding! I’ll need to respond in parts. My Tiny Humans dictate my time so I’m at their mercy

In retrospect, I realise I should’ve articulated myself better by including “what is your personal response?”. Lol what I think and what comes out don’t always align. I know a few Mormons who have read it recently and it left them in a state of cognitive dissonance. You strike me as well educated in your faith so I’m interested in a knowledgeable response to the book.

Again, I’ll need to come back to all this later but 1 thing that stuck out to me in your response was the suggestion to search “anti-Catholic”. Quick background on me as a response. So, I was raised Catholic until my early teens when my Dad converted to Protestantism in the form of “Born Again Christian”. From there on out, all I ever heard was extreme religious bigotry, primarily against Catholicism (LDS and JW’s weren’t far behind). According to him, all of us who aren’t Born Again are going to hell. Myself included because I chose not to be rebaptised as protestant and also because I eventually reverted back to Catholicism. Anyway, I kid you not, I’m not sure Google results could give me anything I haven’t heard. On a positive note, I’m pretty sure that’s where my sincere interest to understand all faiths comes from. I respect anyone who strives to be closer to God, even when there’s a substantial difference in ideologies.

Right, Tiny Human bedtime in my time zone

 

[TOmNossor]

"hope:

The charge made that Catholicism is true because of the consistent monotheism through the Bible and the Catholic Church and that LDS were not monotheists. Some Biblical authors were quite polytheistic, Jews shortly after Christ embraced a different view of monotheism than Christians, and other monotheistic inconsistency. But, I suggested that monotheism in Catholic Tradition hasn’t been consistent. Most of the Fathers at Nicea embraced the homoousian of Father and Son as a “generic” oneness, like Eusebius. Today the homoousian for the divine persons is in the “numeric” sense. All LDS believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian in the generic so if that was monotheism, we would be monotheist and the argument from “consistent” monotheism excluding LDS would be false.

Homoousian was used in order to deny the Arainis position. The word was specifically used so that the Arians could not agree to a creed but have a different meaning to it. Homoousian means of the same substance and was meant to convey the meaning of the same being. There is no numerical or generic in the definition. This addition to the definition I believe is to try to make it conform to LDS beliefs. I reject these editions. The additions lead the way to worshiping multiple gods. The LDS do not worship one god but a multiple gods. I wanted to make this clarification to make it clear that the idea that Homoousian can accommodate the understanding of god that the LSD has is not compatible to the understanding that there is only one God.

You are welcome to stake out the position you just did, but you are at odds with Catholic scholarship. As @DanielJT explained (because he tried to UNDERSTAND what I was saying instead of dismiss it with little thought), Fr. Leo Davis acknowledges the generic and numeric. He claims that the Father’s at Nicea had the “generic” sense in mind when they said Father & Son were homoousian. This of course is the sense in which LDS embrace the term (if they ever have it properly explained to them). Father Davis believes that “implicit” at Nicea was ALSO the “numeric” sense and over the long struggle after Nicea it came to be the orthodox view. This numeric sense, LDS reject and results in what could CHARITABLY be called a mystery, but clearly is CONTRADICTION.
It is my position that the view of the Trinity embraced by Ostler, Paulsen and me could CHARITABLY be called sufficiently monotheistic and Trinitarian by those who wish their view of the Trinity can be called a mystery rather than illogical.
Perhaps it’s too much to ask as you already suggested the word homoousian was in fact introduced for the EXCLUSION of folks that before the council were in Church. This is WHY God told Joseph “their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt” It has to do little with the underlying theological controversy, and instead with the desire to cut-off those whose beliefs are not orthodox enough.
Anyway, you are arguing against educated Catholics not me when you reject the DIFFERENT meanings of homoousian.

 

[OKComputer]

It is not true that LDS believe there is no objective evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is also not true that “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud.”

Okay. Give me one objective piece of evidence that the events described in the Book of Mormon actually happened. I’ll wait.

 

[TOmNossor]

McJenn,

Thank you for the kind response.

Hey Tom,

Thanks for responding! I’ll need to respond in parts. My Tiny Humans dictate my time so I’m at their mercy

In retrospect, I realise I should’ve articulated myself better by including “what is your personal response?”. Lol what I think and what comes out don’t always align. I know a few Mormons who have read it recently and it left them in a state of cognitive dissonance. You strike me as well educated in your faith so I’m interested in a knowledgeable response to the book.

Again, I’ll need to come back to all this later but 1 thing that stuck out to me in your response was the suggestion to search “anti-Catholic”.

I could have been clearer. Sorry.

When I wanted to know what the educated Catholic response to an issue was, I would Google “anti-Catholic” and XYZ (“call no man father,” being an issue I choose because I consider it to be among the stupidest anti-Catholic arguments, thus it would not create stress or “cognitive dissonance” - a phrase incorrectly used by critics of religion, but I understand what you mean - in a Catholic reader).

My point was the same process could be done for most LDS problems.

Critics of our churches typically do not call themselves “anti-Catholic” nor “anti-Mormon” so searching for that and issue XYZ is typically a good way to get a faithful response to the issue. Eventually one will learn were faithful responses are (like fairmormon.org) and where anti-Mormon’s are trying to trick folks into believing they are faithful sites (like mormonhandbook.org)

I do recognize that some LDS who read the CES letter do become disillusioned. I am a fan of disillusionment, because I think the alternative is “illusionment” and who would want to be “illusioned.” I consider the best response to the CES letter is to modify the beliefs that were wrong and continue to recognize that the foundational events of the Restoration still indicate that God was involved. That being said, for those who cannot do this, I hope they do not follow Jeremy. Instead they should become Catholic, the second-best choice {grin}

Anyway, I hope your positive response means that you are inclined to agree to my proposal.

Good luck with the immediate needs of your noble vocation!!!

 

[Apache75]

I’m also waiting!!!

 

[OKComputer]

lol. We can wait together.

Here’s what I’ve noticed-some things in history are so objective that everyone, no matter what their beliefs are, admits it happened. IE-Jesus existed (yes, a small percentage of people claim He never did, but they are on the fringe). Even most atheists admit He existed.

With Mormonism, no one, absolutely no one, unless they are Mormon, believes any of this stuff actually happened. And they shouldn’t. Because it didn’t.

 

[RuthAnne]

My ONLY personal thoughts are that the CES Letter is more an attempt to justify Jeremy’s departure from the CoJCoLDS

Likewise I think your endless posts on CAF are just an attempt to justify your departure from the true Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[hope]

You are welcome to stake out the position you just did, but you are at odds with Catholic scholarship

Thank you for your permission. DanielJT’s says that he found an article which he does not link and he paraphrases it. We have no context. This hardly qualifies as “Catholic Scholarship” or that I am at odds with it. One priest does not equal “Catholic Scholarship”

(because he tried to UNDERSTAND what I was saying instead of dismiss it with little thought

Your dig is unjustified but typical dismissal of another’ point of view.

Fr. Leo Davis acknowledges the generic and numeric. He claims that the Father’s at Nicea had the “generic” sense in mind when they said Father & Son were homoousian. This of course is the sense in which LDS embrace the term (if they ever have it properly explained to them). Father Davis believes that “implicit” at Nicea was ALSO the “numeric” sense and over the long struggle after Nicea. This numeric sense, LDS reject and results in what could CHARITABLY be called a mystery, but clearly is CONTRADICTION.

I would have to see this in context. I don’t trust your synopsis

This is WHY God told Joseph “their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt”

God did not speak to Joseph so this statement is false but Jesus did warn of false prophets. It always amazes me that his conviction of fraud is dismissed. The fraud he was convicted of was so close to the fraud he committed when he wrote the BoM that the similarities should be a red flag.

Anyway, you are arguing against educated Catholics not me when you reject the DIFFERENT meanings of homoousian.

AWE! A double whammy here. It isn’t your argument even though it is but it is Educated (indicating that I am not educated)
This statement is one you really can’t support as your track record of misrepresentation precedes you. Although you have been using the Greek homoousion I prefer the Latin consubstantial. There is no different meaning in the Catechism or any official papers of the Church. There is no Church teaching that agrees with your attempt to make LDS belief that one god can can be multiple gods is true. There is no teaching of the Catholic Church educated or not that consubstantial has multiple meanings. So it is a false statement that I argue against the educated Catholics. What I am doing is upholding the true teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

OKComputer:

every single objective test fails to prove that the Book of Mormon is anything but a fraud.

It is not true that LDS believe there is no objective evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is also not true that “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud.”

Okay. Give me one objective piece of evidence that the events described in the Book of Mormon actually happened. I’ll wait.

I am glad you are willing to “wait.” I am already involved in some question and answer with two posters here.

I think it likely that those who read carefully and don’t post are able to see some evidence of what I claim is present.

Furthermore, I provided some pretty strong statements from some non-LDS scholars in the post to which you responded that I think should have tempered your statement that “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud.”

So, for these reasons, I intend to start quite slow and cautiously. And have thought exactly what I want to give you in the beginning. We may get to a place were I provide things more like your CURRENT request and I believe we could, but I feel no obligation to do so. I am perfectly fine that Stephen demands the BOM be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be (Joseph was inconsistent, but can be shown to support Hemispheric geography involving the ancestors of ALL American Indians). The BOM is not this and if you, like Stephen want to trumpet your victory because of this undisputed (by me) fact, this seems unlikely to impact my salvation and I will leave you to it.

So where I wish to start is your statement that “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anthing but a fraud.” The test I propose is, “Is there objective evidence that the Book of Mormon is correct when in 1 Nephi 4:1 it claims that there were walls around Jerusalem?” The answer of course is, “yes, it is correct.” This objective test does not prove the BOM is a fraud.

I will further assert, though it is not important for my MAIN point, that all of the OBJECTIVE evidence we have is that Joseph Smith was ignorant of the fact that Jerusalem had walls around it. He was quite surprised by this (as he was be other aspects of the translation). This is OBJECTIVE evidence that Joseph Smith was not the author of the Book of Mormon.

I do not place much weight on the above two tidbits when it comes to pointing to divine origins of the BOM, but I think they are worth noting and I believe the first refutes your claim that I intended to refute.

So my question to you is:

Do you still believe you were correct when you claimed, “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud?”

After you answer this (and say whatever else you desire), you may propose we continue and I will accept, reject, or offer a counter-proposal. Again, I have plenty to do and I think folks are more than capable of assessing evidence themselves, but if we agree on how to proceed, I will proceed.

Charity, TOm

 

[McJenn929]

Good Morning Tom,

Let me rewind on my initial question. Again, a bit of personal backstory. As previously mentioned, I was exposed to a great deal of religious bigotry growing up. I was conscious that what I was hearing was myopic which eventually led to a period of agnosticism for me because I needed to seek my own truths. I’m naturally inquisitive and bombarded my Protestant church with questions. Later, while slowly reengaging with the Catholic community (I spent many years working for a Catholic non-profit org), I did the same.100% of the time my questions were welcomed and met with kindness and direct answers. After reading the CES Letter, I sought out responses. FairMormon both surprised and disappointed me as they immediately accused him of having a sarcastic and immature tone. What I’m looking for, is a welcoming and kind response to his specific questions. Treating him simply as someone who has discovered information that conflicts with his pre-existing belief system and needs answers. No personal attack, just straight forward answers to his questions and issues. As I said previously, you strike me as someone who is knowledgeable in your faith (in general as well) so, given the opportunity, what would be your empathetic and straight forward response to his questions/concerns? What would it look like if he was a close friend of family member and he came to you?

To quickly paint a bigger picture, I’m equally curious about other faiths and am not singling yours out. Again, I’m a naturally inquisitive human who works hard not to view things myopically.

I acknowledge I owe you responses to other things. I’d like to resolve 1 at a time if that’s ok. Again, I’m occupied wrangling Tiny Humans. I’m also perpetually sleep deprived and my husband currently has the man flu. I’m spread thin right now

 

[OKComputer]

Do you still believe you were correct when you claimed, “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud?”

Yes. One piece, that’s all I ask. Point to a historical fact that is accepted by all scholars that shows that the events in the BOM actually happened. One piece, that’s it.

And I could pray after reading The Lord of the Rings to get confirmation that it’s true too, for the record.

 

[TOmNossor]

Perhaps this will be impossible. I recently got done with a dialogue about how I feel people express HATE for my church here and quoted someone who did precisely that. I am aggressive with folks here in hopes of jarring them or the silent readers into changing what I consider to be “myopic” (your word and mine BTW) views of my faith. I have been less than charitable sometimes and have been perceived to be less than charitable to the point that a large number of posters thought it best to tell me that I am not charitable. Even if none of that were true, you IMO are correct when you say I am informed, but I am not trusted or respected. You do not see me as the Sunday School teacher, the husband of my wife, the father of my son and daughter. The guy who helped mop out your flooded basement.
I am not sure how we bridge such a divide. I watch what posts you “like” too. I doubt you consider me to be a charitable and trusted purveyor of truth here at CA. As such it would seem that what you ask for is impossible for you to receive.
You suggested that FAIR failed to treat Jeremy “as someone who has discovered information that conflicts with the pre-existing belief system and needed answers.” But, he wasn’t that. He could have been that, but he had already filtered through all the material and presented one sided views of the problems. His presentation when FAIR received it was not about needing answers, it was about attacking the faith that hurt him.
I think the FAIR answers are good. I think they present a more balanced view that Jeremy did. I have regularly seen words from folks defending their faith that I wish were not said. I have said them. In fact I have been going back and forth as to whether I should apologize to Hope. Because I should or because I am a scoundrel and want to appear contrite, “@hope, I am sorry for some of how I presented to you in my last post.”

Anyway, I do not anticipate my answers will be intellectually better than FAIRs answers. And while I have been encouraged by your posts, I am not sure I could do a better job responding to Jeremy’s attacks on my faith than they did.

 

[hope]

I will further assert, though it is not important for my MAIN point, that all of the OBJECTIVE evidence we have is that Joseph Smith was ignorant of the fact that Jerusalem had walls around it. He was quite surprised by this (as he was be other aspects of the translation). This is OBJECTIVE evidence that Joseph Smith was not the author of the Book of Mormon.

TOm it is hard to discuss without being perceived as hating. I do not. I wish that all faiths had the social construct of the LDS. The faith itself I find to be false. Belief of it being false does not equal hate. That being said the above to me is proof of how much of conman Joseph Smith was. Feigning that he was surprised that Jerusalem has walls when scripture state that it had walls. I guess you might say that he didn’t know scripture and that is further proof of the BOM being true. When those who ask for proof say there is none, I don’t believe they are referring to the trivial which would be the remark about the walls. They are referring to the stories of “Nephites” and “Lamanites,”. Where is there objective proof of them? The Smithosonian letter disputes the things in the BoM as well.

Side note:
Thank you for your apology accept mine for any that I may have unintentionally poorly written.

 

[TOmNossor]

For the flood family, I did borrow their copy of Grant Palmer’s book and re-read. I discussed issues, embraced their disillusionment and told them it is wonderful to leave illusionment. I shared:
1.A-history/doctrine – truths we learn in church largely incidental to the teaching of morals or theological points. This history presents the Church as true. There is probably no intentional untruth, but errors here and there are part of the presentation. Low time.
2.B-h/d – taught by anti-Mormons. It highlights the worst things from LDS history. It presents them in a bad light. Things like “Alma” is not a male name no longer are mentioned because its WRONG. Things that WORK at destroying faith are the cream that remains and these are presented without context. Low time.
3.C-h/d – taught by faithful LDS who have spent time with original sources and with B-history. Its conclusion that the CoJCoLDS is God’s Church is a rational position embraced by most folks (but not all) who evidence they have taken the time to learn C. Prophets are not infallible nor sinless. Problems exist, but 10,000 problems do not a doubt make. Positive evidence is likely shared too. Lot of time.
I invited them to put down fictitious ideas like prophets are infallible. Or Brigham Young was not a racist (likely racist for his day, but a gross racist by today’s standards).
I invited them to look at the witness statements, the Book of Mormon, the fact that the charismatic leader didn’t claim all must look to him but celebrated the expansion of divine communication/communion, and other such things.
I acknowledged that I do not have an answer that satisfies me for the origins of the BOA and some problems do not cease to be problems with faithful answers.
I also suggested that prayer has a place in spiritual discernment.
All this was a little under a year ago. The wife was receptive and asked that I not push share all with her husband. All I know is that they and their kids attend. The wife has born her testimony since then, which I considered a positive. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is still mourning of what was lost and perhaps an uncertain future.
I encountered anti-Mormonism before I joined and enjoyed reading and pondering it long before I had a spiritual testimony. A, B, and C history were not sequentially learned by me. It was all just a big jumble and I NEVER thought anyone tried to hide truth from me. The first book I ever remember picking up in a LDS book store was Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness.
I can understand how people might feel a loss when they move from A-history to C-history. I understand how some folks might just move from A-history to B-history and leave the church. But, I know personally no one who evidences they know C-history and they left the CoJCoLDS anyway, and I know plenty of folks who know C-history and are among the most committed members around.
I have you ever worked with someone who was losing or struggling with their Catholic faith? If so what in the above resonates with your experience and what does not?

BTW, hope all improves in the home!