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

[OKComputer]

A lot of us need more evidence than just “Pray about it to find out it it’s true.” I make the same claim about Scientology, Islam, and heck reading Harry Potter books makes me feel good too, so maybe that’s true?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If LDS are right and God’s leaders (like Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles) can receive revelation and write scripture; then the Catholic Church CANNOT possess the fullness of the gospel because after Tertullian this is rejected.

I’ve seen this line of argument before. The problem I have with it is that these supposed new revelations contradict past revelation. That, to me, calls into question the authenticity of these supposed new revelations.

 

[Stephen168]

Disagree!

You disagree with science.

The BOM is scripture not a theological treatise.

Joseph Smith claimed it was an ancient history, therefore we can critic it as such.

The BOM does not talk about honey bees in the Americas, only in the Old World where there were honey bees. This is just sloppy anti-Mormonism.

It talks about the Jews taking honey bees to America around 2000BC. It was the Spanish who brought honey bees to America.

I would suggest that if you believe praying to God for answers only results in “good feelings”

No-one said that. Just like St. Francis de Sales never taught water baptism for the dead.

 

[Lemuel]

I’ll share my experience. I struggled with the Mormon church for most of my life. It was, for the most part, misery. For one thing, if you’re a true believing Mormon, you’re never good enough. Never. And you never will be acceptable to God. The Mormon gospel is often referred to as the Impossible Gospel of Mormonism for a reason. It’s also the reason that anti-depressant medication prescriptions are so high in Utah. The Mormon god is not a loving Father. He is one who reminds you daily that you’re a miserable failure.

I left the church emotionally in 2001. But I remained in the church, serving over the next 12 years in various positions. As a church service missionary—called, sustained and set apart as a missionary for the Church. I did that for about 3 years (2 years plus a 1-year extension). I was very faithful in that calling. Then I was a gospel doctrine teacher for about 2 years. Then I was a second counselor in the bishopric for about 4 years. Then I was a first counselor in the bishopric for about 2 years. Then I served as a temple ordinance worker and a seminary teacher for the remainder of my time in the church.

I always relied on the belief that the Spirit would testify the truthfulness of the Mormon gospel. It never happened. Most members I have talked to have said that they’ve never had that spiritual witness. What they do feel is the same kind of emotional feeling that you get when you see a really moving movie, or read a very touching story, or when you hear the beautiful music in The Messiah. Mormons have a lot of them. One of the more interesting ones I remember was the one that moved so many Mormons to tears, but was later retracted by Elder Holland because it was a lie. So, the Spirit told and confirmed to millions of Mormons, a story that was nothing more than a feel-good lie.

Elder Holland Releases Statement Regarding Missionary Story - Church News and Events

Mormons tell a lot of feel-good lies. Those of you who were Mormon youth in my days would remember many of the Elder Paul H. Dunn lies. There were a lot of them. And they moved and bore witness to a lot of unsuspecting members, especially youth. He had me fooled as well. I bought his lies.

Mormons bank on lies. Mormons train you on how to lie.

I left the Mormon church in 2013. It came after I did what I had done so many times before. Over the course of about 22 days, I fasted, studied and prayed as I poured my heart in to my final reading of the Book of Mormon. I pleaded with God with the energy of my soul to tell me that it was true. What did I feel? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Or maybe what Mormons refer to as a “stupor of thought”. And I knew that was my answer. The Book of Mormon is as hollow as a wind tunnel. And if you read it with pure intent, you’ll probably feel as empty as I did.

 

[Stephen168]

As Tom said, “If LDS are right.” Your argument about why the LDS are wrong is the same argument that was used by the early Church. ‘Continuing revelation’ has always been known to be a problem and contrary to Christian thinking.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

There are many things that not only I disagree with in regards to your arguments but as do countless catholic theologians. Not to mention other Protestant theologians as well.
I’m very fortunate to have the Catholic Church and her authority passed on through the generations to base my understanding of teachings, practices and faith on. The Mormon church was not given that authority, as the Bible tells us and as history tells us. One church has had that authority and promise from god and that is the Catholic Church.
The councils were used as ways to address Heresy and other problems with the practice of faith as they cropped up. So saying the council of Corinth in the 5th century is proof that baptism for the dead was an accepted practice prior is false. Could it have been an accepted practice by some? Sure, just as other Heresy has been accepted on and off by groups throughout history. The council corrected that as it became a problem to provide clear direction and to prevent that from continuing to confuse and mislead in the future. The Bible and the early church fathers and Catholic tradition give us a very clear understanding of what baptism.
There are several other areas of deep concern to me with the Mormon church and it’s teachings.

 

[Lemuel]

As Tom said, “If LDS are right.”

I don’t read TOm, but it sounds about right.

If . . .

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

If LDS are right and God’s leaders (like Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles) can receive revelation and write scripture; then the Catholic Church CANNOT possess the fullness of the gospel because after Tertullian this is rejected.

I’ve seen this line of argument before. The problem I have with it is that these supposed new revelations contradict past revelation. That, to me, calls into question the authenticity of these supposed new revelations.

The Jews said the same thing about Christ’s “New Testament.”
You might enjoy reading this by a Jewish fellow:
Why the Jews Rejected Jesus
Charity, TOm

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

TOmNossor:

If LDS are right and God’s leaders (like Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles) can receive revelation and write scripture; then the Catholic Church CANNOT possess the fullness of the gospel because after Tertullian this is rejected.

I’ve seen this line of argument before. The problem I have with it is that these supposed new revelations contradict past revelation. That, to me, calls into question the authenticity of these supposed new revelations.

The Jews said the same thing about Christ’s “New Testament.”
You might enjoy reading this by a Jewish fellow:
Why the Jews Rejected Jesus
Charity, TOm

I’m familiar.

Of course any Christian will point out that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old. Christian scholars can give a point by point counter argument based on Jewish prophecy. Note that word fulfillment.

Not so for the BOM. Today’s so called prophets even contradict themselves and each other. Case in point, the question of how women get to heaven and their role there.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Disagree!

You disagree with science.

No, I make my living solving problems with science. I am an engineer working with cutting edge material science.

I disagree that what you call science is settled science AND that you understand the BOM well enough to evaluated based on the evidence available from science.

TOmNossor:

The BOM does not talk about honey bees in the Americas, only in the Old World where there were honey bees. This is just sloppy anti-Mormonism.

It talks about the Jews taking honey bees to America around 2000BC. It was the Spanish who brought honey bees to America.

As I said before you and Catholic Answers are mistaken about what the BOM claims. It does not claim honey bees were brought to the Americas. This is clear from a careful reading of the text.

Furthermore, there is evidence of pre-Columbian bee culture meaning that to the extent this question is a scientific one, the science is not settled anyway.

TOmNossor:

The BOM is scripture not a theological treatise.

Joseph Smith claimed it was an ancient history, therefore we can critic it as such.

My point was and is that the BOM and the Bible do not present a theological treatise for LDS theology or Catholic theology. This point you pulled out of context had NOTHING to do with history.

Concerning history, the BOM is a document that includes history. This is not its purpose, but I agree it can be critiqued based upon this. The Old World history in the BOM is incredibly compelling and beyond the capabilities of 19th Century Americans. The New World history has a few points of connect that I consider noteworthy as well. But, as you like to point out, you and I both agree that Joseph Smith thought the BOM was about all of ancient America. I assert he was wrong because he didn’t write the book, God did.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The councils were used as ways to address Heresy and other problems with the practice of faith as they cropped up. So saying the council of Corinth in the 5th century is proof that baptism for the dead was an accepted practice prior is false. Could it have been an accepted practice by some? Sure, just as other Heresy has been accepted on and off by groups throughout history. The council corrected that as it became a problem to provide clear direction and to prevent that from continuing to confuse and mislead in the future.

I used the 5th century council as one example of why the Catholic Answers document was WRONG when it said, "There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead. "
St. Paul referred to something. The 5th century council referred to something.
If the Catholic authority is God’s authority then you are correct these somethings are not part of God’s Church. But these somethings are ancient for sure. And properly understood I assert they are Biblical, but this again comes down to the authority for interpreting the Bible.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Not so for the BOM. Today’s so called prophets even contradict themselves and each other. Case in point, the question of how women get to heaven and their role there.

LDS do not claim that they are “infallible.”
Pope’s have contradicted themselves too and they are infallible.
I understand the “qualifications” on papal infallibility well enough, but I suggest that if I am expected to be charitable when I evaluated papal contradictions, you should be charitable when you evaluate LDS Prophet contradictions.
I am a LDS because if the positive evidence I see for its truth claims. I could put down LDS problems, but I would then need to pick up Catholic problems. Net net, the evidence points to the CoJCoLDS as God’s Church IMO.
Charity, TOm

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Pope’s have contradicted themselves too

Popes don’t claim to receive public revelation. Popes very rarely make infallible pronouncements. I believe there have only been two ex-cathedra pronouncements.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Well that still doesn’t disprove the catholic answers article. Because something has been proven to have existed doesn’t mean it was correct in its existence which is why it was addressed by the council and corrected. Also the article addresses particularly in that section, the baptism of the living in place of the dead not the baptism of the dead alone. There is no other proof that this practice is supported biblically or Traditionally as a Christian practice.
There were many practices historically that have had to be corrected. That is part of the appeal for me to the Catholic Church. How is it that the Protestants for the last 500 years or the Mormons the past 200 all of the sudden, after 1500 or 1800 hundred years of church history not to mention teachings prior to that, have “corrected”things? They break any and all linearity or timeline and assert that they can skip all of those years and go back to the time of Christ and interpret things correctly. Or in Joseph Smiths example, be presented with prophecy that is all of the sudden correct, regardless of historical practices and teachings that contradict and point in opposite directions.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Does lds.org have forums some of us could ask questions on?

No, but mormondialogue.org is a discussion forum chock full of LDS and critics with a pretty high level of knowledge, go debate to your heart’s content. You can even go in swinging if you like, just expect to not be treated with kid gloves.

For a gentler, debate-free forum, thirdhour.org will be happy to answer any of your questions. If you’re going there to argue or poke holes, they’ll ban you. But if you just want to know LDS perspective from LDS folks, it’ll always be a superior source than the CAF non-catholic religions forum.

Both forums have current and former Catholics participating (at least semi-actively).

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

No one should go in swinging on any forum of religious dialogue ever… I can’t imagine that bears any of God’s fruit.
Judging by the OP’s posts here and the couple of PMs we have had I think the OP was ill advised to explore this forum. I think the OP is young and has a limited understanding of Mormon Doctrine. The OP confused birth control with abortion (a similarity that may be more accurate than he knows.) He has vowed to ask his leaders and get back to me, but honestly, his leaders should advise him against coming here…

 

[Stephen168]

My point was and is that the BOM and the Bible do not present a theological treatise for LDS theology or Catholic theology. This point you pulled out of context had NOTHING to do with history.

I didn’t pull it out of anything. It was from the CAF tract referenced by the OP, which is the subject of this thread, and has a rock solid conclusion.

 

[SeeTheLight]

I would suggest you give your local catholic church a call and setup some time with a priest and ask him some burning questions you have. Then go and discuss some of these things with your religious hierarchy (bishop of your ward or some elders more in tune with the LDS faith).

There is also a great radio show on EWTN called “Call to Communion”. I would suggest calling in to that sometime and asking Dr. David Anders. This is a radio show specifically for non-catholics. He will absolutely have some solid answers for you.

There is also Catholic Answers Live as well.

God Bless AMEN

 

[TOmNossor]

Well that still doesn’t disprove the catholic answers article. Because something has been proven to have existed doesn’t mean it was correct in its existence which is why it was addressed by the council and corrected.

I agree, if the Catholic authority was infallibly protected from error in the 5th century, just because there is evidence there (and in other places) for the practice of Baptism for the Dead does not mean that the underlying premise of the Catholic Answers article is wrong. My suggestion to you was much more muted than that. I said that the Catholic Answers article was wrong when it said: “There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead.”

If you wish to split hairs on the quote I offered as compared to an explicit acknowledgement that the 1 Cor 15:29 practice happened, I can dig up some more for you from the ECF.

I would further suggest an even larger problem with the Catholic Answers document is that it presents “Baptism of Desire” as if it is the response to the problem of the unevangelized. This (not Baptism for the Dead) is the RADICAL innovation. Until long after Joseph Smith revealed Baptism for the Dead, the Catholic doctrines around “Baptism of Desire” where VERY DIFFERENT than they are today. The Catholic Answers author either doesn’t know this or doesn’t share it. The 20th century saw a huge change in what Baptism of Desire was in Catholic thought. The 21st century saw a further (and in my opinion absolute) break from Tradition when the Vatican published “The Hope for Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.”

The admittedly scant evidence anciently for the practice LDS perform called “Baptism for the Dead” is far better than the ancient evidence for either the expansion of Baptism of Desire in the 20th century or the Hope document.

Charity, TOm

 

[TomH1]

Furthermore, there is evidence of pre-Columbian bee culture meaning that to the extent this question is a scientific one, the science is not settled anyway.

What is the evidence to which you refer?