University of Stanford Shows that Book of Mormon......

[soren1]

Ah, so you have no factual reason to dispute the study, you just thenk the apologists wrote well.

It is not incumbent on me to dispute facts that have not been presented. If you had linked to a full article that would have been one thing, but a mere abstract is not useful. At best, you have only informed us that some scholars hold a particular view. In itself that is nothing. Someone could say in response that scholars from the Jesus Seminar have shown that Christ said almost none of what the Gospels claim. In and of itself, that is a meaningless. Without more documentation, yours fares no better.

As it is, I did give reasons based upon common arguments against the Spaulding hypothesis in general. Without more information from you, that was the best I could do.

I have a question, are you truly Catholic? I only ask because you seem to defend LDS a lot and the name Soren looks to be short for Sorenson, a fairly common LDS name

I have had been on the job defending Catholicism at LDS chatrooms for about four years now. I get accused of lying from time to time, but this is the most entertaining question/accusation I have ever encountered. Thanks for the laugh, no hard feelings. You should be able to tell from my posts on current threads, where you have been posting as well, that I am not defending the LDS Church. As it happens, I am a Catholic, married to an ex-Mormon, and I am a studying for a PhD in systematic theology at Ave Maria University. Prior to that I got a BA in Liberal Arts from Thomas Aquinas College and an MA in Theology and Christian Ministry from Franciscan University of Steubenville. So yeah, I’m Catholic. And Søren is my first name, not my last name.

If I seem to defend Mormons a lot, it is because I study their literature and am aware of which arguments they really are able to respond to. I hold as a matter of principle that apologetics is not about winning arguments but about presenting truth. That means I cannot let myself accept every anti-Mormon argument that promises to persuade people. I must scrutinize my own arguments before I make them, and reject those that do not fit with the best evidence and with a Catholic worldview. I never make an argument without already having studied a wide range of Mormon responses. Mormons are as smart as we are and can spot our hypocrisy, double-standards, and our ignorance. That is why we must give them a fair hearing before voicing our arguments.

Last year, I posted a series of threads at a mormonapologetics.org in which I documented just three out of many gross errors made at a recent LDS General Conference in representing Trinitarian doctrine. One of the people who responded to my threads was Daniel C. Peterson, a professor at BYU who is perhaps the most famous apologist the Mormons have. If you suspect me of being a Mormon, look at this thread, this thread, and this thread, and see how badly I destroy him. I did not even put up a large number of posts in each thread (In the second one, I posted only an OP.), but I was able to stand on principle in those discussions in ways that the Mormon respondents simply could not. The reason I can do that is because those of them who know me know I have standards in the way I handle their teachings and history. I submit anti-Mormon arguments to the same rigor that I do anti-Catholic arguments, and I only use the ones that I know can work under scrutiny. If I did not do so I could not have stood my ground as I did.

Thomas Aquinas said that Christian apologist should avoid using arguments that are visibly false lest our effort earn the irriso infidelium, the “scorn of the unbelievers.” Our apologetic becomes counterproductive when we relax our standards in way we oppose falsehood.

 

[SirThomasMore]

It is not incumbent on me to dispute facts that have not been presented.

I simply showed the abstract of a study. If you disagree with the study, disprove it. Neither you or I did the study, so what we believe is really moot.

If you had linked to a full article that would have been one thing, but a mere abstract is not useful. At best, you have only informed us that some scholars hold a particular view. In itself that is nothing. Someone could say in response that scholars from the Jesus Seminar have shown that Christ said almost none of what the Gospels claim. In and of itself, that is a meaningless. Without more documentation, yours fares no better.

It was not my goal to fare. It was my goal to present the abstract of a study and see the discussion that followed. Since that is exactly what I have done, I fared pretty well.

I have had been on the job defending Catholicism at LDS chatrooms for about four years now. I get accused of lying from time to time, but this is the most entertaining question/accusation I have ever encountered.

It was not an accusation. It was merely a question. I know it was a question because I put a question mark after it. I explained why I asked the question. Once it was confirmed you were Catholic, I acknowledged it and thanked the person who told me.

Thanks for the laugh, no hard feelings.

There shouldn;t be. If we got hard feelings each time someone asked me a question, we would be miserable

You should be able to tell from my posts on current threads, where you have been posting as well, that I am not defending the LDS Church.

I had not recalled seeing any posts from you

As it happens, I am a Catholic, married to an ex-Mormon, and I am a studying for a PhD in systematic theology at Ave Maria University. Prior to that I got a BA in Liberal Arts from Thomas Aquinas College and an MA in Theology and Christian Ministry from Franciscan University of Steubenville. So yeah, I’m Catholic. And Søren is my first name, not my last name.

Cool. That was why I asked the question. I am sorry my question offended you.

If I seem to defend Mormons a lot, it is because I study their literature and am aware of which arguments they really are able to respond to.

I studied their literature when I was LDS, I have studied it since. I served my mission and served in the Bishopric and in the EQ Presidency.

I hold as a matter of principle that apologetics is not about winning arguments but about presenting truth.

I do not believe I am arguing here. I present facts. I also correct statements made by LDS members here

That means I cannot let myself accept every anti-Mormon argument that promises to persuade people.

What a shame, really, that “truth” is classified as anti-mormon. I do not consider the things we post here ant-Mormon. I consider them pro-truth

Last year, I posted a series of threads at a mormonapologetics.org in which I documented just three out of many gross errors made at a recent LDS General Conference in representing Trinitarian doctrine. One of the people who responded to my threads was Daniel C. Peterson, a professor at BYU who is perhaps the most famous apologist the Mormons have. If you suspect me of being a Mormon, look at this thread, this thread, and this thread, and see how badly I destroy him.

Again, I did not suspect anything. I merely asked a question.

counterproductive when we relax our standards in way we oppose falsehood.

 

[soren1]

SirThomasMore:
ok.

 

[LongJourney]

Please PM me your e-mail, if you are interested in reading my perspective on the Spalding theory. It is a work in progress, and several here are familiar with it.

 

[why_me]

Last year, I posted a series of threads at a mormonapologetics.org in which I documented just three out of many gross errors made at a recent LDS General Conference in representing Trinitarian doctrine. One of the people who responded to my threads was Daniel C. Peterson, a professor at BYU who is perhaps the most famous apologist the Mormons have. If you suspect me of being a Mormon, look at this thread, this thread, and this thread, and see how badly I destroy him. I did not even put up a large number of posts in each thread (In the second one, I posted only an OP.), but I was able to stand on principle in those discussions in ways that the Mormon respondents simply could not. The reason I can do that is because those of them who know me know I have standards in the way I handle their teachings and history. I submit anti-Mormon arguments to the same rigor that I do anti-Catholic arguments, and I only use the ones that I know can work under scrutiny. If I did not do so I could not have stood my ground as I did.

.

I wonder what daniel would say to your idea of destroying him? I remember you on MAD. You are a good catholic poster who was treated with respect and with dignity by the majority of the board members.

 

[why_me]

Now Mormons never make the argument I just gave you, probably because entertaining the possibility of sociopathy on Smith’s part is not an idea they want to foster. I don’t blame them for that, or expect them to just agree with me here. Yet it is worth pointing out that the possibility does need to be taken seriously for the historical probabilities related to Mormon origins to be fairly weighed. I think a lot of Mormon arguments to the effect that “If the Church were untrue, Smith would not have done such and such” are only persuasive if one underestimates to capacity of antisocial personalities to behave in ways that radically defy our rational expectations. This is something that anti-Mormon arguments also need to take into account. I do not think that composite theories of BOM authorship do so.

Well, actually that is not true. I think that mormons do not entertain that argument because of the facts you just listed. I have also brought up the fact that the witnesses had power of Joseph Smith if it were a fraud, especially when JS was in prison. I also have brought the fact that Joseph showed absolutely no concern for the witnesses when they left the church that they would expose the fraud. In fact, if all were in on the fraud, all would have sociopathic tendencies since all kept their mouths shut during the persecution. One side on the truthfulness of the book of mormon are the witnesses and their dying statements that the book is what it claims to be even after all the human suffering expeienced by the saints.

 

[LongJourney]

I wonder what daniel would say to your idea of destroying him? I remember you on MAD. You are a good catholic poster who was treated with respect and with dignity by the majority of the board members.

OOOHHH!!! Fear DCP. Toady down and give him all the respect he deserves!!! :bowdown:

 

[why_me]

OOOHHH!!! Fear DCP. Toady down and give him all the respect he deserves!!! :bowdown:

And I will throw in a few claps too for DCP…:clapping::clapping:

 

[SirThomasMore]

OOOHHH!!! Fear DCP. Toady down and give him all the respect he deserves!!! :bowdown:

If Dan was honest, he would say he was destroyed…

 

[SirThomasMore]

And I will throw in a few claps too for DCP…:clapping::clapping:

at least Dan finally got some

 

[LongJourney]

LOL And whyme is clueless!!

 

[why_me]

Last year, I posted a series of threads at a mormonapologetics.org in which I documented just three out of many gross errors made at a recent LDS General Conference in representing Trinitarian doctrine. One of the people who responded to my threads was Daniel C. Peterson, a professor at BYU who is perhaps the most famous apologist the Mormons have. If you suspect me of being a Mormon, look at this thread, this thread, and this thread, and see how badly I destroy him. I did not even put up a large number of posts in each thread (In the second one, I posted only an OP.), but I was able to stand on principle in those discussions in ways that the Mormon respondents simply could not. The reason I can do that is because those of them who know me know I have standards in the way I handle their teachings and history. I submit anti-Mormon arguments to the same rigor that I do anti-Catholic arguments, and I only use the ones that I know can work under scrutiny. If I did not do so I could not have stood my ground as I did.

.

One thing that I noticed in reading these two threads from MAD is the civil discourse the mormons gave the catholics. And there were many catholics on those threads because I recognize their names. But the discussion was civil and respectful. And some catholics here can learn much from such discourse in how to treat others of different faiths. And it does say much about the mormon church, that people know how to treat people well.

 

[why_me]

LOL And whyme is clueless!!

Well, I don’t know what I am clueless about but I certainly don’t see any destruction of DCP. What I do see is that daniel was polite and respectful to soren. And that says much about him and his belief in mormonism. And it does leave something to think about.

 

[SirThomasMore]

One thing that I noticed in reading these two threads from MAD is the civil discourse the mormons gave the catholics. And there were many catholics on those threads because I recognize their names. But the discussion was civil and respectful. And some catholics here can learn much from such discourse in how to treat others of different faiths. And it does say much about the mormon church, that people know how to treat people well.

One thing I noticed over there was that the Catholics also treated the Mormons well. If the Mormons on this baord were as nice, maybe you would have your wish. I have been on LDS Boards where I was treated horribly. I was also treated very poorly when I left the LDS Church by mormons…very poorly.

So, your comparisons are not really relevant…so please stick to the topic

 

[StevieD]

And then on his deathbed, Sidney denies to his son that he (Sidney Rigdon) wrote the book of mormon.?

Why Me - you state this (along with lots of other assertions) as fact when I can find no evidence whatever of it (nor much else of what you assert in various threads). Can you provide an unbiased link? (i.e. NOT to an official LDS misinformation site)

 

[SirThomasMore]

Why Me - you state this (along with lots of other assertions) as fact when I can find no evidence whatever of it (nor much else of what you assert in various threads). Can you provide an unbiased link? (i.e. NOT to an official LDS misinformation site)

I have seen a lot of gnashing of teeth over this study, but no one other than LDS apologists have said it can’t be true

 

[PaulDupre]

soren1;6695488:

It is hard to give any comment on this article, because your link goes only to an abstract, so we can’t evaluate the actual arguments given. While I have no good opinion of the BOM, I doubt that the Spaulding hypothesis is a winner, and a lot of Mormon apologists have done good work showing its weaknesses.

Ah, so you have no factual reason to dispute the study, you just thenk the apologists wrote well. I have a question, are you truly Catholic? I only ask because you seem to defend LDS a lot and the name Soren looks to be short for Sorenson, a fairly common LDS name

I was thinking the same thing - another why me?

 

[why_me]

I have seen a lot of gnashing of teeth over this study, but no one other than LDS apologists have said it can’t be true

Actually, this is not true at all. Critics are divided between two main camps: The Smith alone camp, meaning that Joseph Smith wrote the book of mormon alone. This group has set out to challenge the study. And then of course, the Sidney Rigdon camp. This group hails the study. However, it is becoming clear that the study has holes and the Smith alone camp are cherry picking the holes.

 

[why_me]

Why Me - you state this (along with lots of other assertions) as fact when I can find no evidence whatever of it (nor much else of what you assert in various threads). Can you provide an unbiased link? (i.e. NOT to an official LDS misinformation site)

As William McLellin, an early Mormon leader and later apostate, affirmed years after he had left Mormonism:

You seem to think S. Rigdon the bottom of all M[ormon]ism. Many people know better. He never heard of the work of Smith & Cowdery, until C[owdery] and P[arley] P. Pratt brought the book to him in Mentor, O[hio]. True enough, I have but little confidence in S. Rigdon, but I know he was more the tool of J. Smith than his teacher and director. He was docile in J. S. hands to my knowledge.29

If any one single item defined Rigdon it was his untiring belief in the authenticity of that “ancient voice from the dust.” It provided him the shelf on which he rested his soul. And in the end, when he was disillusioned and bereft of faith in Joseph Smith, he still avowed that the Book of Mormon was precisely what it claimed to be – the word of God.

solomonspalding.com/Lib/vWg1994a.htm

Sidney confirmed that he never wrote the book on his deathbed:

During the spring of 1833 or 1834, while visiting the home of Samuel Baker near New Portage, Ohio, Rigdon stated in the presence of a large gathering that he was aware some in the neighborhood had accused him of being the instigator of the Book of Mormon. Standing in the doorway to address the audience in the yard, he held up a Book of Mormon and said:

I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angels up yonder, (pointing towards heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgment day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never penned a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.5

Such was Rigdon’s stance even on his deathbed. He confirmed that position repeatedly, as did his wife and at least three of his children, two of whom were non-believers in Mormonism. His oldest child, Athalia R. Robinson, in a notarized statement of 10 October 1900, said that the missionaries presented the book to her father in the presence of "My mother and myself. . . . This was the first time father ever saw the book of Mormon."6

His son Wickliffe added in a 1905 interview that during a visit with his father,

then in his last yearsÉI found him as firm as ever in declaring that he himself had nothing whatever to do in writing the book, and that Joseph Smith received it from an angel. On his dying bed he made the same declaration to a Methodist minister.

solomonspalding.com/Lib/vWg1994a.htm

The sections are toward the end of the link.

---

By the way, is it okay for catholics to use this site(catholic answers) to verify their claims about the catholic faith? Can it also be said that catholic answers is an misinformation site?

 

[why_me]

I provided information about sidney rigdon denying that he wrote the book of mormon even on his deathbed to his son and to a methodist minister. His wife also denied that he wrote the book. Also, I have stated on other threads that the witnesses to the book of mormon never denied what they saw, many on their deathbeds testified to what they saw. And that is what makes mormonism so strong.

Now if Sidney would have on his deathbed provided his manucript complete with rough drafts of his work on the book of mormon…the lds church would today just be a footnote in american religious history. But no such luck. And likewise for the witnesses…if they would have provided a detailed account as to how the con was conceived etc. But…no such luck. All remained true to their claim.