Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

[Zakuska]

I would hardly call that a qualified person associating the BoM with the mayans or incans as i posted. This also depends on your definition of “striking parallels”. I can find striking parallels between the Hobbit and the babylonian epic gilgamesh. Does that mean tolkein was a prophet?

Never said it did… But it does place the BOM in the correct time and place. How did Jospeh Smith know. Also the Isaiiah passages in the BOM are closer to the LXX, DSS and Aramaic tranlations than they are to the KJV in any of its form. Agian how did a 20 year old uneducated farm boy pull that off:?

I can find Parallells with CS Lewis - Chronicals of Narian and the Bible.

Heck… they Found troy following the Iliad. Does that make Zues God?

All all this proves is that these documents are ancient.


Well been fun guys… bye for now.

 

[majick275]

No it shows a scheming con man with the help of an educated partner (oliver), an easily duped fool with money (martin harris) and the help of his wife plagiarized a ton and then still ended up with poorly written novel that a professional preacher (rigdon) had to edit.

 

[Phaedrus]

amgid:

Because it is not even claiming to. The LDS Church makes a clear statement to that effect. We have three volumes of modern scripture to back that claim. You may dispute that our modern scripture is indeed scripture; but you cannot dispute that we make such a claim.

Well, I don’t dispute that you make the claim, I was just trying to establish if it was a rational claim or not.

amgid:

The LDS Church claims to be led by a prophet who is able to communicate directly with God. The Catholic Church does not even make such a claim. I don’t think there is any room for misunderstanding as to the difference in our positions in this respect.

You base your definition for a “true” (valid) church on LDS theology, and then claim that only the LDS church fulfills the requirements. That’s hardly a surprise, or a revelation.

amgid:

… but strongest evidence we have is one that would not be acceptable to you, although it is convincing enough for us. The greatest evidence we have for these things comes from modern scripture. The Book of Mormon, for example, tells us that infant baptisms is not only incorrect, but even wicked. But to you that would be no evidence because you do not accept the validity of modern LDS scripture.

No, I do not accept the validity of the “modern scriptures” you mention. I can’t accept that a document is true just because it says it is.

amgid:

Reasoning from the Bible alone, it is still possible to provide adequate theological justification against infant baptisms; but if you are determined you will always be able to find a way of wriggling out of that theological evidence. So lengthening out the debate unnecessarily would seem futile exercise.

amgid, I understand that you are frustrated, and perhaps angry at me because you feel that I am baiting you. I am not. I just think that what we are discussing is extremely important. I am not trying to trip you up or make you angry, or score rhetorical points against you. Consequently, I am not interested in “wriggling out of… theological evidence”. Please re-read my posts and let me know if you think I have been dishonest or tricky.

amgid:

I think that my position is also logical. But it would seem that we are arguing from different parameters.

No, I don’t think you have been logical at all. That does NOT prove that you are wrong, it just means that you have not made your case in a logical manner.

amgid:

If I relied on rational arguments alone, I would never be a Mormon. I am a Mormon because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. Having gained that witness, however, I am also able to see the rationality behind it, which enables me to argue forcefully with rational arguments in favor of it. But the ultimate witness behind it is spiritual, not rational.

amgid, the opposite of rational is not spiritual, it’s irrational. But I am glad that you have been honest about the primary reason you are a LDS. Does it bother you that your faith is based on a subjective experience? It should.

amgid:

Agreed, so what do you want us to do?!

Why, I want you to become a Catholic, of course. I realize that this discussion has likely made you feel defensive, and the odds are against a conversion, yet I am compelled to make the offer nonetheless. You may not take advantage of it right now, but perhaps one day you will be willing to consider it further. If you do, I would be happy to help in any way I can. Meanwhile, let’s pray for each other.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[amgid]

Phaedrus:

Well, I don’t dispute that you make the claim, I was just trying to establish if it was a rational claim or not.

No, that is not what you were “trying to establish”. You had asked how I knew that the Catholic Church is not led by revelation. I had stated that because it is not even claiming to, and that is a valid argument. The LDS Church makes that claim unmistakably, without equivocation. The Catholic Church does not. That is the difference.

You base your definition for a “true” (valid) church on LDS theology, and then claim that only the LDS church fulfills the requirements. That’s hardly a surprise, or a revelation.

No, my definition is based on biblical theology. Throughout biblical history, whenever God has had a true church on earth, be it in the OT or NT, that church has always been led by revelation. That is not the case in present day Christendom–Catholic or otherwise–with the exception of the LDS Church. That is a sign of the apostasy. I quote:

Amos 8:

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

No, I do not accept the validity of the “modern scriptures” you mention. I can’t accept that a document is true just because it says it is.

Yes, I figured you didn’t. Just for your information, I don’t accept that the Book of Mormon is true “just because it says it is” either.

amgid, I understand that you are frustrated, and perhaps angry at me because you feel that I am baiting you. I am not. I just think that what we are discussing is extremely important. I am not trying to trip you up or make you angry, or score rhetorical points against you. Consequently, I am not interested in “wriggling out of… theological evidence”. Please re-read my posts and let me know if you think I have been dishonest or tricky.

Fair enough. I take it that you are a serious debater. I have given a biblical theological justification against the doctrine of infant baptism. You will find it in posts #44, #45, and #46 in the thread called “Why not baptize children?” Tell me what you think of them.

No, I don’t think you have been logical at all. That does NOT prove that you are wrong, it just means that you have not made your case in a logical manner.

OK, tell me more about it. What do you want me to tell you to be more logical?

amgid, the opposite of rational is not spiritual, it’s irrational. But I am glad that you have been honest about the primary reason you are a LDS. Does it bother you that your faith is based on a subjective experience? It should.

This statement only shows how “illogical” you are. “Spiritual” is not synonymous with “subjective”.

Why, I want you to become a Catholic, of course.

Good, convince me! I am waiting to be convinced!

I realize that this discussion has likely made you feel defensive,

Not at all, I don’t think I have been defensive. I think that you may be showing signs of being defensive!

and the odds are against a conversion,

You are right about that.

yet I am compelled to make the offer nonetheless.

Go for it! I am not stopping you!

You may not take advantage of it right now, but perhaps one day you will be willing to consider it further. If you do, I would be happy to help in any way I can.

Help me with what? Becoming a Catholic? I didn’t say I wanted your help to become a Catholic. I have said that if you wanted to give it a try, I am willing to listen. After all, this is an open forum, and a Catholic one at that; and it is only reasonable that if you really want to try to convert me, that I should let you have your chance. You can even start a new thread if you like. You can call it “Converting amgid!” No guarantee that you will succeed of course.

Meanwhile, let’s pray for each other.

All right then, we will pray for each other! No harm in doing that!

amgid

 

[Brad_Haas]

amgid:

No, that is not what you were “trying to establish”. You had asked how I knew that the Catholic Church is not led by revelation. I had stated that because it is not even claiming to, and that is a valid argument. The LDS Church makes that claim unmistakably, without equivocation. The Catholic Church does not. That is the difference.

You’re mistaken, amgid. If you read the first few chapters of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you’ll see that the Church claims to be led by revelation. The difference is that the LDS church claims to be led by continued revelation given through men, while the Catholic Church claims to be led by the final and perfect revelation of God, Jesus Christ. The Catechism quotes St. John of the Cross on this matter (paragraph 65):

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say … because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

No it shows a scheming con man with the help of an educated partner (oliver), an easily duped fool with money (martin harris) and the help of his wife plagiarized a ton and then still ended up with poorly written novel that a professional preacher (rigdon) had to edit.

prove your statement with evidence or recant your statement. show me were martin harris admitted being fooled, or oliver or sidney were are their statements to back your claim. its obvious why you would want it to be true but your wrong. our church is true and all the promises that you made have been recorded in hevean and so have your currant ones. I guess you had better be really sure you are right. because if you are wrong well you know that to.

 

[paul_barlow]

Brad Haas:

You’re mistaken, amgid. If you read the first few chapters of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you’ll see that the Church claims to be led by revelation. The difference is that the LDS church claims to be led by continued revelation given through men, while the Catholic Church claims to be led by the final and perfect revelation of God, Jesus Christ. The Catechism quotes St. John of the Cross on this matter (paragraph 65):

so how does your church deal with modern issues like abortion and family planning. if you revelation is two thousand years old that means your church has been dead for two thousand years.
christ leads his true chuch daily.

 

[majick275]

paul barlow:

prove your statement with evidence or recant your statement. show me were martin harris admitted being fooled, or oliver or sidney were are their statements to back your claim. its obvious why you would want it to be true but your wrong. our church is true and all the promises that you made have been recorded in hevean and so have your currant ones. I guess you had better be really sure you are right. because if you are wrong well you know that to.

Well JS himself talked about Harris. My goodness do you not know that he bore testimony of the shaker religion AFTER he was LDS? Once again it was JS who most strongly denounced Oliver and sidney. Oliver got in trouble with the law for bank fraud. (you’d think he would have learned after Kirtland) Sidney Rigdon was the spokesman fro the church and a member of the first presidency. Who do you think did the editing to correct all the problems with the 1830 BoM? Why don’t you read the Documentary History of the Church. That’s an LDS publication that proves all of these things.

That Oliver was educated, Martin Harris kept following “prophets” (hiram page, Ann Lee) and financed the early LDS church; Oliver, harris and emma helped JS get the BoM into english,onto paper and published, that Rigdon was a professional clergyman and helped JS edit the works of the LDS church are all undisputed even by LDS. JS admitted to “money digging” in his youth. (although he did say it wasn’t profitable as he only got 14 dollars a month for it) I am absolutely positive that JS was a false prophet. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

Well JS himself talked about Harris. My goodness do you not know that he bore testimony of the shaker religion AFTER he was LDS? Once again it was JS who most strongly denounced Oliver and sidney. Oliver got in trouble with the law for bank fraud. (you’d think he would have learned after Kirtland) Sidney Rigdon was the spokesman fro the church and a member of the first presidency. Who do you think did the editing to correct all the problems with the 1830 BoM? Why don’t you read the Documentary History of the Church. That’s an LDS publication that proves all of these things.

That Oliver was educated, Martin Harris kept following “prophets” (hiram page, Ann Lee) and financed the early LDS church; Oliver, harris and emma helped JS get the BoM into english,onto paper and published, that Rigdon was a professional clergyman and helped JS edit the works of the LDS church are all undisputed even by LDS. JS admitted to “money digging” in his youth. (although he did say it wasn’t profitable as he only got 14 dollars a month for it) I am absolutely positive that JS was a false prophet. The evidence is overwhelming.

sidney and oliver left the church. where are the testimonies denying the truthfulness of the book of mormon. they were exed members so why did they not deny it. maybe you are more spiritual than them. is that why you can.

 

[majick275]

Sidney was still trying to run the church. He ran back after JS death trying to claim leadership. He ended up a leader in a splinter sect. Read “portrait of religious excess” for a good biography of Sidney.

Oliver kept trying scams (according to JS) and wasn’t accepted outside of LDS circles so he finally tucked tail and went back to them.

That con men never confessed their scam is not relevant to me. I will resist the temptation to tout my spirituality. I am lowly sinner who is only saved by a merciful God. I repent of my time in the LDS church and seek to serve God in his Holy, Catholic church.

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

Sidney was still trying to run the church. He ran back after JS death trying to claim leadership. He ended up a leader in a splinter sect. Read “portrait of religious excess” for a good biography of Sidney.

Oliver kept trying scams (according to JS) and wasn’t accepted outside of LDS circles so he finally tucked tail and went back to them.

That con men never confessed their scam is not relevant to me. I will resist the temptation to tout my spirituality. I am lowly sinner who is only saved by a merciful God. I repent of my time in the LDS church and seek to serve God in his Holy, Catholic church.

good keep that in mind at the judgement seat.

 

[majick275]

I certainly will. I’ll plead for mercy you ask for justice and we’ll see what happens.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Please, children. Be civil. Let’s not go through this whole “I’m right and your wrong charade.” We obviously have different opinions here. The reason for this board is to learn about one another. It’s harder to learn about someone after you’ve killed them. These taunts and religious threats are really getting irksome, and I don’t find them necessary. In fact, I’d say they’re holding us back from our purposes.

 

[Zakuska]

majick275:

No it shows a scheming con man with the help of an educated partner (oliver), an easily duped fool with money (martin harris) and the help of his wife plagiarized a ton and then still ended up with poorly written novel that a professional preacher (rigdon) had to edit.

How do you “plagerize a document” (DSS) thats buried in a cave in Israel and not to be found for 100+ more years?

 

[Phaedrus]

Amgid, we could argue for ten years about whether or not infant baptism was valid, and finally end up where we began: you believe it is not, because that’s what your church teaches you, and I believe it is, because that is what my church teaches. Same thing with the idea that revelation (in the strict sense defined by your church) is a vital characteristic of the “true” church. You say it is, because your church taught you that it is. You did not come up with that idea on your own. That’s what I mean by “dueling doctrines”. They don’t get you anywhere.

But what we CAN debate is who has the authority to formulate doctrines about the essential nature of revelation or the validity of infant baptism. That is what I have been trying to get to in the last few posts. Let me illustrate with my own story. I was raised an evangelical Protestant and taught to hate and fear the Roman Catholic Church. It wasn’t until I met someone whose devotion to God I didn’t question, and who was becoming a Catholic, that I had to re-think those beliefs. His conversion didn’t prove anything, of course, but it did introduce doubt. So for two years I studied the Catholic Church, and I began to be convinced that it was exactly what it claimed to be – the one, true Church founded by Jesus. Reason didn’t get me all the way – there was still a leap of faith – but by the time I made that leap I was pretty sure that there would be someone to catch me. The process began with reason, and led to a decisive moment of faith.

Let’s say you want to know how to get to a place you have never been before. You can ask someone you know who has traveled there, or you can ask a stranger. The smart thing to do is decide who is most likely to know the correct route. There’s no point arguing with your traveling companion about whether the interstate or the secondary roads are the best way if you are each following different directions. But you can debate who is more likely to have the correct directions based on the authority of the direction giver.

Continued…

 

[Phaedrus]

Now, if you look at the claims of the LDS Church, they appear pretty weak to a disinterested observer. The Church becomes apostate shortly after the death of Jesus, and is not reestablished until the nineteenth century. None of the early Church fathers and mighty saints, like Augustine, Aquinas, or Ignatius, or the millions of devout, intelligent Christians who truly loved God and lived and died in the Church, ever figured this out, and were, themselves, apostates. Then some guy with a dubious past finds golden tablets with hitherto unknown scriptures about hitherto unknown people and a church is born. Finally you tell me that this only makes sense if you have this subjective experience that tells your heart that the BOM is true. In other words, the leap of faith comes at the beginning of the process, not at the end, and the reason follows.

What I want to tell you is that that process is a nearly perfect way to be deceived. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the LDS was false, how would you ever know? Nothing anyone outside the LDS church says can convince you. That is not rational, and it is very dangerous.

So I repeat my invitation. I realize you have no intention of becoming a Catholic right now. But I ask that you study the Catholic Church, and especially Church history (from non-LDS sources, please), and see for yourself if the claim the Roman Church makes to speak with the authority of Jesus in matters of faith and morals seems plausible. Then perhaps you will change your mind.

And I’m serious about praying for each other.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zakuska:

How do you “plagerize a document” (DSS) thats buried in a cave in Israel and not to be found for 100+ more years?

Zakuska,
Now you’re going to tell us that the Dead Sea Scrolls support Mormon Beliefs. Did JS transcribe those accurately like the BoA papyrus and put them back to be discovered 100 years later only to be stolen by the Vatican so they could twist the meaning to hide the truth of Mormonism. Maybe the Moon Quakers road flying tapirs from Kirtland Ohio to the Middle East to replant them. Wow this could be a great Tolkien novel. Lord of the Plates, Papyrus, and Scrolls.


Thanks for the humor,

Ted

 

[Zakuska]

Catholic Guy:

Zakuska,
Now you’re going to tell us that the Dead Sea Scrolls support Mormon Beliefs. Did JS transcribe those accurately like the BoA papyrus and put them back to be discovered 100 years later only to be stolen by the Vatican so they could twist the meaning to hide the truth of Mormonism. Maybe the Moon Quakers road flying tapirs from Kirtland Ohio to the Middle East to replant them. Wow this could be a great Tolkien novel. Lord of the Plates, Papyrus, and Scrolls.


Thanks for the humor,

Ted

Actually… your post was Humorless.

What I said was… the Isaiah Passages in the BOM are a closer translation to Aramaic/DSS/LXX Isaiah than they are to the KJV. IE the variants of the LXX/DSS/Aramaic Translations of Isaiah match more closey the BOM than they do the KJV. Thus this places the BOM in the correct time and place.

PS. You have just Got to Love thos unicorns and talking asses.

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zakuska:

Actually… your post was Humorless.

What I said was… the Isaiah Passages in the BOM are a closer translation to Aramaic/DSS/LXX Isaiah than they are to the KJV. IE the variants of the LXX/DSS/Aramaic Translations of Isaiah match more closey the BOM than they do the KJV. Thus this places the BOM in the correct time and place.

PS. You have just Got to Love thos unicorns and talking asses.

Touchy,
Thanks for clarifying your above post, now would you be so kind to point us to the FAIR or FARMS article that makes this claim. And Zak lighten up when it comes to comments like my previous post, you seem show as much restraint as I have on the FAIR boards.

Ted

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zak,
Iam sorry if I offended you with my comments about JS, I will show more restraint for this subject, because I would like to discuss it with you.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy