A few questions

[theophilus]

Ok, I'm back. Unlike my dog, I come when called.

Thank you, everyone. I've spent a long time lurking, so it seems natural to me to start speaking up. But to you, I'm brand new and out of left field. I had not intended on doing so much talking. I will find my rock soon and curl up under it.

PC.

I do not mean to downgrade seeking personal revelation. What I'm saying, if I could put it in a "bumper sticker" format, is: The first guy who says "God told me" in an argument loses.

Being asked to read a book and having one's feeling be the mark of it being "God-breathed" is a gamble that could be lost--without even knowing it. Do you know that the Bible teaches that one's heart is deceptive? That Christians of old would study to see if a "gospel" message was true? The example that Mormonmusic gave about Peter's revelation of Jesus being the Son of God is a good example of a "faith" issue. But it is another assumption to insist that Peter's experience is the "burning in the bosom" that LDS hope it to be. With that logic, any sect can claim their unique testimony experience to be the same as Peter's. And if everyone is right, then nobody is right. Another point of interest with Peter is that his revelation was given by the Father. Peter did not read a book, a book that had glaring problems, a book that said Jesus was the Son of God, and THEN asked who Jesus was. Peter's confession was out of left field and not encouraged. His testimony was not the result of another person's philosophy on how to get answers.

You know that Catholics and Christians pray, ask God for wisdom, help, etc. We do not, unless we are being silly, ask God to help us understand why there are no camels in North America (just as one example). This is the difference of a "faith" issue and a "substance" issue.

Mormonmusic,

On the grounds of your 13th Article of Faith, I consider practicing Mormons to be my friends. I am not a Mormon-basher at all, thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I believe that the world would be a better place if everyone was a Mormon. My best friends are Mormon. I think I've helped them become better Mormons and they have helped me be a better Catholic. However, there is a deep knee-jerk reaction to calling someone a basher whenever there is disagreement. It is defensive. It does not communicate a confidence in the material or beliefs. Yes, my experiences with Mormons is limited, but includes one private interviews with a bishops, one-on-ones with seminary teachers, friendly discussions with hundreds of lay Mormons, the Discussions, reading everything I could find in a pre-Internet world (bashing and approved), etc. I was the geek of geeks, often driving a thousand miles to actually obtain a full collection of the JofD. I've yet to find one Mormon who has a set--and my reading of it gives me clues as to why. Of course there is a but...

I will not disrespect you by not stating my obvious stance. It is difficult for me to understand how good people can believe the BofM. The lack of answers for its problems are not matters of faith, but matters of intellect. We are not the smartest beings, but we are smart enough to know that when prophets speak in the past tense about things to come, it appears to be written by a 19th century storyteller. When one can chart an evolution of theology, it appears that it was made up. When Mormons discourage the study of the JofD, it is a signal that something is wrong because it is fair to be suspicious of those who wish to control information.

Bytebear,

When Mormons are quicker to run from questions (or dismiss them because they are "anti-Mormon") than they are to answering them, what that communicates is that there are no answers. The "stumbling blocks" that the other thread mentions are a lot of the biggies, wouldn't you agree? The "stumbling blocks" if you read them would show that they are NOT matters of faith. They are largely matters of contradictions, confusion of which god is in play, matters of a physical nature like archaeology, etc. One simply calling problems like those "faith" matters is actually a way of escaping responsibility. These are not faith issues; they are issues that the LDS will need to deal with in an information age--they are not going to go away.

I owe you an apology for picking on you. That's why I'm called The Awfulest.

2:00 AM. I'm road tripping tomorrow, will check in. Thanks again for the discussions. [returning to lurking]

Edited December 10, 2009 by theophilus
added and end

[LDSVALLEY]

Originally Posted by theophilus View Post

I find praying for a burning in the bosom over the B of M to be nonsensical. I find it unprecedented anywhere in Christian history. I don't find it Biblical. I find it rendering man's ability to use his mind pointless. The result of the model can always be questioned.

From what I read in your post I feel your missing a step.

I looked into many churchs before I joined the LDS. I never actually thought I would ever join a religion because I had not been raised with any and other then seeking something my children could anchor too above the wishy washy of society had no interest.

Other faiths told me this or that but none told me to take what we are teaching you and ask God if it was true.

The Missionaries did not say when they came the church is true just go onto your knee and ask God and he will confirm it. I was told to study what they left, question what they taught, seek to understand in my mind what I was searching for. In other words to do all the leg work, study, learn, know what I was after only then should I go to God and seek confirmation that what my mind was telling me was logic was his way.

Before I joined I would never have believed the stuff I have had happen to me. The first time I was at a Testimony meeting as in investigator I told my wife these people are on serious drugs. Normal looking people were going up to the pulpit and weeping, crying, talking about miracles, promptings, spirits, testimonies etc. I figured these guys were total wack jobs.

But I wondered, I had at that point done as the Missionaries had asked and after doing all that stuff they asked I had gotten an answer not once but three times. I use logic in all I do. Things have to make sense, but I don't believe logic must only apply to what I can see and prove. If I had done what they asked and gotten an answer, if these people were not really on drugs but on the Lord then I wanted what they had. My family deserved the best I could give them. The only logic that fit was that it is true, God is real and does answer and give direction when we do what he asks of us. But in his time not ours.

After that first three experiences I went three years without feeling anything similar, but when it came again it was overwhelming like those testimonies I had witnessed that first time.

In 14 years I have had too many things happen that no one can ever explain short of the logic that God is real and the church is real. But if I went back in time to 15 years ago and told myself I would someday be a Mormon who has laid his hands on peoples heads and pronounce blessings from God, helped bring 25 plus people into the church, had complete faith in Gods existence then I would have thrown myself out the door laughing at my stupidity.

Alas one of the great frustrations is you can tell people of your experiences but only the spirit can show people the truth behind them. I have no reason to lie about my experiences but you also have no reason to believe in them for they are my experiences not yours, I can not give them to you and even if you wanted them you can not take them onto you.

The only thing that can be said is if you want to fully understand you need to seek the journey yourself with the desire to follow the course with real intent there is simply no other way.

So with no insult intended if you really want to understand........Go seek out the Missionaries, read what they ask from the Book of Mormon, take the lessons, ask questions to clarify what is taught, attend service a few times then get down on your knees and pray, with real intent to know the truth of the matter. If you feel the Holy Ghost testify it is true then you must follow through with the intent to join. If you don't feel it then you can take that as you are not ready or the whole thing is a load of crap.

The church is true to me because God himself has told me so. And because my logic tells me it is the only logical way it can be. So I overcame my disbelief and did what I promised to do if it was shown to be true. For me and my family it has been the best journey I could ever have taken.

May you find what brings you peace, happiness and joy.

May you find your God in whatever form that is.

May you bring happiness to him by serving him and your fellow beings as best you can.

May you find the answers you seek.

I have and is it ever worth it.

Edited December 11, 2009 by LDSVALLEY

[mnn727]

There is a good chance that this post will be labeled as "contentious" but an honest reading of it will show that it is an urging for LDS to consider their image within the theological arena, and suggestions on how to communicate to an untapped mission field.

I understand that Mormons get a lot of the same "questions" from outsiders that appear as though they are reading from Ed Decker. I'm Catholic, and we have no shortage of those types of questions too. Like, "don't call people father, what's this Mary stuff, why are you a cannibal, etc."

.

And how do you feel about people who come in claiming that they are trying to learn and then copy and paste entirely from an anti-website and then may stay for a day or 2 and then disappear forever. Doing that tells me that these are not questions the person has thought up themselves when trying to learn more about the Church

Do you really think they were genuinly looking for an answer? Do you think if you were to give them an entirely logical answer that it would change their thought process.Cause I sure don't, There's a name for a person that does that on a forum - it starts with a T

Edited December 10, 2009 by mnn727

[Guest mormonmusic]

LDSValley -- your experience is a lot like mine. Moments of overwhelming spirituality that leave this indelible impression on you that yes, this is the right thing, notwithstanding things that don't initially makes sense.

I'm actually amazed at the number of people who reject the gospel out of hand, and refuse to even pray about it. My father is one of those people. He's a good man, a Christian like me, and would make a good Mormon, but he refuses to read the BoM or even pray about it. Therefore, the conversation is pretty much over and until he has a change of heart, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to try to change him with some intellectual arguments that are just that -- another set of intellectual arguments.

From what I read, I question whether Theophilius will actually pray about it, as he doesn't believe that personal revelation is the cornerstone of spiritual knowledge. In fact, he believes that advice is to read and study the BofM, and presumably, pray about it, isnt' sufficient, and is a cop-out. [correct me if I'm wrong Theophilius -- if I'm not representing what you've said properly, please correct me]

[Hemidakota]

The gospel or the words of it through the Book of Mormon or the Bible by the hands of the Jews, will have a familiar voice of the past of those who are called. Many called but only a few are chosen. Those who are chosen, will not reject the Spirit when it is made manifested in that moment when given. However, many others will not accept it for that same very reason. They do not find any familiarity of still small voice and may not come to realization of the truth being presented. Even when the Holy Ghost is in attendance, they will still deny it.

The cornerstone of any belief begins with FAITH. Through faith, we have the HOPE for the more surety of the word or KNOWLEDGE there of. It is through faith we learn truths and allow the Master mold our soul into a precious gem, where our eyes will not only behold the Master one day, but our whole demeanor changes within. Through faith, our OBEDIENCE and SELF-WILL becomes harmonized with the Master and thus, give HONOR to GOD.

[Maya]

I was looking for theos qusetions in order to answer them... but found none...

But what I found out was that the questions in OP have been well answered already 3-5 times here... so no need for me to answer anything.

[deseretgov]

I do not mean to downgrade seeking personal revelation. What I'm saying, if I could put it in a "bumper sticker" format, is: The first guy who says "God told me" in an argument loses.

Why? Is God not allowed to tell people things?

Being asked to read a book and having one's feeling be the mark of it being "God-breathed" is a gamble that could be lost--without even knowing it. Do you know that the Bible teaches that one's heart is deceptive?

That's why it's not an emotion that determines a spiritual truth. It's something else.

That Christians of old would study to see if a "gospel" message was true? The example that Mormonmusic gave about Peter's revelation of Jesus being the Son of God is a good example of a "faith" issue. But it is another assumption to insist that Peter's experience is the "burning in the bosom" that LDS hope it to be.

Studying is very important. That's wher ethe reading it and pondering it comes into play. All of that must be done before a person should pray about it. Read it, study it, pray about it. Those are the three steps.

With that logic, any sect can claim their unique testimony experience to be the same as Peter's. And if everyone is right, then nobody is right.

1 Corinthians 12:4-7

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Another point of interest with Peter is that his revelation was given by the Father. Peter did not read a book, a book that had glaring problems, a book that said Jesus was the Son of God, and THEN asked who Jesus was. Peter's confession was out of left field and not encouraged. His testimony was not the result of another person's philosophy on how to get answers.

You seem to have a certain book in mind.

You know that Catholics and Christians pray, ask God for wisdom, help, etc. We do not, unless we are being silly, ask God to help us understand why there are no camels in North America (just as one example). This is the difference of a "faith" issue and a "substance" issue.

I've never prayed to understand why there are no camels in North America. I didn't know camels were supposed to be in North America.

I was the geek of geeks, often driving a thousand miles to actually obtain a full collection of the JofD. I've yet to find one Mormon who has a set--and my reading of it gives me clues as to why. Of course there is a but...

Clues to why not every Mormon has a copy of the JoD? Probably because not everyone is interested in reading all that history. But I don't know why that would be in the JoD. I personally would love to read them and I have read parts. But I just done have the time for it. I have so many other important things that need to be done. Someday I'll get around to reading it.

I will not disrespect you by not stating my obvious stance. It is difficult for me to understand how good people can believe the BofM. The lack of answers for its problems are not matters of faith, but matters of intellect. We are not the smartest beings, but we are smart enough to know that when prophets speak in the past tense about things to come, it appears to be written by a 19th century storyteller. When one can chart an evolution of theology, it appears that it was made up.

Wow, I don't know what to say. Especially considering you probably believe the Bible. This could be applied to you(or any of us that believve the Bible) as well:

The lack of answers for its problems are not matters of faith, but matters of intellect. We are not the smartest beings, but we are smart enough to know that when (insert one of the Bible's many internal problems here), it (insert disproving conclusion here).

When Mormons discourage the study of the JofD, it is a signal that something is wrong because it is fair to be suspicious of those who wish to control information.

Hmm. I'vve never been discouraged from studying the JoD. Not once ever. But with the limited time I have here on earth I think studying God's word out weighs studying the JoD.

Bytebear,

When Mormons are quicker to run from questions (or dismiss them because they are "anti-Mormon") than they are to answering them, what that communicates is that there are no answers.

I try to answer all questions rather than simply dismiss them. Even when I know a person is just trying to stir up an argument. But some people get tried of trying to answer the same questions over an over especially then the asker is simply trying to be negative and could care less what answer they get.

The "stumbling blocks" that the other thread mentions are a lot of the biggies, wouldn't you agree? The "stumbling blocks" if you read them would show that they are NOT matters of faith. They are largely matters of contradictions, confusion of which god is in play, matters of a physical nature like archaeology, etc. One simply calling problems like those "faith" matters is actually a way of escaping responsibility. These are not faith issues; they are issues that the LDS will need to deal with in an information age--they are not going to go away.

I think calling the matters of faith is simply a way of saying, "Yes there are contradictions and problems, but who doesn't have them. And since we don't have all the answers yet we have to have faith that what we believe is correct even though we don't have any answers to those concerns right now."

[mnn727]

Funny thing is I have NEVER had a "burning in the bossom" -- except for that time my cousin added too many jalapeno's to her chili.

Nor, do I imagine, have many other Mormons, yet what we do or did have is an undeniable spirtitual witness testifying to us.

We are not asked to rely on a 'burning in the bossom, Oliver Cowdry was told that, no one else has been by God.

[Maya]

Funny thing is I have NEVER had a "burning in the bossom" -- except for that time my cousin added too many jalapeno's to her chili.

Nor, do I imagine, have many other Mormons, yet what we do or did have is an undeniable spirtitual witness testifying to us.

We are not asked to rely on a 'burning in the bossom, Oliver Cowdry was told that, no one else has been by God.

I suppose that the "burning in the bossom " is like giving birth.... Everybody always say that it is sooo painfull so... all I felt with my first one were hard crampactic substractions.... not any special pain. I was not sure if I had given birth at all....

Ok now many may come here and say... ooo... but everyone has pains with birth....

[Maya]

What is an anti?

Anti-Mormon literature tends to recycle the same themes. Some ministries are using a series of fifty questions, which they believe will help "cultists" like the Mormons. One ministry seems to suggest that such questions are a good way to deceive Latter-day Saints, since the questions "give...them hope that you are genuinely interested in learning more about their religion."

This ministry tells its readers what their real intent should be with their Mormon friend: "to get them thinking about things they may have never thought about and researching into the false teachings of their church." Thus, the questions are not sincere attempts to understand what the Latter-day Saints believe, but are a smokescreen or diversionary tactic to introduce anti-Mormon material.[1]

The questions are not difficult to answer, nor are they new. This page provides links to answers to the questions. It should be noted that the questions virtually all do at least one of the following:

1. misunderstand or misread LDS doctrine or scripture;

2. give unofficial material the status of official belief;

3. assume that Mormons must have inerrantist ideas about scripture or prophets like conservative evangelical Protestants do;

4. apply a strict standard to LDS ideas, but use a double standard to avoid condemning the Bible or their own beliefs if the standard was applied fairly to both.

50 Answers - FAIRMormon

[deseretgov]

crampactic substractions

I must have been absent from math class when they went over that chapter.

[prisonchaplain]

PC.

I do not mean to downgrade seeking personal revelation. What I'm saying, if I could put it in a "bumper sticker" format, is: The first guy who says "God told me" in an argument loses.

Being asked to read a book and having one's feeling be the mark of it being "God-breathed" is a gamble that could be lost--without even knowing it. Do you know that the Bible teaches that one's heart is deceptive? That Christians of old would study to see if a "gospel" message was true?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're not so much arguing against spiritual confirmation, but rather against using prayer for guidance as some sort of Scripture study method, apart from disciplined hermenuetics and consultation with those gifted to teach (i.e. scholars). I would agree--God bless the Bereans, who were not satisfied to hear Paul preach and testify, but compared what he said with the Scripture of their day.

On the other hand, it is healthy, and normative in Protestant Christianity, and especially in charismatic and pentecostal branches, to pray for spiritual direction and insight as we begin our Bible studies.

But it is another assumption to insist that Peter's experience is the "burning in the bosom" that LDS hope it to be. With that logic, any sect can claim their unique testimony experience to be the same as Peter's. And if everyone is right, then nobody is right.

To offer a comparison, it used to be that when sinners would come up front, in evangelical churches, they would confess their sins and cry out to God for mercy. The following week the penitent would come up to the pastor and say, "I really am saved! I feel it, and I see it!"

In other words, God confirmed the salvation in their hearts, and they demonstrated to the power and authority of it by immediately experiencing some change in their lives.

This is good spiritual confirmation. How sad today, when the pastor has to tell the penitent that yes s/he really is saved...Sad because the whole thing is rushed, and too often there is no feeling or seeing.

So I'm torn between knowing feelings certainly are not enough, and being incredibly dismayed that so much of the Christian world has had no experience of the Spirit's presence.

BTW, I generally agree that spiritual confirmation was not meant to trump obvious data. On the other hand, so often, when troubling information comes up, do we not say, "Lord, I'm not sure what this means...give me clarity." Some still believe the earth is 6000 years old, others are astounded that any thinking person doesn't agree that it's "billions and billions" of years old. The literalists are quicker to defend traditional Bible teachings, believing the science will catch up, and modernists are just as quick to discard those traditional teachings. Spiritual confirmation can certainly guide our pursuit of God's wisdom.

Edited December 10, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Guest mormonmusic]

Mormonmusic,

...there is a deep knee-jerk reaction to calling someone a basher whenever there is disagreement. It is defensive. It does not communicate a confidence in the material or beliefs...

Why I have little interest in debating OP's Questions

My lack of interest in the OP's questions comes from this background:

I had many opportunities to face purported negative evidence about our Church as a full-time missionary in Southern California, where ex-Mormons for Jesus and other groups would show up mysteriously at our appointments, and then grill us with questions. I saw the Godmakers, attended an anti-Mormon movie at the baptist Church hosted by Ron Carlson, and then sat down to a study of the scriptures with my former minister, and my father.

My parents left anti-Mormon literature at the bedside when my wife and I honeymooned at their summer home. I've been exposed to a lot of issues that the rest of the Christian world has with the BoM, and probably more anti-Mormon literature than most Mormons.

Often, I had to do research to answer anti-mormon questions from sincere seekers of truth on my Mission. And I found answers in the scriptures, in The Truth About the Godmakers response to the anti-Mormons. Sometimes, I couldn't explain why certain things happened, but I found people in other religions would give equally unsatisfactory answers to questions about THEIR theology.

These debates only convinced me further that deciding truth on the basis of intelligence, logic and study alone is insufficient. Both sides make valid arguments, both defensible from the scriptures. However, no one can refute what I felt when I studied, decided the Mormons had the most credible answers, and then asked God what was right.

How Anti-Mormons have Alienated Me

Since then, people with the kinds of questions that the OP presents, would do things that made me feel they also had impure motives, that turns me off these debates.

After attending the Hill Cumorah Pageant in Palmyra, "Christians" line up outside the parking lot, on city property with megaphones shouting to my children "Your Mommy and Daddy don't love you because they brought you here". Deep insults about Joseph Smith along with comments like the ones in the OP. They put up signs pointing to anti-Mormon websites, which my 10 year old daughter goes to a few weeks later, thinking it was a site to get material for a talk. How offensive to influence my own children that way!!!!

They create straw man arguments about our religion, quoting the JoD page 35, and then appending a sentence found on Page 55 without references to create a doctrine that doesn't exist.

They also resort to deception and distortion of our beliefs to try to stop others from joining our organization. They pose as Mormon Missionaries at Church Historical sites passing out anti-Mormon literaure wearing name tags and undershirts. Visitors think they are getting Mormon doctrine and are flabbergasted.

The essentially destroy any trust I have in them, and create ill-will. they disqualify themselves as a credible source of truth or even kind people. They also smear this site which is one of the few multi-denominational places outside of Church I can go regularly and be treated by others as a normal person -- so deceptive and misrepresentative anti-Mormon groups have been to my religion.

You Have to Live Your Life

You get enough of this time-wasting anti-Mormon propaganda in your life, you realize you can spend your entire life trying to research EVERY SINGLE QUESTION AND CLAIM these people have. Half the time the facts are wrong. And at some point, you have to make your decisions, and start living the principles your heart and the Spirit tells you are best -- not to spend four hours researching claims that are made up or so convoluted they take 200 pages to clear up.

Occasionally, I find one that is interesting, and I'll research that.

It is difficult for me to understand how good people can believe the BofM...We are not the smartest beings, but we are smart enough to know that when prophets speak in the past tense about things to come, it appears to be written by a 19th century storyteller.

I've heard a lot of criticism of the BofM, but not this one -- do you care to share a reference? I'd be interested in reading it (and I believe it probably exists as your knowledge appears credible on factual matters).

When Mormons discourage the study of the JofD, it is a signal that something is wrong because it is fair to be suspicious of those who wish to control information.

I've never been discouraged from reading the Journal of Discourses. Nor have I ever discouraged anyone else from reading the JoD as a priesthood leader in the Mormon Church. Nor has anyone asked me to discourage the flock from reading the JoD. Here we seem to be branching into that area of misconception that we are somehow controlled or brainwashed, which I know firsthand isn't true.

The Nicene Creed Thread in Christian Beliefs

Also, I posed a question in the Christian Beliefs thread about your own denomination's process for discerning truth from error. Perhaps you could answer it there. I was hoping you and prisonchaplain would answer it because I thought it might get me credible answers, as you are both knowledgeable and apparently well-studied. My motive was to hear it and try to understand it, not to be contentious. And if I ask questions, it's to complete my understanding of your perspective, nothing more. I also enjoy the interaction, provided it's postiive.

I'm not out to change you or play a trump card, and any questions I ask are to clarify my understanding. I do see value in understanding why others believe what they do, and for me, that's enough when I know both sides are already committed, like we are.

Edited December 10, 2009 by mormonmusic

[mnn727]

I've never been discouraged from reading the Journal of Discourses. Nor have I ever discouraged anyone else from reading the JoD as a priesthood leader in the Mormon Church. Nor has anyone asked me to discourage the flock from reading the JoD. Here we seem to be branching into that area of misconception that we are somehow controlled or brainwashed, which I know firsthand isn't true.

.

The thing I find thatis hilarious is that every Anti-LDS tries to make it sound like they have poured over the JoD for hours and hours. I bet most of them don't even know what the JoD is, they just all quote each other.

Its no wonder they can make the claim that Mormons don't know whats in the JoD The Anti's seem to own all of them.

[Just_A_Guy]

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin?

Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, page 210 says Jesus was being married to Mary and Martha in Cana. Why then was he INVITED to his own wedding?

Obviously, you were hoping that no Mormon would have access to the Journal of Discourses.

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."

So--brushing aside the normal explanations about the JD not being doctrine--what's this? The same source you use to establish the (by implication) "Mormon doctrine" that Jesus was married at Cana, in the next breath states that the Father came to Mary "without a natural body".

And then you have the chutzpah to--in your very next paragraph--impute to us the doctrinal position that Jesus was conceived by a physical act!

Edited December 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy
Fixed HTML

[deseretgov]

chutzpah...!

Bless you.

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[theophilus]

mnn727,

I may be mistaken, but are you making light of the fact that evil anti-mormons (like me???) have read the JofD? I have not read all of them--doubt anyone has. I was about 20 years old. The REASON I made the trip to Harding University to camp in their library for a week reading as much as I could is because I WAS LIED TO by a mormon bishop who told me that the copies of "anti-mormon" JofD prints I was given were fakes. Instead of trusting neither the Ed Decker dolt types nor the Mormon bishop, I wanted to verify with real hard-copy. That does NOT make me an anti-Mormon, it makes me a truth seeker. As a Catholic, I love to read the saints. Within Mormonism, reading the saints is discouraged.

Maya,

No offense, but if you are going to comment on my specific post, then please read that specific post. I wrote that there are answers on this forum, but the answers conclude with a shared theme. That theme is personal revelation.

PC,

I think you understand my stance, I am not against personal revelation. I appreciate your tradition, I can learn from it as well. You probably know how I feel about the reformation, but some of what has come out of it is still good--and Protestants are still preaching Christ crucified! He who is not against us if for us!

Mormonmusic,

I appreciate your ability to talk without emotionalizing things. It is a shame that you've been through so much anti-Mormon drama and I understand how it drains. You may not know this, but simply type in the word antichrist image into google and you will get an idea of how I am drained by anti-Catholic junk. Recently, we had some evangelical/fundamentalist disturb a Mass by running up front and telling us all that we're the whore of babylon, going to hell, etc. I know I've failed to be as charitable as I should be when people bring up "old" questions to me. Like you, I can see the question before it's asked. I hope that I have not fallen into that category with you. I enjoy uncover theological themes and cultures. I'm a theo-geek. Most Mormons who I know can't decide if the Love to hate me, or hate to love me.

Honestly, I hope this thread has been a "steel" sharpening "steel" scenario, but it is starting to ware on me a little. I've enjoyed your thoughts and I've actually learned some things.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Mormonmusic,

I appreciate your ability to talk without emotionalizing things. It is a shame that you've been through so much anti-Mormon drama and I understand how it drains. You may not know this, but simply type in the word antichrist image into google and you will get an idea of how I am drained by anti-Catholic junk. Recently, we had some evangelical/fundamentalist disturb a Mass by running up front and telling us all that we're the whore of babylon, going to hell, etc. I know I've failed to be as charitable as I should be when people bring up "old" questions to me. Like you, I can see the question before it's asked. I hope that I have not fallen into that category with you. I enjoy uncover theological themes and cultures. I'm a theo-geek. Most Mormons who I know can't decide if the Love to hate me, or hate to love me.

Honestly, I hope this thread has been a "steel" sharpening "steel" scenario, but it is starting to ware on me a little. I've enjoyed your thoughts and I've actually learned some things.

Theophilus: I wasn't aware that the Catholics suffer anti-church abuse as we do at the hands of some Evangelicals (no offence to the friendly Evangelicals out there -- you are deeply appreciated). I feel less persecuted as as result. I thought it was just us they were after. I think it would be interesting to know the source and extent of these at some point. And I sense you understand my earlier reluctance to research and post point-by-point rebuttals. Looking forward to hearing more from you in other threads:)

Edited December 11, 2009 by mormonmusic

[bytebear]

Have you ever heard of push polling? It's essentially asking questions, but not to gain answers, but to push an agenda or present an opinion disguised as seeking information. This is essentially what the OP did and rather than be honest in his agenda, he chose to disguise his attempt at influencing the board in the guise of seeking information.

[theophilus]

Mormonmusic,

And I sense you understand my earlier reluctance to research and post point-by-point rebuttals. Looking forward to hearing more from you in other threads:)

:D

[prisonchaplain]

Mormonmusic: Anti-Catholicism is 400 years older than anti-Mormonism. LDS get attacked mostly from evangelicals. Catholics get it from Orthodox, Mainstream Christianity, evangelicals, fundamentalists, even the Adventists (how could you corrupt the Sabbath???). The good news is, just as a few LDS and evangelicals are working towards more civil discourse, there are efforts like Evangelicals and Catholics Together, doing the same. My seminary professors said that their dialogues with Catholic professors tended to be very intellectually demanding, but also very satisfying. So, there's lots of mud on the playground, but a few safe sandboxes too. :-)

[Guest mormonmusic]

I was in a priesthood executive committee meeting recently, and our Bishop commented that he's seen substantial cooperation between Mormons and the Catholics. He gave the example that when there is a disaster in a part of the world where the LDS Church doesn't have the resources, we just write a check to the Catholic Social Services organization that is strong in that area to support relief efforts.

Prisonchaplian: I'm a proponent of the safe sandbox mentality. I wish there was more of it.

On an unrelated note, I doubt if the group that stormed TheoPhilus' service telling everyone they were going to go to hell got very far. People already committed to their faith only get more committed, and my heart goes out to the Catholics that had to put up with the experience.

Edited December 11, 2009 by mormonmusic

[mnn727]

The JoD is not doctrine and has never been considered doctrine, it is interesting - as you can read very old: talks, funeral services, prayers given, and even a court proceding, but to try and pull new doctrine out of it is totally absurb.

Edited December 11, 2009 by mnn727

[mnn727]

mnn727,

I may be mistaken, but are you making light of the fact that evil anti-mormons (like me???) have read the JofD? .

I wouldn't consider you evil -- just misguided

What I was referring to is that when you have a poster like the OP come in to ask a question, they make it appear like they just happened to be reading the JoD and spotted this strange thing. As if one in a million of them have ever even touched a volume of the JoD or even know that there is more than one volume.

If I had a quarter for every time I have read on a forum in the last 10 years that I have been on forums (starting with the old AOL boards) someone pretending they were reading the JoD and found something that had to ask about, I could retire.

Edited December 11, 2009 by mnn727

[Vort]

Within Mormonism, reading the saints is discouraged.

I can't make heads nor tails of this claim. What does "reading the saints" mean? LDS authors, both general authorities and more ordinary Saints, are often best-sellers in LDS circles. I have never even a single time heard an LDS authority discourage reading "the saints". If you mean Catholic "saints", I likewise have never heard any LDS authority discourage reading of works by canonized Catholics, though I'm sure this is far less common.

Btw, many of the people I talked to during my mission to Italy had been told very specifically by their priests not to read the Bible or scripture commentary, so I wonder if your criticism above might rather apply to Catholicism.