Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 3, 2007 15:48:06 GMT -4
If you have the luxury of picking apart a post you can do something like this. No, Jason, this is not correct. There are huge tracks of the BoM that is right out of the Bible. Saying that this proves the BoM is a work akin to the bible is ignoring the more plausable explaination which is that a man of questionalble ethics simply copied it. I have already answered this particular criticism several times on this thread, but you keep bringing it up. Did you not read my earlier replies? If you have, how about commenting on specific reasons why you don't find them acceptable rather than bringing up the same subject again and again as if I hadn't addressed it at all.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 3, 2007 15:55:05 GMT -4
I believe the example I gave was someone pretty hi-ranking and respected in the LDS. Who? You didn't actually name anyone. I can't comment on someone who you haven't identified. Actually, no we're not having a discussion. You post some criticisms about the LDS church, I post some responses, and then a few weeks later you post the same criticisms again as if I had never said anything at all. You have made it a contest of wills by refusing to directly address my replies to your criticsms.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 4, 2007 13:05:25 GMT -4
I believe the example I gave was someone pretty hi-ranking and respected in the LDS. Who? You didn't actually name anyone. I can't comment on someone who you haven't identified. I will have to go back and dig that up. But I am not lying. It was the most striking thing I uncovered in my studies. So it is clear to me that this is true. You say I listen too much to critics of the church. But these persons were former members of your church. And not only were their revelations they speak of revealing, insightful and compelling, but they also speak of the fact that their separation was harrowing. If someone was to leave, let's say, the Methodist church, this person would not experience and shunning from their family and their community. There would not be any need for any support group for them to attend. If a line is to be drawn between a cult and a church. Dividing this characteristic is a convincing line to draw. Let me approach this from another angle. What we are talking about is an organization that claims to be the only way. They claim that in the next life, they will see their loved ones. As warm and fuzzy as this seems this also means there is a dark side. If you are NOT in this group, you will NOT see your friends and families in the next life. This might not sound like cruel and deceptive manipulation to you but it does to me. If this comes off sounding harsh, cruel or insulting, I apologize.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 4, 2007 15:30:59 GMT -4
You say I listen too much to critics of the church. But these persons were former members of your church. And not only were their revelations they speak of revealing, insightful and compelling, but they also speak of the fact that their separation was harrowing. In fact ex-members of the church are some of the least reliable sources of information about it - you know for a fact that they are not unbiased, neutral observers and they must have some sort of beef against the church to have left it. You are painting with too broad a brush. I have no doubt there are many Methodist communities who would "shun" an apostate. Or many ex-Methodists who have felt their experience in leaving their religion was "harrowing" and came between themselves and their family and friends. Likewise there are several members of my extended family who are not active members of the LDS church who are in no way "shunned" at family gatherings. No doubt there are many ex-mormons who feel like they are not treated by church members the same way they were when they were active in the church, but whether this constitutes an active effort on the part of the church to punish them remains to be proven. What religious organization does not claim to be correct where others are wrong? Don't the Methodists claim that where they differ from, say, the Baptists or the Catholics that they are correct and the Baptists or Catholics are mistaken? And if they didn't claim some unique knowledge or status, why would you join one such group over another? In fact the LDS church is much more liberal and forgiving in what it teaches is the fate for unbelievers and apostates than most other Christian religions.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 4, 2007 18:35:53 GMT -4
What religious organization does not claim to be correct where others are wrong? Don't the Methodists claim that where they differ from, say, the Baptists or the Catholics that they are correct and the Baptists or Catholics are mistaken? What a coincidence! I can speak for the Methodists and say, nope, they don't. The pastor of the church here and I have had this discussion. Catholics and Baptists are welcome. You say I listen too much to critics of the church. But these persons were former members of your church. And not only were their revelations they speak of revealing, insightful and compelling, but they also speak of the fact that their separation was harrowing. In fact ex-members of the church are some of the least reliable sources of information about it - you know for a fact that they are not unbiased, neutral observers and they must have some sort of beef against the church to have left it. But Jason this does not make any sense. People want to be happy. If your faith is all that you claim it is, these people would not have left their friends, their FAMILIES, and their community. It would be a very difficult thing to do and by all acccounts I have read it was. It is not something someone does unless they have good moral and strong reasons to do so. What you have said is as far away from what I would be a reasonable assumption. The testamonies I have read is that it was a heart wrenching decision to leave a system and belief that they were raised in. It is not as if they had been tempted with evil. It was the result of discovering a reality that they had been conditioned to avoid. You should read their accounts. Judge not what thou hath not knowledge of. I read the story of one man whose wife left him and she took his kids away after he decided that the Mormon Church was just another man-made institution. But your comment is wrong for many other reasons. When you are surrounded by trees it does not mean you have a good view of the forest. You cannot see the whole view unless you step outside of it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 4, 2007 19:01:42 GMT -4
What religious organization does not claim to be correct where others are wrong? Don't the Methodists claim that where they differ from, say, the Baptists or the Catholics that they are correct and the Baptists or Catholics are mistaken? What a coincidence! I can speak for the Methodists and say, nope, they don't. The pastor of the church here and I have had this discussion. Catholics and Baptists are welcome. Welcome at what? You're meetings? They're welcome to LDS sacrament meetings too. If your pastor is honestly saying that there's no difference between Methodists, Catholics, and Baptists from the perspective of who gets saved then why is he a Methodist and not a Catholic or Baptist? It makes perfect sense. Someone who had a traumatic emotional experience in leaving a group cannot be considered an objective observor of that group. Because it would have made them happy, you mean? We can lead a horse to water but we can't make them drink. Some people are determined to try to be happy while not living righteous lives. For a while it may seem to them that they have gotten away with it, but it doesn't last. They rationalize that since the church isn't true they can do what they want rather than live according to its teachings. Some people are offended by the conduct of others and so leave the church (there is a famous story about an early apostle of the church who left the church because of a dispute over milk squeezings from a shared cow). And some people simply never really believed in the church in the first place and leave once they lose any initial enthusiasm they had for it. I don't deny that it is probably a traumatic experience. I do deny that there are any real moral reasons to leave the LDS church. Huh? Do you think I have never read an ex-member's account of why they left the church? You posted a link to one earlier on this thread that I read - the ex-bishop. I'm also fairly certain that I have met and spoken with more ex-mormons than you have. They usually rationalize their leaving of the church as the acceptance of a harsh truth, but it is just that - a rationalization. Atheists rationalize their rejection of God in the same way, and tend to look down on those of us who don't have the stones to face reality as they do. Are you certain that is the only reason she left him? An excellent reason for recommending that the youth of the church go on missions. They leave the "forest" (their LDS communities and the support structures of their families and friends) for two years out on the plains. Most learn to appreciate the forest.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 4, 2007 19:32:59 GMT -4
What a coincidence! I can speak for the Methodists and say, nope, they don't. The pastor of the church here and I have had this discussion. Catholics and Baptists are welcome. Welcome at what? You're meetings? They're welcome to LDS sacrament meetings too. If your pastor is honestly saying that there's no difference between Methodists, Catholics, and Baptists from the perspective of who gets saved then why is he a Methodist and not a Catholic or Baptist? The word "Catholic" means "Universal" Christians consider their faith to be "Catholic" In the Methodists prayers they believe in the "church" that is "catholic". Does it mean they are "Catholic"? Well, it means how you define the word. Let me give you an example. There is a difference between "Democratic" with a capitol "D" and "democratic" with a lower case "d". Anyway, all Christians -- albeit except Mormons -- can be part of a Methodist congregation without baptisms. And, excuse me for saying so, but the Mormons are excluded on fundamental theological grounds. Still, they would have to go through baptisms. But, it works both ways, I must say in fairness, I would have to be baptized in a Mormon church as well. Still, no, to answer your question, Methodists don't think that the Catholics and the Baptists are mislead and on their way to hell. But we are not talking about someone in a state of emotional trauma. That is something that people get over right away. (#1) These essays are written in concise and logical tone and order so they are not written by people who are in a state of emotional break-down (#2) they are written long after -- sometimes years after -- the people have left the church. (#3) they are logical and tangible and easy to understand from an unbiased person and make a lot more sense than Mormon rhetoric that I have to say sounds akin to myth and exaggeration. Jason, let ask you a question. And please answer honestly. Have you ever had any experience or can you site any example where the church has exaggerated or embellished something about themselves in any way or form?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 5, 2007 19:32:46 GMT -4
The word "Catholic" means "Universal" Christians consider their faith to be "Catholic" In the Methodists prayers they believe in the "church" that is "catholic". Does it mean they are "Catholic"? Well, it means how you define the word. When I write Catholic I mean Roman Catholic. I believe I explained that earlier. But if you want to pick nits instead of discuss anything meaningful you certainly may. You're certainly not scoring any points with me by doing so. You would have to be baptized to be a member of the LDS church, yes, but not to join a congregation. Anyone is welcome to our sunday worship services. You can even take communion with us (called taking the sacrament in the LDS church) if you wish, or during our monthly fast and testamony meetings you may even take the podium and address the congregation. If you were to take that opportunity to berate the church and its members you would probably be asked to sit down, but if you spoke of your own religious experiences it would be perfectly welcome. Then why chose one over the other? And what precise "fundamental theological difference" is it that does doom Mormons to hell? I have a good idea of what the answer will be but I'll ask it anyway. Yeah, sure they do. Weren't you taking the LDS church to task a few posts ago for using emotional methods to coerce its members to stay with the church? Why is it such a big deal if they'll get over it right away? is it a big deal to leave the church or isn't it? #1 When an ex-mormon writes an essay berating the church he or she is typically feeling vengeful against the church, smug in their superiority when compared to the poor deluded members who still remain with the church, and perhaps somewhat relieved at venting their frustrations. They usually hide these feelings quite well with platitudes about how they really care for the members of the church and merely want to inform them of one or two points they may not have been aware of, but a careful reader or someone who speaks with them directly will see what emotions lie behind these empty sentiments. #2 The longer a member has left a church the less they remember of what membership in the church truly means and what it was like. It is often very astonishing how much they loose in so short a time. It is because of the withdrawl of the spirit. An excommunicated mormon has given up their right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost that any member of the church has, and it makes a definite difference. #3 Your statement that ex-member screeds are easier to understand than LDS doctrine is purely a matter of personal opinion. Much of the writings of many anti-mormons are of the same quality as the conspiracy theorists we see on this thread every day - notions of secret plots by the Mormons to conquer the world, accounts of open Satan worship, and so forth. Usually entirely without evidence or even a hint of truth to them. In contrast, many (though, alas, not all) pro-mormon papers and essays I have read are great examples of logical and plain writing. None come immediately to mind, but individual members of the church have embellished or exaggerated at times. Hey, if we were all perfect we wouldn't need the church.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 7, 2007 15:29:16 GMT -4
The word "Catholic" means "Universal" Christians consider their faith to be "Catholic" In the Methodists prayers they believe in the "church" that is "catholic". Does it mean they are "Catholic"? Well, it means how you define the word. When I write Catholic I mean Roman Catholic. I believe I explained that earlier. But if you want to pick nits instead of discuss anything meaningful you certainly may. You're certainly not scoring any points with me by doing so. Either way, the Methodists do not consider the Roman Catholics damned. Your excercise of dicing my posts like this do not do anyting to discredit their meaning. Now, I took a moment to find that Mormon scolar. Maybe this was what I had read. For one, Mormon Historian and General Authority Brigham H. Roberts wrote a study in the early 1920’s that presents a powerful case for the human origin of the Book of Mormon, based on four important observations. (1) The book stands in conflict with what is known about the early American races from scientific investigation. (2) It, however, agrees with the erroneous information believed in the nineteenth-century to have been true about these early Americans. (3) Joseph Smith, Jr., had sufficient creative "knowledge" to have produced such a book. (4) The book evidences such blunders as would have been made by an unsophisticated nineteenth-century mind that lacked formal education as Joseph Smith, Jr., did. I am not sure if that was the one I found. But that is one. I remember reading something compelling and very well thought out and researched study. #1 When an ex-mormon writes an essay berating the church he or she is typically feeling vengeful against the church, smug in their superiority when compared to the poor deluded members who still remain with the church, and perhaps somewhat relieved at venting their frustrations. They usually hide these feelings quite well with platitudes about how they really care for the members of the church and merely want to inform them of one or two points they may not have been aware of, but a careful reader or someone who speaks with them directly will see what emotions lie behind these empty sentiments. One should attack the message, not the messenger.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 7, 2007 16:42:52 GMT -4
Either way, the Methodists do not consider the Roman Catholics damned. Neither do the Mormons. ? I don't break your posts up into individual points to respond to in order to discredit them. Rather I do so in order to keep it clear what I am responding to. B.H. Roberts never left the church, and he always believed the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired. Elder Roberts did several studies in the '20s which outlined possible lines of attack that he felt critics of the Book of Mormon might use. His stated purpose was in order to prepare "future defenders of the faith" for assaults along those lines. His intent was not to illustrate what he thought were real problems with the Book of Mormon, but to point out where critics believe real problems exist. Also, I believe the points you cite were not actually from Elder Robert's writings, but from second hand sources about them. A somewhat-lengthy essay which discusses Elder Roberts and whether he lost his testamony of the Book of Momon can be found here: www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anti-Mormon_Claims_that_BH_Roberts_Lost_His_Testimony.htmlA rather odd sentiment from someone who has spent most of 49 pages of internet forums attacking Joseph Smith's credibility and general character rather than his message.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 7, 2007 17:16:56 GMT -4
B.H. Roberts never left the church, and he always believed the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired. Elder Roberts did several studies in the '20s which outlined possible lines of attack that he felt critics of the Book of Mormon might use. His stated purpose was in order to prepare "future defenders of the faith" for assaults along those lines. His intent was not to illustrate what he thought were real problems with the Book of Mormon, but to point out where critics believe real problems exist. I am not so sure you are correct. His writings outlining real problems were not published during his lifetime and were only made public later. I sense you are just repeating what people in the church have told you and have not read the writings that the church did not make public. Only because there is no historical basis for story. So his impeccable character would be an indication his story is genuine, if his character was.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 7, 2007 17:29:51 GMT -4
I am not so sure you are correct. His writings outlining real problems were not published during his lifetime and were only made public later. I sense you are just repeating what people in the church have told you and have not read the writings that the church did not make public. Did you read the link I provided? What do you mean by "no historical basis"?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 8, 2007 14:33:45 GMT -4
B.H. Roberts, in Improvement Era, April 1906: "We who accept [the Book of Mormon] as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph."
B.H. Roberts, in a letter to the First Presidency of the LDS church and the quorm of the Twelve, March of 1923: "Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it."
B.H. Roberts in the October 1929 General Conference: “But this is my object, and my object alone; that after bearing testimony to the fundamental things of this work, and my confidence in it, I hope that if anywhere along the line I have caused any of you to doubt my faith in this work, then let this testimony and my indicated life’s work be a correction of it. I make reference to these personal things in fifty years of service so that you may know that my testimony has some sanctions for it in the life of service I have given to the cause.”
B.H. Roberts in the April 1930 General Conference: "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for God hath spoken. ... The Record of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim, the Book of Mormon, has been revealed and translated by the power of God, and supplies the world with a new witness for the Christ, and the truth and the fulness of the Gospel."
He doesn't sound like someone who lost his faith in the Book of Mormon to me.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 9, 2007 10:11:44 GMT -4
You have to look at the forest and not the trees. And don't look at just the trees they tell you to look at or the ones that you only want to.
He had some serious issues with the BoM and privately felt conflected about some things that were difficult to explain away. Those are the writings that they do not want you to read and they have not officially made public.
And he was not alone. Others have made starker observations. I have read those as well. I think I should make a list so you can go through them and instead of acknowleding them, you can post the good things they have said about the BoM. But what will that prove?
You seem only to want to defend something rather than consider you might be wrong. Now, before you turn that around and throw it back in my face let me say this. I would like to believe. Are you willing to consider even for a moment that you might be wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 9, 2007 10:16:55 GMT -4
What do you mean by "no historical basis"? Only what the National Geographic Society has said and I am fairly sure I posted their letter explaining their position. The BoM does not present a historical view that is regarded as genuine with main-line historians, archaeologists, and linguistics. And so since the story does not mesh with the rest of human knowledge we have to wonder if Smith could have the character to have just made it up. We search for this and we find it is possible.
Hoax Believers -- people who believe that man did not walk on the moon tend to think this way on moral or ethical or spiritual grounds as they define them. Bart Sibrel makes use of this by popping out of bushes and asking astronauts to swear on the Bible that they walked on the moon. I remember hearing an interview with a Hoax Believer as to why he thought man did not walk on the moon. He replied, "because it would be too easy for them to reach heaven then". It has turned out in another discussion thread that this is also why people believe that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. They believe it because it is the right thing to believe -- not that it is simply right or wrong. It is ethical to belive this. Since the BoM conflects with generally accepted history, generally accepted zoology, generally accepted biology, generally accepted linguistics, and generally accepted archeology, isn't it fair for me to assume that you, too, Jason, only blieve in the BoM on moral, ethical or spiritual grounds much like the Apollo Hoax blievers and the folks who think that the Earth is in the center of the Universe?
|
|