Why should I believe in your religion and faith?

[uss_bigd]

Marc, real Christianity existed for several centuries before the Bible came into existance.

It existed during the time of abraham, yes i agree. but it was not practiced until Christ " dwelt aong us"

Well, I beg to differ, but we're on a debate forum, so I guess that's okay.

I know where you are coming from, but that is a seperate discussion.:angel2:

 

[Katzpur]

It existed during the time of abraham, yes i agree. but it was not practiced until Christ " dwelt aong us"

Technically speaking, it existed at the time of Adam. My point was that the very first Christians -- those who listened to His Sermon on the Mount and chose to follow Him, those who rejoiced when He rose from the dead on the third day after His resurrection, those who traveled the known world spreading His gospel -- did not have "the Bible" as we know it today. Therefore, the gospel of Jesus Christ existed prior to the written record of the prophets and apostles was transcribed and compiled into the volume of scripture we use today. In other words, the Bible (specifically the New Testament) is based on Christianity. Christianity is not based on the Bible.

I know where you are coming from, but that is a seperate discussion.:angel2:

Well, I'll leave that up to the owner of this thread to decide. I'm willing to talk about anything he considers pertinent since he's the one asking the initial question.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

The first thing you to do is base your belief on something, not just what people will say.

Real Christianity is based on the Bible. it is an account where the true firsthand witnesses of Christ is written. such firsthand account cannot be found anywhere else.

find my thread ... the bible as biblical. scientific and God inspired.

In my studies, this is my understanding on final authority.

Roman Catholicism - apostolic succession - (Pope and bishops in communion with him)

Mormonism - Priesthood succession

Protestantism - Final authority is the Christian Bible

It seems to me that the stronger position of obejective final authority appears to rest with Protestant Christianity. Roman Catholicism and Mormonism are built upon holy religious men that would have to error like all human beings. I guess you can create a teaching of ex-cathedra (speaking from the chair) to claim papal infallibility. Since Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Protestants believe the Christian Bible to be the Word of God, the authority would rest in the Holy Christian Book that they all have in common. I've also have studied the Protestant Reformation too.

 

[uss_bigd]

Technically speaking, it existed at the time of Adam.

You must be referring to the the fact that Jesus existed before abraham. as a matter of fact he did. we are on the same page there.

My point was that the very first Christians -- those who listened to His Sermon on the Mount and chose to follow Him, those who rejoiced when He rose from the dead on the third day after His resurrection, those who traveled the known world spreading His gospel -- did not have "the Bible" as we know it today. Therefore, the gospel of Jesus Christ existed prior to the written record of the prophets and apostles was transcribed and compiled into the volume of scripture we use today.

true, because the bible was about to be written by then.

. In other words, the Bible (specifically the New Testament) is based on Christianity. Christianity is not based on the Bible.

It goes both ways, the bible is based on christianity, and true chrsitianity is based on the bible only. because the teachings of Christ written by firsthand witnesses who lived with him wrote it.

there are no other firsthand witnesses apart from the apostles. the united states was was not discovered until the the time of columbus. no true apostle would have gone beyond asia and europe.

 

[Katzpur]

It seems to me that the stronger position of obejective final authority appears to rest with Protestant Christianity. Roman Catholicism and Mormonism are built upon holy religious men that would have to error like all human beings. I guess you can create a teaching of ex-cathedra (speaking from the chair) to claim papal infalliblity. Since Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Protestants believe the Christian Bible to be the Word of God, the authority would rest in the Holy Christian Book that they all have in common.

Are you forgetting who wrote the Bible, Fish-Hunter? Holy, religious men that would have to error like all human beings. Besides, if were could rely on sola scriptura to interpret Christian doctrine, we wouldn't have 30,000 different interpretations. We'd have just one.

 

[Katzpur]

You must be referring to the the fact that Jesus existed before abraham. as a matter of fact he did. we are on the same page there.

I'm referring to my belief that I believe the entire gospel plan was known to and practiced by Adam.

It goes both ways, the bible is based on christianity, and true chrsitianity is based on the bible only.

And can you tell me where in the Bible this is stated? If this is a fact, it would be only reasonable for the Bible to make this perfectly clear.

there are no other firsthand witnesses apart from the apostles.

Yes, there were. Even in the Holy Land, there were many first-hand witnesses. The Bible speaks of many who saw the risen Lord, and not all of them were Apostles.

the united states was was not discovered until the the time of columbus.

You mean Jesus didn't know where it was?

no true apostle would have gone beyond asia and europe.

Actually, Jesus told them to go into "all the world," unless I'm mistaken. But I agree with you that they didn't make it beyond Asia, Europe and northern Africa.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Are you forgetting who wrote the Bible, Fish-Hunter? Holy, religious men that would have to error like all human beings. Besides, if were could rely on sola scriptura to interpret Christian doctrine, we wouldn't have 30,000 different interpretations. We'd have just one.

Hi Katzpur,

Do Mormons believe like traditional Christians that the Bible to be God-breathed, or the Word of God? I think traditional Christianity would consider the Bible to be Holy revelation from God, using religious men to write down God's truth for mankind to know. Therefore, I think traditional Christians would say the author of the Christian Bible is the Christian God Himself, as compared to being a religious book authored by religious men. Is this correct

"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us: while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism: but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.' "

I'm not sure if the learned Roman Catholic man above considered all the possibilities with his conclusion. He states the issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. He said if the Catholics are right, then the Mormons are wrong. But if the Mormons are right, then the Catholics are wrong; "and that's all there is to it". That doesn't seem to be the only possibility because the third choice would be that both the Mormons and Roman Catholics are wrong at the same time. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or rude, but sometimes intelligent people seem to check their brains at the door when discussing religion...LOL. It doesn't seem the learned Roman Catholic man liked Protestant Christians very much.

Katzpur,

I read your pubic profile because you seemed to be very caring, articulate, and intelligent. I really enjoy reading your responses to me! It seems you have been blessed with a wonderful life and have much to be thankful for. It is quite interesting that you consider yourself a lifetime LDS Christian. I take it you were born into a Mormon home. Isn't Salt Lake City the Mormon Vatican too? You are also a computer programmer/analyst; therefore I think you have been born with much natural intelligence too. It seems that you wrote somewhere that your faith is based on the Mormon Church to be apostolic or has been given authority above all other religions. You implied that if the LDS Church does not have this authority, then you do not have the absolute truth that I am seeking. At least, I have interpreted you words that way. I hope you will take the personal challenge to present objective evidence for the Mormon Church's authority over all religions. I wonder if you were born in another place, time, and home with a different religion if you would have chosen the Mormon Faith later in life? For instance, what happened if your were born in India to parents of the Hindu religion, do you think you would still have come to the Mormon Faith? If you were born in Rome, Italy into a Roman Catholic home, do you think you would be Roman Catholic or Mormon? I don't mean to be too aggressive with my questions, but it seems you would welcome the difficult questions in your desire to help others.

Your friend,

Fish-Hunter

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hello Fish-Hunter!
Thank you for such a genuine, thought-provoking thread. I share your wonder at the sheer beauty of the universe. Why do you believe that there is more to life than having a good time? Am I right in assuming that you believe this? What makes you think we are more than a collection of molecules simply obeying the laws of physics? What do you see when you look up into the sky on a cloudless night and stare into eternity? It sparks something deep inside you, at the very core of who you are. Some where inside you, you know who you are. And you know you aren't here by chance. Some one out there, some where, loves you a lot. And you know it. The evidence is all around you. Amazing isn't it? I love that feeling!

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

I would suggest reading Joseph Smith's acount of how he dealt with the same struggle you are having (unless of course you already have). It will help you understand the remarkable claims that Mormonism makes. This understanding would be greatly beneficial in an objective debate about the authenticity of Mormonism.

Joseph Smith's Story

I guess it might be a little long, but I find it engrossing.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Hello Fish-Hunter!
Thank you for such a genuine, thought-provoking thread. I share your wonder at the sheer beauty of the universe. Why do you believe that there is more to life than having a good time? Am I right in assuming that you believe this? What makes you think we are more than a collection of molecules simply obeying the laws of physics? What do you see when you look up into the sky on a cloudless night and stare into eternity? It sparks something deep inside you, at the very core of who you are. Some where inside you, you know who you are. And you know you aren't here by chance. Some one out there, some where, loves you a lot. And you know it. The evidence is all around you. Amazing isn't it? I love that feeling!

Hi DavyCrocket,

Where's Mormonville, in Utah somewhere? Thank you for sharing your faith and the testimony of Joseph Smith! I've read some of it on LDS.org. Do you mind sharing how you became a LDS Christian? Did you find additional evidence from sources outside the Mormon Church? I'm looking forward to reading your response to my questions.

 

[crystalonyx]

I'm referring to my belief that I believe the entire gospel plan was known to and practiced by Adam.

.

Adam, like Jesus, was a myth, the gospels couldn't even get the supposed lineage of the supposed Jesus straight between gospels.

 

[Popeyesays]

Adam, like Jesus, was a myth, the gospels couldn't even the the supposed lineage of the supposed Jesus straight between gospels.

That depends upon whom you believe Adam to be.

There are two lineages because ONE lineage is expressed through Joseph and the other is through Mary. The one through Mary is kind of a ontrivane since the descent of the mother is no way as important in Judaism whih is patriarhal, not matrilineal.

Regards,
Scott

 

[crystalonyx]

That depends upon whom you believe Adam to be.

There are two lineages because ONE lineage is expressed through Joseph and the other is through Mary. The one through Mary is kind of a ontrivane since the descent of the mother is no way as important in Judaism whih is patriarhal, not matrilineal.

Regards,
Scott

You do realize these so-called lineages are completely contrived?

 

[Fish-Hunter]

This Thread has had 1,049 views with 112 replies in a few days. I appreciate all of the sharing and kindness shown by all who are willing to respond. I hope everyone will continue to contemplate and continue to share your thoughts. It's good to challenge each other to go beyond our status quo. I still believe truth is absoulte and is independent from personal observation of that truth. However, I don't think I have read objective evidence to support someone's perspective of the objective truth. I hope everyone will re-examine what they believe and share why they believe in what they believe. Are your reasons purley subjective verified by personal preferences which appear to be driven by our life experiences. Or, can objective evidence be presented to support a person's religion and faith? I think objective evidence can be sources outside a particluar faith or religion. Or maybe objective evidence could validate a particular religious source or book from an outside independent source of that particular faith or religion. For instance, secular history seems to validate the Christian Bible as historically accurate in regards to actual places and actual tribes and races of people written about in the Christian Bible.

 

[RedRain]

Here's some evidence as to the claims of Emanuel Swedenborg being genuine. Take them as mere stories if you wish.

First let me explain what Swedenborg's claims are. He claims to have been allowed to be in the other world, which he calls the spiritual world, at the same time as he was in this world. In the other world he talked with spirits from both heaven and hell and this is how he knows so much about heaven, hell, God and the history of the human race.

Some evidence for the validity of his claims can be found in these few stories, I will quote them from this website, Teh Swedenborgian Church in San Francisco: The Maritime Heritage Project with News of Captains, Ships and Passengers in 1800s San Francisco , to preserve accuracy:

On the 19th July, 1759, Swedenborg arrived from England at Gottenburgh, which is three hundred miles distant from Stockholm, and dined that evening at the house of Mr. Wm. Castel, with a party of fifteen persons. About six o�clock, he went out, but shortly returned, ;ale and alarmed, saying that a great fire had broken out and was then raging at Stockholm. At eight o�clock, having been out again, he returned, exclaiming: " Thank God, the fire is extinguished the third door from my house." Two days afterwards a messenger arrived from Stockholm who had been despatched during the fire, and on the third day the royal courier arrived, and both brought accounts describing the fire, etc., precisely in the manner in which Swedenborg had done.

Second instance, in 1761, at Stockholm, he was consulted by a lady, the widow of Louis Von Martinville, who had been ambassador from Holland to Sweden. Her husband had paid away twenty-five thousand Dutch guilders, and she being applied to again for the money could not produce the receipt. She asked Swedenborg to enquire about it of her husband who was in the spirit world. Eight days afterwards Von Martinville told her in a dream where to find the receipt, which at 2 o�clock in the mornign she found as directed. She then slept till late, and at 11 A.M., Swedenborg was announced. His first remarks before she could open her lips was, that "during the preceding night he had seen Von Martinville, and had wished to converse with him, but the latter excused himself on the ground that he must go to discover to his wife something of importance."

There are a few more stories on that site similar to these. The main evidence for me lies in his work on correspondences, where he goes through story by story of the first books of the Bible, describing what each thing in each story signifies in what he calls the internal or spiritual sense. The consistency of it and of his work is amazing, especially considering that he had more than 30 books of published theology.

 

[Katzpur]

Do Mormons believe like traditional Christians that the Bible to be God-breathed, or the Word of God? I think traditional Christianity would consider the Bible to be Holy revelation from God, using religious men to write down God's truth for mankind to know. Therefore, I think traditional Christians would say the author of the Christian Bible is the Christian God Himself, as compared to being a religious book authored by religious men. Is this correct.

I don't really make a distinction between the phrase "God-breathed" and "the Word of God." To me, they mean essentially the same thing. As far as what traditional Christianity considers the Bible to be, I can absolutely guarantee that it is divided on the issue. Some traditional Christians believe it is literally, a word-for-word account of what God said and told man to record. At the other end of the spectrum, you'll find other traditional Christians who believe it was written by holy men who, inspired by the Holy Ghost, wrote what they believed God wanted them to reveal to mankind. The LDS view is somewhere in between. We believe that God has, in fact, spoken to prophets from the beginning of time. He has impressed upon their minds certain spiritual truths and has directed them in expressing these truths so that the pure in heart could understand them and thereby be better able to understand Him and their relationship to Him. Were the words they recorded His words -- verbatim? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But they were spoken with the authority given by God to His servants. We're speaking here of the original documents as penned thousands of years ago, not of the oldest transcription and certainly not of every one of the hundreds of different translations in existence. The fact is, we do not have a single solitary original manuscript as penned by one of God's prophets. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies.

God doesn't make mistakes, but men do, and regardless of how perfect the original words of the prophets may have been, it is -- in my opinion -- naive to think that no errors ever crept in to a copied manuscript, no phrase was ever accidentally omitted, no word written illegibly and consequently miscopied. And that's before we even get to the translation process. Surely you realize how difficult it can be to translate an idiomatic phrase from one language to another, or even to choose the best of several words to convey what the original author wanted to say. Compare several of the better known translations available today. Sure, they all say essentially the same thing. But is "essentially the same" good enough for someone who is searching for absolute truth? Finally, the Biblical canon has changed over the centuries. I won't go into that point in detail now, but this is a matter of historical record. Books that are in most of today's Bibles were not always in some of the earlier versions of the Bible, and there are more than twenty instances where a book is mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but cannot be found anywhere in "the word of God." So, how do the Latter-day Saints see the Bible? It is named as the foremost among our "Standard Works." We believe it is God's word, to whatever extent it was preserved as originally written and to whatever extent it was translated by divine inspiration. It is not, however, the only record of God's dealings with human kind. That belief is where we part ways with traditional Christianity because, as I already said, you will find as many traditional Christian views on the inerrancy of the Bible as there are traditional Christians.

I'm not sure if the learned Roman Catholic man above considered all the possibilities with his conclusion. He states the issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. He said if the Catholics are right, then the Mormons are wrong. But if the Mormons are right, then the Catholics are wrong; "and that's all there is to it". That doesn't seem to be the only possibility because the third choice would be that both the Mormons and Roman Catholics are wrong at the same time. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or rude, but sometimes intelligent people seem to check their brains at the door when discussing religion...LOL. It doesn't seem the learned Roman Catholic man liked Protestant Christians very much.

I'll go along with you, at least to some extent. There is obviously the possibility that neither Mormonism or Catholicism contains the "absolute truth" about God. I have also wondered why he did not mention Eastern Orthodoxy as a possibility, since it also claims to be "the only true Church," and seems to me to have as much right to this claim as Roman Catholicism. I don't think his statement on Protestantism reflected a dislike for Protestants, but was merely an observation. (It was, after all, the Mormons, not the Protestants, he referred to as "ignoramuses." ) To me, it was an observation that made sense. Speaking strictly from the perspective that God's true Church must operate under the authority only He can impart, I can't understand how a Church that doesn't even claim to have that authority could possibly have it. I share his opinion (except that I would add Eastern Orthodoxy to the list of possible candidates and would also admit to the possibility than there is no true Church on the face of the earth today). This is not to say that I don't like Protestants, only that I don't see them as even potentially having "absolute truth."

I read your pubic profile because you seemed to be very caring, articulate, and intelligent. I really enjoy reading your responses to me!

Thank you very much, Fish-Hunter. I try to be caring, and I suppose that on a good day, I might also be considered articulate and intelligent.

It seems you have been blessed with a wonderful life and have much to be thankful for.

Definitely an understatement.

It is quite interesting that you consider yourself a lifetime LDS Christian. I take it you were born into a Mormon home. Isn't Salt Lake City the Mormon Vatican too?

Yes, the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in Salt Lake City.

It seems that you wrote somewhere that your faith is based on the Mormon Church to be apostolic or has been given authority above all other religions. You implied that if the LDS Church does not have this authority, then you do not have the absolute truth that I am seeking. At least, I have interpreted you words that way.

That would be a fair assessment of what I've said.

 

[Katzpur]

I hope you will take the personal challenge to present objective evidence for the Mormon Church's authority over all religions.

I wish I knew what you would consider to be compelling evidence. May I call your attention to Matthew 16:15-17, which says:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Christ posed His question to all of His Apostles. Of the twelve, Peter alone responded with an answer that confirmed to Jesus the fact that Peter's knowledge was based upon what all spiritual knowledge is based upon: a witness from our Father in Heaven, received through the Holy Ghost. Jesus specifically pointed out that we come to know and understand eternal truths not by having another human being (i.e. "flesh and blood") provide us with "objective evidence" but from the Source of truth itself. You would like me to do something that Jesus indicated was a less reliable means of discerning truth than the way Peter recognized it. I know that there isn't anything I could say that would convince you that what I believe is true. That's something you will have to find out the same way Peter found out who Christ was. I will, however, tell you two things that have led me to conclude that absolute truth is found within my Church's teachings, but I won't go into detail on either of these things -- at least not for the time being. This post is already getting too long.

First, there is a great deal of internal consistency within the teachings of my Church. For instance, we see no dilemma at all in the fact that is through Jesus Christ alone that we may be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to our Father in Heaven and the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of people who lived and died without ever even having heard of Jesus Christ. Our teachings address what, to traditional Christianity, is an awkward question for which the only possible answers are: (1) God will simply turn a blind eye to the fact that so many of His children didn't have the opportunity to obey His commandment to believe on His Son, (2) He will judge these unfortunate souls not on the basis of what they believed, but on what they supposedly would have believed had they been given the chance to choose for themselves, (3) All of the non-believers will, in fact, be destined to eternal punishment for the "sin" of having been born at the wrong time or in the wrong place. None of these answers is satisfactory, to my way of thinking. I won't go into the details of the LDS doctrine of salvation at this point, but I will say that it satisfies the demands of both justice and mercy, and does not contradict anything the Bible has to say.

Second, I have a testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. It would be silly for us to try to discuss a book which you have not read, so I'm not even going to try. I am absolutely convinced, however, that it could not have been written by a person with a third-grade education. Anti-Mormons will tell you that archeology has disproved it. This is not the case. Archeology has neither proven nor disproved it. Over the years, many of the things our critics have used as proof against the book have turned out to be good evidence that it is, in fact, what it purports to be. At this point, the archeological evidence is growing, but definitely not conclusive one way or the other. The linguistic evidences, on the other hand, overwhelmingly point to the fact that the book was written by multiple ancient authors and not a single nineteenth-century author. The extensive use of chiasms alone simply cannot be explained if one tries to credit Joseph Smith with the authorship of the book. The book also goes into an incredible amount of detail regarding subjects of which Joseph could not possibly have had any knowledge. Rather than mentioning any of these, let me just direct you to a worthwhile link: Book of Mormon Evidences.

I wonder if you were born in another place, time, and home with a different religion if you would have chosen the Mormon Faith later in life? For instance, what happened if your were born in India to parents of the Hindu religion, do you think you would still have come to the Mormon Faith? If you were born in Rome, Italy into a Roman Catholic home, do you think you would be Roman Catholic or Mormon? I don't mean to be too aggressive with my questions, but it seems you would welcome the difficult questions in your desire to help others.

It's hard for me to say whether I'd have chosen to embrace Mormonism had I been born in another time or place. I like to think that if I had been born to the same parents as I was, but that if they were Protestant or Catholic, I would have recognized the truths found in Mormonism had I been exposed to them. I know that my parents both encouraged their kids to learn the truth for themselves and not rely on what someone else told us. I can remember many times when my Dad said to me, "Kathryn, you can't believe everything you ever heard spoken from the pulpit." My parents encouraged me to question. In my household, doubting was a good thing, provided it resulted in a through search for the answers. So I can say that, even though I was raised Mormon, I came to my conclusions through study and prayer. I have never accepted any of my Church's teachings simply because my parents told me they were true. I think that would have really disappointed them. That said, there are many people who do not have the luxury of choosing a religion. They are not only born to parents who teach them what they should believe, but are raised in a culture where freedom of religion is prohibited and where one religion is mandated by the state. Of course, as a Latter-day Saint, I know that this would not have ultimately mattered, since God has addressed that possibility in His Plan. I know He would have expected me to do everything within my power to find the truth, but if I died without having found it, all would not be lost. In other words, had I been born in Iraq, I would probably be a Muslim today. My knowledge of what I believe to be absolute truth is a great source of strength to me, but I don't think it is ultimately going to mean that I end up in a better place than I would be had I born born in Iraq, for instance.

You are right when you say that I welcome difficult questions. I don't shy away from questions that make me stop and think, but I'm not all that sure that my answers are really providing you with what you want. I guess that, as long as you keep asking questions, though, I'll assume that you're finding my answers to be adequate. I'm sure that some of what I've said in the last two posts will raise additional questions in your mind. Please don't hesitate to ask them.

God bless,
Kathryn

 

[Don Penguinoini]

No need. Only if you feel the need. If you don't feel the need, then it is not important.

 

[Popeyesays]

You do realize these so-called lineages are completely contrived?

Descent from the House of David was something jealoously defended in those days. Descent from Muhammed through His daughter Fatima and Ali is the only similarly important lineage in modern times.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Fish-Hunter]

I wish I knew what you would consider to be compelling evidence. May I call your attention to Matthew 16:15-17, which says:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Christ posed His question to all of His Apostles. Of the twelve, Peter alone responded with an answer that confirmed to Jesus the fact that Peter's knowledge was based upon what all spiritual knowledge is based upon: a witness from our Father in Heaven, received through the Holy Ghost. Jesus specifically pointed out that we come to know and understand eternal truths not by having another human being (i.e. "flesh and blood") provide us with "objective evidence" but from the Source of truth itself. You would like me to do something that Jesus indicated was a less reliable means of discerning truth than the way Peter recognized it. I know that there isn't anything I could say that would convince you that what I believe is true. That's something you will have to find out the same way Peter found out who Christ was. I will, however, tell you two things that have led me to conclude that absolute truth is found within my Church's teachings, but I won't go into detail on either of these things -- at least not for the time being. This post is already getting too long.

First, there is a great deal of internal consistency within the teachings of my Church. For instance, we see no dilemma at all in the fact that is through Jesus Christ alone that we may be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to our Father in Heaven and the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of people who lived and died without ever even having heard of Jesus Christ. Our teachings address what, to traditional Christianity, is an awkward question for which the only possible answers are: (1) God will simply turn a blind eye to the fact that so many of His children didn't have the opportunity to obey His commandment to believe on His Son, (2) He will judge these unfortunate souls not on the basis of what they believed, but on what they supposedly would have believed had they been given the chance to choose for themselves, (3) All of the non-believers will, in fact, be destined to eternal punishment for the "sin" of having been born at the wrong time or in the wrong place. None of these answers is satisfactory, to my way of thinking. I won't go into the details of the LDS doctrine of salvation at this point, but I will say that it satisfies the demands of both justice and mercy, and does not contradict anything the Bible has to say.

Second, I have a testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. It would be silly for us to try to discuss a book which you have not read, so I'm not even going to try. I am absolutely convinced, however, that it could not have been written by a person with a third-grade education. Anti-Mormons will tell you that archeology has disproved it. This is not the case. Archeology has neither proven nor disproved it. Over the years, many of the things our critics have used as proof against the book have turned out to be good evidence that it is, in fact, what it purports to be. At this point, the archeological evidence is growing, but definitely not conclusive one way or the other. The linguistic evidences, on the other hand, overwhelmingly point to the fact that the book was written by multiple ancient authors and not a single nineteenth-century author. The extensive use of chiasms alone simply cannot be explained if one tries to credit Joseph Smith with the authorship of the book. The book also goes into an incredible amount of detail regarding subjects of which Joseph could not possibly have had any knowledge. Rather than mentioning any of these, let me just direct you to a worthwhile link: Book of Mormon Evidences.

It's hard for me to say whether I'd have chosen to embrace Mormonism had I been born in another time or place. I like to think that if I had been born to the same parents as I was, but that if they were Protestant or Catholic, I would have recognized the truths found in Mormonism had I been exposed to them. I know that my parents both encouraged their kids to learn the truth for themselves and not rely on what someone else told us. I can remember many times when my Dad said to me, "Kathryn, you can't believe everything you ever heard spoken from the pulpit." My parents encouraged me to question. In my household, doubting was a good thing, provided it resulted in a through search for the answers. So I can say that, even though I was raised Mormon, I came to my conclusions through study and prayer. I have never accepted any of my Church's teachings simply because my parents told me they were true. I think that would have really disappointed them. That said, there are many people who do not have the luxury of choosing a religion. They are not only born to parents who teach them what they should believe, but are raised in a culture where freedom of religion is prohibited and where one religion is mandated by the state. Of course, as a Latter-day Saint, I know that this would not have ultimately mattered, since God has addressed that possibility in His Plan. I know He would have expected me to do everything within my power to find the truth, but if I died without having found it, all would not be lost. In other words, had I been born in Iraq, I would probably be a Muslim today. My knowledge of what I believe to be absolute truth is a great source of strength to me, but I don't think it is ultimately going to mean that I end up in a better place than I would be had I born born in Iraq, for instance.

You are right when you say that I welcome difficult questions. I don't shy away from questions that make me stop and think, but I'm not all that sure that my answers are really providing you with what you want. I guess that, as long as you keep asking questions, though, I'll assume that you're finding my answers to be adequate. I'm sure that some of what I've said in the last two posts will raise additional questions in your mind. Please don't hesitate to ask them.

God bless,
Kathryn

Good evening Katzpur,

You have great conviction about the Mormon religion! But does passion and sincerity make something true? I find it interesting that you chose Matthew 16:15-17 to use to support your faith. Are you aware that the Roman Catholic Faith uses Matthew 16:15-18 to support their faith too...Peter being the rock that Christ built His church. Both churches uses the Apostle Peter to support two mutually exclusive conclusions...

Since the Mormon Church uses both the Christian Bible and the Book of Mormon as revelation from God, which book is used as authoritative when the two books conflict? It seems the Mormon Faith is based on two things to make it true, as you wrote before.

1. The original church is apostate.
2. God chose Joseph Smith to restore the apostate church.

I'm not sure if you tried to write why the Mormon Church is the one true church as compared to the Roman Catholic Church, or Orthodox Church. It is my understanding that the Book of Mormon is more authoritative than the Christian Bible. Doesn't that position make the Mormon claim to be based on circular reasoning, since the Book of Mormon is taught to be authoritative over all other books. This seems strange since the book is less than 200 years old. Are you familiar with the Roman Catholic revelation called sacred tradition. I believe the Roman Catholic religion is based on the Christian Bible and sacred tradition. They seem to share the same circular reasoning that the Mormon Church teaches, but the source added to the Christian Bible are different. For the Mormon it's the Bible and Book of Mormon. For the Roman Catholic, it's the Bible and sacred tradition. I have also seen a pattern of religious institutions teaching that correct interpretation of the Christian Bible can only be found from within the institution claiming to be the one true church. Do you see how that removes objective reasoning? I think if a person buys into the idea that the one true church has the authority to tell what is true, than that person looses all possibility to examine the teaching from the institution claiming to be the one true church. It seems the Mormon Church is very similar to the Roman Catholic Church in that regards. I find the similarities between the Roman Catholic Church and Mormon Church to be self-evident when looking from the outside of both religions.