Best products from r/mormondialogue

People seems to be interested these days in symbolic logic, which in fact is believed to be superior. Nevertheless, I feel that Socratic Logic is the method preferable when trying to ascertain truth. I recommend Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft edition 3.1.

Another field I would recommend is the study of the Stoic philosophers. There is much wisdom that is quite apt for our day and our journey through life. I recommend this site as a launching point into the subject.

>What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily?" Seneca The Younger (Letter I: On Saving Time in Moral Letters to Lucius).

> Paul taught people to reject any gospel that didn't match the gospel the apostles taught.

Your Gospel does not match what the apostles taught because you allow women to speak in your churches. Your example of where Mormonism does not match what the apostates taught is simply something you say they never taught but not something they explicitly taught against like what you do. Plus you just said that "secondary issues" which you defined as things other "doctrines related to Christ dying for our sins and offering eternal life" "are not part of the gospel." So who cares if Mormons are different on how many levels of heaven there are?

>I guess I misunderstood when you did. Could you copy and paste where you explained why all the Muslims, Baha'is, Sheikhs, Hindu's, Buddhists, and Mormons get different answers?

I said:

>I believe that God can lead people to many religions. I have no beef with protestants. Christ taught that the whole hath no need of the physician, but they that are sick. If Protestantism is working for someone, bringing them closer to Christ, giving them a better life, why would God lead them out of that to Mormonism? Similar things can be said of Islam or Buddhism, or even atheism. If they work for people, that's great. If Mormonism is true, and I believe that it is, then God will give these people the chance to embrace it in the next life. If you are looking for something more in the here and now, then I've got a number you can call. You might like it. Might not.

[break]

>Where did you get your 'mainstream Biblical scholarship 101' from?

Wait, wait, have you never really heard these things before. You can find a good start in the wikipedia article on the New Testament. Bart Erhman also has some exhaustive scholarship. I know you guys probably bad mouth him at church, but his work is in no way outside of the academic mainstream.

>Sure, those atheists fall back on something like the 'swoon' theory, the idea that after Christ was whipped till he was bloody, had nails driven through his hands and feet, stabbed in the side and then wrapped in cloth, he some how just fell asleep and woke up a few days later and broke out of his own tomb.

No they do not. This is a straw man. Most atheists simply conclude that the stories about the Resurrection itself are not accurate or reliable.

>Have you read any books that explain the historical reliability of the resurrection?

Yes. I believe in the literal resurrection, by the way. Have you read any books disputing it, though?

>A decent answer to that would be far too long for a post. If you seriously want to know, I could find a book that would answer your questions. Would you be willing to read it?

I've read The Cannon Debate which is a detailed analysis of how the Bible came into existence that looks at the question neutrally and looks at all sides. But I am always looking for more perspectives to read. Will you read the Book of Mormon?

>That doctrine shapes beliefs about why we're here on earth, what we should be doing and where we'll go in the next life.

What are Mormons not doing that you think they should be doing in in this life order to get eternal life?

>That's obviously not a secondary issue, yet none of the 'gospel' or 'salvation' passages in the Bible say anything about it. Why do you believe it?

See, now you are picking and choosing what specific passages ("the 'gospel' or 'salvation' passages") you are going to follow, and which ones you can ignore. That is obviously not a secondary issue. But there is nowhere in the Bible that says you can do that. Why do you think you can? Which books are actually scripture cannot be a secondary issue, because that is the whole foundation. But the answer to that question is not in the bible either.

I believe in separate kingdoms because I believe that God revealed that idea to the Prophet Joseph Smith. I do not believe that all truth is contained in the Bible. God continues to guide his people with revealed truths.

Thank you for the referral. I will be sure to read it. One thing I found interesting with the one very critical review of that book on Amazon. It referenced Deconstructing Mormonism Has anyone read this one?

>In any case, my answer of "that's up to you!" is the same.

I'm asking about you and your beliefs. There is video evidence of people performing modern 'healing miracles.' Why don't you consider them modern prophets?

>Wait a second. Where does this confidence stem from?

From reading, hearing or seeing something that has some basis of verifiable facts. Faith is useless if it's not based in reality.

>There could have been 10,000, but you're only talking about four.

I'm not sure if Luke was actually a witness. He wrote Luke and Acts by interviewing people who did witness. We also have non-Biblical historical sources that back up the claims of the 4 gospel accounts. If you still have questions about the reliability of the gospels, I strongly suggest reading Wallace's book. It's only $9 on kindle, https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1613751826/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485219674&sr=1-2&keywords=cold+case+christianity

>Before I answer that, are you acknowledging that the witnesses did in fact see the gold plates that Book of Mormon was originally written on?

I just pointed out that the witnesses saw the plates in a hunger-fueled vision. David Whitmer and Martin Harris both testified they saw the plates with "the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes." They also made various changes to their testimonies. The reliability of the resurrection doesn't depend on witnesses who only saw with "eyes of faith." Is there any evidence those witnesses changed their testimony?

So how is seeing a holy text a miracle when the dead sea scrolls are still available to see today?

>Exactly. But why should anyone believe in them or the Bible as sacred scripture?

Because someone died and rose again to support claims in the text. We have far, far more ancient manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient text. Many manuscripts are dated near the early church.

"Over 200,000 variants are known to exist. A massive and exhaustive effort is being made to collate and catalog them all. Most variants are minor: misspellings, word order, duplication, etc. More significant ones add, subtract, substitute or rephrase. Even so, only about 2-5% of the entire text is seriously debated. The largest sections in debate are Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:59-8:11." http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/TextualCriticismOfTheBible.htm

Textual criticism answers all your questions about reliability as long as you approach the text with an open mind rather than an assumption that the text is corrupted. There's about 5,366 manuscripts. Those are broken into different families. There may be confusion in one family about wording of passages or additional/removed texts, but those problems are easily solved by looking at the other families that don't have those errors. With some deductive reasoning, it's not hard to see the manuscripts are extremely reliable.

>I think you're trying to imagine a theological dilemma that doesn't exist. Why assume that God would confirm the same prayer offered by a Evangelical or a Mormon differently? What's the difference to God between "those prayers" and "LDS prayers"?

Exactly, that's my question. What is the difference between "those prayers," the millions of Christians prayers that have reinforced non-LDS doctrines, and the "LDS prayers"? If prayer is a reliable method of finding and testing truth, then why has prayer confirmed the wrong gospel for millions of Christians? Should prayer be trusted or not?

Sir you need to read this: http://www.amazon.com/This-Is-My-Doctrine-Development/dp/1589581032

I wish a great deal more members and critics would read it. It is phenomenal and caused a drastic readjustment for me.

Here are 4 suggestions.

Currently on my night stand:
1- Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World http://www.amazon.com/Things-Hidden-Since-Foundation-World/dp/0804722153
2-Science and Religion. 5 Questions http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8792130518

Other recommendations that I think fit the criteria:
1- Marketing of Evil: http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217
2- Language of God: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744