Mark Twain And The Book Of Mormon

by Jimmy Akin on April 25, 2006

in Mormonism

Marktwain

During a trip out West, Mark Twain took along The Book of Mormon to while away the travel hours. He didn’t think much of its literary style, but he did find it useful as a cure for insomnia:

"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the ‘elect’ have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so ‘slow,’ so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel — half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern — which was about every sentence or two — he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as ‘exceeding sore,’ ‘and it came to pass,’ etc., and made things satisfactory again. ‘And it came to pass’ was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

GET THE STORY.

(Note: This link does not constitute an endorsement of the host site. Refer to JA.org’s Rules 6 and 7. Nod to Once Upon a Time… for the link.)

If you’re interested in reading the book in which the excerpted essay is found, CLICK HERE.

For more about Mark Twain, CLICK HERE. I especially liked the following quote attributed by Wikipedia to Twain:

"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

The guy can’t even read the table of contents!
“the books of Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mosiah, Zeniff, Alma, Helaman, Ether, Moroni, two "books" of Mormon, and three of Nephi.”
#1: there is no book of Zeniff. It talks about him, but he does not have an entire book named after him. He can be found in the book of Mosiah.
#2: there are four books of Nephi.
And this is just part of the things he got wrong. I love the man to death, but he really needs to get his facts straight.

If Mark Twain says it's a load of crap... then IT'S A LOAD OF CRAP.
Twain should be God.
Mormons are a bunch of Masons.
Look it up.

I read in the news a couple of months back that the Salt Lake City Roman Catholic diocese had one of the higher rates of weekly mass attendance and charitable donations of any Roman Catholic diocese. It indicated that a lot of this was due to the immense example and influence from their Mormon neighbors.
Also keep in mind that in poor African countries the two biggest aid donars are Catholic Charities and LDS charities - and they usually work as a team.

It is a funny book except for the fact that it has led so many astray.

StubbleSpark,
Many of your comments hardly deserve a response, and Da Rulz don't allow repetitious arguements. Therefore I will just say that I have never defended Mormonism nor do I have any desire to do so or to back up Wendy's defenses. My concern is what kind of an attitude a Christian should have towards other, incomplete and partially false religions. I will not apologize for believing all people need to be treated with charity and respect.

Stubble, thanks for letting me know what I believe. I'm really glad you cleared that up for me.
And as for your loving, charitable comments towards JR, well, I think that tells us pretty much everything we need to know as well.

"StubbleSpark's statement ... is manifestly false and blind."
JR, don't take this in a bad way, but I hope one day you burst into flames. And I hope at that very moment I walk by with a bucket of water. Because I will keep on walking by until you say something to the effect of "help!"
At which point, I will take the time to ask "Gee, if I use this bucket to dowse your flames, your clothes will get all wet. Is it alright if I do that? Because nothing really is more important than showing 'love' through 'politeness'."
By which point it may dawn on you that what I am showing is not really love at all but a sort of cruel indifference to the threat to your very life (not to mention the pain resultant to the continued exposure to that threat.)
Our Lord and almost all of the apostles were killed for preaching what they did and this is just the internet. What exactly are we afraid of here? Until the internet comes with options like "gouge out eyes" or "set metal hooks in flesh and rip it off the bones", then the worst that can happen is a flurry of capital letters.
Get a grip.
There is a great line from Man For All Seasons when St. Thomas Moore calls his daughter's suitor a heretic. He complains loudly: "Now, sir that is a word I do not like!"
To which, Thomas Moore calmly replies: "It's not a likable word, it's not a likable thing."
The fact is you want the satisfaction of being able to consider yourself "tolerant" and "kind" more than you want to do what is right. Love of self leads to a selfish love of labels.
But if your love of self was placed beneath love of Christ, you would go to where you were not welcome and speak though you may be spit upon or punched in the mouth (just like the apostles). Such places are common throughout this country of ours and I would think if Jesus and his Saints were not above being labeled all sorts of horrible things by the world, then neither are you.

Wendy, I think a reading of I Nephi 13 in the Book of Mormon will show you where I get my understanding of the LDS teaching that the Catholic Church is the "abominable church" "false church" and the church of the devil:
1 Nephi 13:6 ... I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
In verse 9, this same Church is said "destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.
In verse 23, we get to the plates of brass which are the full "gospel of the Lord of whom the twelve apostles bear record." (v24)
Continuing in verse 26:
And after the got forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that GREAT AND ABOMINABLE CHURCH, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL OF THE LAMB MANY PARTS WHICH ARE PLAIN AND MOST PRECIOUS; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. 27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men."
The chapter continues to report this alteration of the Bible has lead to "a great many [believers stumbling], yea, insomuch that Satan has great power over them" (v29).
Wendy there is not a historian on this Earth who does not identify the compilation of the Bible with the Catholic Church. Even Dan Brown, who believes in nothing at all, concurs with this point as it is the centerpiece of the political and anti-feminist accusations throughout the DaVinci Code. That distinction falls on the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.
Dan Brown believes it. Christians know and believe it. The "inspired" voice of the Book of Mormon believes it. (An important point to make would be both Dan Brown and many modern LDS believers make a distinction between the ancient and present day Catholic Church. Catholics do not.)
The "plain and precious" meaning of the passage is clear. As a devout follower of the faith, you are called to witness without distortion or deletion for to do so would mean you are imitating the Church of Satan.
I can understand why you take such a lax attitude towards the salvation of others. It seems LDS salvation is determined more by what you do NOT do than by what you do:
"And blessed are the Gentiles, they of whom the prophet has written; for behold, if it so be that they shall repent and fight not against Zion, and do NOT unite themselves to that great and abominable church, THEY SHALL BE SAVED." (II Nephi 6:12)

It is possible to cut off the head of your opponent in love. Battlefield combat does not require you hate your enemy (only someone who hates warriors would think this). To judge such acts as unloving simply because of the appearance of violence is judging a book by its cover. It is also to pass judgment against all who have ever fought for something worthwhile. As GK Chesterton has said "A soldier fights not because he hates those who stand before him but because he loves those who stand behind him."
You should not attribute false intentions when you yourself have not taken the time to ask me if I intend inflict out of hate or dreadful malice. No one thinks to criticize being pushed suddenly onto the floor if the pushing in fact put that person out of the path of an oncoming bullet.
Fact: different people react differently to different types of approaches. For some, soft and lovey-dovey works. Others need to be shocked out of over-inflated self-assurance. Some may have reactions completely the opposite to what you intend.
Fact: this is an open forum with people from all walks of life able to come and go as they please. Therefore, there is no one perfect mode of communication that will work on everyone.
Fact: this is "home" territory -- a place where we are free to be as Catholic as we want. This means talking about other religions in the light of Truth and, yes, sometimes remarking among ourselves that certain aspects of other faiths are ridiculous.
Not of out hate or out of superiority but out of honesty. The conversation should usually progress to nuts and bolts about dealing with other faiths but sometimes does not.
Virgina Woolf used ridicule to great effect when she criticized the male-centric society that dominated her life. I can attest to this because I am a man who has read Virginia Woolf and been moved by her words.
In fact, in American society, it is perfectly fine for ANY minority to mock other races, religions, orientations, ethnicities, etc. This mocking gets high ratings regardless of whether or not the observations themselves are accurate, truthful, or made without malice.
The only group that is NOT allowed to behave in a similar manner is the majority group. By going so far out of your way to "protect" the LDS church on this blog site, you are in fact denigrating their followers as being inferior to us.
Inferior in numbers and also in intellect. If they can answer the claims made, as Wendy initially tried to minimal effect, then great. But when they are unable to respond because they cannot answer important and hard questions about the validity of their faith, you cannot cry foul.
Because we carry the fullness of the Truth and eventually in dialogue with ALL the faiths in the world ALL practitioners of those faiths will enter the place of not knowing. This is not unfair, it is the way God made religion.
Christ Himself tried all sorts methods. From gentle patience, to calling his disciples "dim", to making a whip out of chords. Some methods worked better on some people than on others. But in the end, if they turned from truth, the responsibility for that act of unfaithfulness rests on the conscience of those individuals and no one else.

Mormons could be said to have a lot in common with Muslims as well (insert polygamy joke here ^_*), but I wouldn't call us particularly similar, nor would I call Muslims similar to Catholics. That whole believing in Jesus Christ thing is a biggie.
Except that the Muslim believes in Christ, just not the same Christ that Christians do. Same with the LDS church. They believe in Christ, but not the same Christ that Christians do.
I see a Christian religion needing the following 3 things (very open definition):
1. Monotheistic
2. Trinitarian
3. Christ as Son of God, 3rd person of the Trinity, truly human and truly divine; died for our sins on the cross.
The LDS religion is a Monolatric Polytheistic non-Trinitarian religion. IIRC, they also teach that Jesus became a god sometime after his death (note: the LDS church would repudiate the Hypostatic Union).

God living in his little retirement planet with his wife
Wives, come on now. It's a point of Mormon Doctrine that their god has many wives. If you wish to be saved, you must have them too.

JR, I should really shut up and let you do the talking; you make my point so much better than I do. ;)

By the way, I agree entirely with Jared's last post. I'm not arguing with that at all.

SS, when Elijah himself or someone else of his spiritual stature comes down to chastize me for my religious beliefs, then I'm really likely to sit up and take notice. Until that happens, don't y'all think that you'll catch more bees with honey rather than with vinegar?
Jared, I think what Wendy means is that chastisement is rarely going to be an effective means of evangelization unless in some spectacular show of divine power (which is not God's way anyway, Mt 12:39). I doubt anyone has ever been converted, at least in our religiously sensitive modern western culture, by condemnations of their current beliefs. I was not coverted from Protestantism to Catholicism by condemnations of Protestantism but by the truth and beauty and kindess shown by Catholics, as well as private study and some other personal things.
StubbleSpark's statement Polite banter is not a way to protect your opponent. It is a smokescreen you create for yourself to hide behind out of fear of the naked blade of Truth cutting too close to you. is manifestly false and blind. The kind of argument he seems to propose as the only valid form of apologetics accoplishes nothing except to make people angry and convince them futher that Catholicism is false and evil. Politeness is not "putting on two faces" if you yourself are not full of hate.
Wendy is right, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and especially its document Nostra Ætate recognized the goodness and truth in different religions, including non-Christian ones. Granted it was a pastoral council the impementation of which lead to some unfortunate changes and crises in the Church, but it is still a council of the Church and not to be brushed aside because it does not fit your hardend heart (if this is the case for any of you, as it seems but I can't know). Don't deny that everything outside of Catholicism in deficient in truth, or that being a faithful Catholic is not opional for those without invincible ignorance. At the same time don't go spouting furry and judgement (spiritually on fire?!?) at all non-Catholics thinking that will in any way draw them closer to the Church. And again, this is not just a prudential call, it is a moral obligation to be charitable to all people.

Wendy,
The Church has always recognized that truth and light can infiltrate other faiths. Hence St. Augustine's love of Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas's love of Aristotle. (By the way, historically, many protestant sects have bashed this love of classical philosophy, and stated that it is one more sign of the Church's apostasy.) However, simply because we recognize SOME truth or glimmer of truth in other faiths does NOT mean that we will stop trying to correct "the differences or perceived untruths" because our faith calls us to correct those falsehoods. Christ Himself commands us to teach all nations. We are called to bring others to the Fullness of the Truth, meaning that we allow them to see all which God has revealed through His One, True Church.
By the way, the statement about Elijah coming to inform people of their mistakes is ... well, in order to save your feelings, I would simply direct you to Luke 16: 19-31.
I'll let someone else handle the rest of this. You guys are better at this than I am.

(...continued)
I've just discovered something that I would ask for clarification on: I read that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1968?) declared a recognition of the holiness in other Christian bodies and the good in non-Christian religions. If this is true, is that not a good enough reason to not bash the LDS faith? Let me give you an example I read about recently. The musical artist known as Prince has become a Jehovah's Witness. He has sworn off foul language, preaches the importance of virtue, and refuses to sing his earlier, popular X-rated songs. Now, it's not likely there are a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses reading this, but can't we all look at what this religion has done to bring him (and others like him) closer to God, and as a result, simply refrain from saying bad things about it? I wouldn't expect you to talk about how wonderful it is, but simply respect the good that it does do and not worry about the differences or perceived untruths.
One more item, an answer for one of Jared's earlier questions, regarding LDS thoughts regarding John 1:1. Here is a quote from the LDS Bible dictionary (KJV of the bible, LDS-specific dictionary). "Many of the things that the scripture says were done were actually done by the LORD (Jesus). Thus the scripture says that “God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1: 1), but we know that it was actually the LORD (Jesus) who was the creator (John 1: 3, 10), or as Paul said, God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph. 3: 9)."
Man, you guys are really making me do my homework! :)

Jared, the actual name of our church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." While it is technically incorrect to refer to a member of the church "a Mormon" ("Mormon" was the name of the guy who we believe compiled a big chunk of the BoM, which is why it's named after him), it's hardly what I'd call offensive; I've used the term myself in these comments simply for clarity, so people will more easily understand who and what I'm referring to. "LDS" or "members of the LDS Church" are technically more correct terms (The Church itself would like us to not abbreviate it at all, but I find that somewhat bulky in normal conversation). Back in the early 1800s, non-members started calling us "Mormons" to be offensive, but I don't know of anyone who is offended at the term.
SS, when Elijah himself or someone else of his spiritual stature comes down to chastize me for my religious beliefs, then I'm really likely to sit up and take notice. Until that happens, don't y'all think that you'll catch more bees with honey rather than with vinegar? Isn't it better to simply talk about how wonderful Catholicism and its beliefs are, rather than how stupid and fraudulent the LDS church and its beliefs are? And no, we don't believe that the Catholic church is the Church of Satan: I'm pretty sure the Church of Satan isn't any organized church on the face of the earth, it's just Satan and all his little minions messing with us all, including members of both yours and my churches. Certainly plenty of non-Catholics (including myself when I was a teenager; what can I say? Teenagers aren't always very bright...) presumed the Catholic church to be "the Whore of Babylon," but I've never seen it as part of our official doctrine. Exactly what part of my holy writ can I find this reference?
(continued for length...)

This is not a defense of the Book of Mormon or the Mormon religion, but simply a reminder that Samuel Clemens opinion of religion in general and God in particular is probably not one that Michelle would ascribe to, so it is troublesome that he is so opportunistically quoted here. It is also troubling that Ms. Arnold is continuing in the spirit of self rightiousness that she showed against radtrads with this attack on Mormons. One cannot help question her strategy of apologetics - insult and condemn.

Grr. Guys I think it is safe to say there is a bit of wiggle room on the whole laughing at other people's faiths thing.
I am reminded of the prophet Elijah and his battle on Mount Carmel -- he lopped heads off false prophets with a sword.
New religions get made all the time. Witness the resurgence of gnosticism along with newbies like Scientology and Falun Gong.
I also feel compelled to point out that Mormonism is one of a number of religions that used to great effect or grew directly out of hatred for the Catholic Church at a time when anti-Catholicism was growing --Seventh Day Adventism and Jehovah's Witnesses.
In these faiths you will find codified IN THEIR HOLY WRIT epithets against Catholicism as "the great abominable church of Satan" that "tore many plain and precious pieces out of ...." To some, we are the true "whore of Babylon" led not by a pope but by the antichrist himself.
These are not optional beliefs, nor are they mere opinions. They are God-breathed truth to these people. You may think I would be misbehaving to poke at it. Well, "I aim to misbehave."
You can see the same thing happening at the beginning of this century as well. Read Dan Brown's book or the writings by the Feminine-supremacists at Harvard Divinity School. A major component of their argument is vilification of Holy Mother Church.
Only nowadays, this segues nicely into a absolute refutation of the divinity of our Lord. In ancient times, all you needed to do was to light incense at the altar of Caesar and you could escape excruciating torture and certain death. Now, the man who hung on the cross for us is mocked to scorn with barely a sigh of complaint out of the supposedly united Body.
This is deplorable.
When I talk to someone about the faith, I want to know where they stand. I ask them to put their argument in the strongest terms possible and feel free to laugh if it is so ridiculous. I guarantee you they are not laughing when I am done responding.
Polite banter is not a way to protect your opponent. It is a smokescreen you create for yourself to hide behind out of fear of the naked blade of Truth cutting too close to you.
If you can't stand it, get out of apologetics. For too long society has carried on like the soul is the last thing that mattered. If I were physically on fire, I hope you would be nice enough to put it out. If I were spiritually on fire, I would expect the same.
It is an emergency after all.
Putting on two faces in name of politeness is not a kindness. It is a crying shame.

Breier: You pretty much said what I've been trying to say. Clearly, I need more practice.
JRS: We agree in concept; we disagree in practice. Taking this out of it Mormon context, I just don't see it as unloving to ridicule any bad idea. Even in a Catholic context. If a protestant comes up to me and ridicules the idea of "worshipping" Mary (which would be ridiculous), it actually gives me a chance to clear out that straw man. If a Muslim--quoting the Koran itself when it says that our Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Virgin Mary--laughs at me for this, I can laugh along with him. That belief would be ridiculous. BUT it's as silly to SAY that we believe that as it would be to believe it. (Which brings up a totally OTHER interesting topic as to why "Allah" has to set up straw men to win an argument.) In fact, it gives me an opportunity to explain the concept of the Trinity of God and how that differs utterly from the concept of Marian Devotion.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself here.
Ok, one thing's been bugging me this whole time and I've been forgetting to bring it up .... Wendy (or anyone else who may know): We've been referring to yourself and others of your faith as "Mormons." However, an ex-Mormon classmate of mine in college told me that members of LDS are offended at that term being applied to individuals preferring to be called a Latter-Day Saint, a member of LDS or something else. But never a Mormon. Can someone clear this up?

Under your view, it appears that we can never fully separate the sin and the sinner.
Therefore hating the sin, even among a few Catholic friends, is inappropriate.
I too find this absurd, which is why it is not my position. This is not a matter so much of sin as intelligence and perhaps dignity. You can say all you want that someone can hold an irrational beleif and still be rational. The fact remains in real life that is rarely the impression people will get when you mock a religion. What I care about in this regard is the actual way people will take the comment, and the attitude you may (I can't tell, myself) have when making such comments even in private.

Short form:
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Under your view, it appears that we can never fully separate the sin and the sinner.
Therefore hating the sin, even among a few Catholic friends, is inappropriate.
I find that to be absurd. But I don't think you're absurd at all, I find you quite intelligent, just wrong here.

JR,
Is it uncharitable to ridicule ancient Gnostic beliefs as absurd? This surely will reflect upon the ancient authors of those heresies.
You can separate an idea from the person who holds that idea.
That's why we can condemn a book as a bad book, but we can never condemn a person as a bad person. We can judge a text. We can not judge a soul.
Charity extends to people, we are not bound to love their false ideas.
By attacking anything as false, you are implicitly saying that those who believe that false teaching suffer from some defect. For they are at least in error. But you are not implying what the reason for that error is.
You are not necessarily implying what defect that person has, if any, beyond being wrong. You are not identifying the reason for that error.
For example, many people think the Trinity is contradictory and consequently an absurd teaching. Does that mean they're calling Catholics stupid? No, they can conclude that Catholics hold that mysterious teaching from faith in the Church, not on its own logical merits.
Similarly, one can hold that Mormons are taught that all doubts against their faith are from the devil, and to resist them at all costs, and that's why many don't give brief to criticism of their beliefs. They're not stupid, they're following the first principles of their belief system to an absurd conclusion.
To say someone holds an irrational belief is not the same as saying that person is irrational. Similarly, saying I hold a belief above reason is not the same as saying I am above reason.
I think we need to distinguish between public forums and private forums. It may well be the case that a blog is a public forum, and therefore one has to be more measured in one's language. But a private forum among people who share the truth allows for the full statement of truth without veiling it for fear of causing offense.
St. Irenaeus mercilessly exposes the contradictions and absurdies of the early Gnostic sects. And for good reason, he was writing to keep people from becoming Gnostics, and to refute their errors. If that demands ridicule, and the ridicule is fair, I don't see who is being harmed by it. And a sin against charity requires some harm.
For your argument to be valid, the following syllogism has to be true:
That idea is unreasonable.
Joe holds that idea.
Therefore Joe is unreasonable.
This is clearly fallacious. Joe could be a very reasonable fellow, which is why he will abandon his idea when he realizes it is unreasonable.
Ideas are utterly distinct from those who hold them. Truth and falsehood are separate from individuals who hold that falsehood. Falsehood is opposed to God. Error has no rights! It is simply wrong to say that judging an idea is the same thing as judging a person who holds that idea.

Wendy,
We also have the idea of God the Father offering his only begotten Son for us (Jn 3:16). BTW, think of the pain of Mary for the same reason, and that will explain to you much of the Catholic devotion to her.
Jesus was not "the Father in the flesh." He was (and is) the Son, eternally begotton of the Father, made man. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. The Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son. Yet each is the One God. Not thirds of God, but fully God in His own right. Yet they are not really seperable, since they are all the same God, nothing more perfectly singular, so where one is the others are, and what one person does the others do, except as regards the inner life of the Trinity (the Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). So while we generally speak of the Father as creating the world and each human soul, it is in fact equally the Son and the Holy Spirit who creates them. We only the Son was made man, but that means it was the Creator of the Universe who emptied Himself and took the form of a slave.
There is a personal relationship between the Father and the Son, alluded to by Jesus several times. Here is another classic Catholic explanation of the Trinity: the Father, the One God, eternally knows Himself perfectly, and this perfect and complete "idea" of Himself is eternally made real, equal to the Father in all things and equally the One God, inseparable from the Father but distinct. The Father loves the Son with a perfect and Eternal Love and the Son, having inhereted all things from the Father except being the Father, loves the Father with the same Love. This perfect eternal Love becomes, eternally, the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, equally God and identical to the Father and the Son except He is not the Father and the Son. Again though, these are not three Gods, but one single God, perfectly one yet really three. Also this did not happen at some point in the past. God is unchangable, and this "process" happens eternally, with no time when there was just the Father or anything like that.
It was only the Son who became incarnate, though were he is the fullness of the Godhead is, thus in the Divinity of Jesus (the man walking the earth in the past or in the Eucharist today) is also the presence of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus speaks of the Father as greater than him in Jn 15:28 because the Father is the origin of the Son, and is the one who "sent" the Son, whereas the Son is the one who came from the Father and was sent and obays/imitates the Father in all things. This does not mean that the Son is really less than the Father in the quantitative sense, since they are both equally the One Eternal God.
Does this clear up why we do not find the passages about a relationship between the Father and the Son not inconsistent with but rather supportive of our view of the Trinity? Honestly, you will not find anything in the Bible that is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity, or else it would not be the case that virtually all Christians throughout history who have believed in the Bible, even though not accepting other groups' authority and often not accepting any Tradition, have accepted this basic belief.

But to say that "love" demands never calling a spade a spade, or to take my previous answer, calling abortion "murder," is absurd!
Agreed.
Can we all agree that we have an unconditional duty of charity towards all men? And that there is no obligation for someone to "respect" what they hold to be wrong, but there is an obligation to respect people who are wrong?
Agreed, though not evidently with how you apply the idea
I will not walk up to a Muslim and say "Mohommed was a false prophet," but certainly I think that, and in doing so am perfectly consistent with charity. And one is not prohibited from voicing that statement in appropriate forums, even though it may be highly offensive to Muslims. Agreed?
Agreed
But our obligation of love, of charity, is to them, not their mistakes, not to their errors. But if we are going to critcize those things, or be ironic, etc., we always have to be sure we're acting charitably towards others. Agreed?
Agreed
My emphasis is that the obligation to respect the *views* of others is entirely prudential.
Here is where we touch on the issue. You and I don't believe in the BoM, or the Koran. We both believe Mohammed and Joseph Smith were false prophets. A reasonable Muslim or LDS would not take offence at this, seeing as we are Catholics, just as I would not take offence at a Jew saying Jesus and the Apostles were false prophets. However, you can not entirely separate the "views" of a person from the person him/herself. Wendy's comments show that, as was predictable, a LDS reading this thread would be personally offended. By calling the BoM ridiculous and laughable you are implicitly, whether you intend it or not, saying that those who deeply believe in it are ridiculous and laughable. Those kinds of comments I would argue are inappropriate even among a few Catholic friends, as well as imprudent on the internet where a LDS or two are likely to read it. Ultimately you must say the BoM is false, and that it reads like a modern attempted imitation of the Bible, but to go beyond that seems, at least to me and clearly to Wendy, to be an attack on the intelligence of those who believe in it.

Jared, I have a good friend who takes your basic approach to love. Everyone accepts love as good. The thing is that liberals use the idea of love to argue for tollerance for everything and anything. It seems to me that many people, reacting to this, begin to get an understandable but unfortunate attitude of suspicion towards any talk of love or focus on growing in love. It seems to me that the answer to this is more time in prayer, whatever the time you are spending in prayer right now.
It is true that people are different. Some people are more attracted to the intellectual side of things. These people are sometimes labled as Thomists (the word has many related meanings). Others are more attracted to issues of the will and spirituality. These some call Augustinians (some make it Franciscans or Scotists but this limits it to one order or one not so popular philosopher). To some degree this difference is natural and fine. It is said that JPG was more of a Thomist and B16 is more of an Augustinian. However, I think that a Thomist can not let himself just see himself as a Thomist and think that can make him more or less neglect the issue of love, just like an Augustinian can not ignore doctrine. JPG and B16 are models of people not doing this.

Oh Man!!! I had this great comment that I was working on and had been for awhile and I accidentally deleted it! ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
*sigh* I guess I wasn't meant to post it *smacks stupid computer*
Summary: I guess I just didn't expect to come and get my daily dose of Jimmy and Catholics and comics and Cthulu and suddenly get smacked upside the head with a bunch of unnecessarily rude comments out of nowhere about a Book that 12 million people (and really, we're not all stupid and ignorant or crooked) hold sacred. I mean, a couple of weeks ago they posted that bit about Romney, and, well, that was relevant because it's current. But the Twain post? Sheesh, that was 100+ years ago. And, as was pointed out, this was the same guy who slammed the Catholic church as well, so it's not like he's any great and reliable source. Didn't he slam everybody and everything?
Oh my gosh, I just deleted a bunch AGAIN!!!!!! Time to go to bed because obviously I'm brain dead. :)

JR, true, I don't believe it was the Father Himself who came down and sacrificed Himself for our sins, but it was His kid! His firstborn! His Only Begotten! How painful would that have been for Him? Can you imagine sacrificing your firstborn to suffer as Christ suffered? Just because it wasn't the Father in the flesh doesn't mean it was any less painful for Him, anymore than it is for any parent to watch His son suffer. I don't see Christ and the Holy Ghost as lesser so much as a little bit later. ;) I can't honestly say that this makes the Redemption any less; we consider the Atonement to the most pivotal moment in all history.
And man! Do you know your religions or what? I'm impressed! :)
Jared, you know they taught us about back in "Mormon" school when I was 16, and darned if I can remember. But I was checking some cross-references and in turn found a number of references (New Testament, KJV) to the idea of Christ having a personal relationship (e.g., being someone else) with the Father (John 5:20, John 14:11, Acts 7:55, others). The following doesn't necessary answer your actual question, but does a much better job of explaining Mormon beliefs about God than I can do. In light of Da Rulez, I'll try to not make this too long. (OK, I just pasted and it seems too long for a single post: I'll put it into the following post.)
cont...

I add, of course, that respecting other people will often mean not disrespecting what they respect. But that is a prudential obligation.
I will not walk up to a Muslim and say "Mohommed was a false prophet," but certainly I think that, and in doing so am perfectly consistent with charity. And one is not prohibited from voicing that statement in appropriate forums, even though it may be highly offensive to Muslims. Agreed?
My emphasis is that the obligation to respect the *views* of others is entirely prudential. When we say respect the views what we really mean is respecting the individual. That often means not getting into arguments or being incendiary about what they believe. But our obligation of love, of charity, is to them, not their mistakes, not to their errors. But if we are going to critcize those things, or be ironic, etc., we always have to be sure we're acting charitably towards others. Agreed?

I am still quite confused.
I think we all agree that people should always be treated with love and respect, even if they're totally in the wrong and it's totally their fault. Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.
The question here isn't our love for people. It's about whether we have an obligation to love heresy or error in itself. Do we have to extend our love of people to automatically love the things they love?
I see no obligation to "respect" a heretical document. I definitely see a prudential obligation to treat that document in such a way that I'm still being loving to people who believe in it. That may practically mean holding my tongue, or being more politic in my language, etc.
But I have a duty to the faith, and to reason, to judge that document as it is. Whether than judgment is externally communicated is a prudential question, naturally.
But to say that "love" demands never calling a spade a spade, or to take my previous answer, calling abortion "murder," is absurd!
JR, I don't even know what remarks at the start of this post incensed you, but I still have to stand up and say that someone personally finding the Book of Mormon to be "literary morphine", or boring, is entitled to that judgment. Would I tell a Mormon that? No. We know how to be polite to each other. But to hold to the faith means we also recognize what's opposed to the faith.
Can we all agree that we have an unconditional duty of charity towards all men? And that there is no obligation for someone to "respect" what they hold to be wrong, but there is an obligation to respect people who are wrong?

Tim: Thanks for the backup.
JRS: I appreciate the suggestion. Truthfully, it did come off (in my mind) as condescending but, no big deal. I accept your apology.
Thing is, it's part true and part not true. I haven't, in the past two weeks or so been doing as much Eucharistic Adoration as I had been doing. So, that's actually good advice, and well taken. At the same time, even when I was spending a lot of time before Him, I still felt the same way about the "Truth vs. Love vs. Luv vs. Harsh TroOoth" debate. I understand your point. I understand that you're no liberal (if you were, I'd ask you what you were doing on Mr. Akin's blog, when you'd be happier spending your time over at the Commonweal site).
Bottom line: No offense taken; I just disagree.

JR-
Please don't take me too seriously, either.
I always look forward to reading your comments.

Maybe it would be a good idea for everyone, myself specifically included, not to draw too much of a conclusion out of single statements on the internet. Ultimately you have to deal with the words as they are written, but still you can't know what state of mind the person was in or if the sense of the words is at all what the writer intended. This just happened to me (and I don't blaim Tim J. for his reaction, it was appropriate) and it made me think I may have made similar incorrect judgements myself.
Again, you have to deal with what is written, but it may be a good idea (for me but I'm throwing this out there as a help not condescention!) to try to keep in your mind some openness to the possibility that the statement is not reflective of the person.

Rereading what I wrote in haste to Jared I can see how it comes off as condescending. I honestly was only trying to suggest something that would be helpful in his spiritual life, not trying to say he was a bad Christian or something. His words seemed to reflect an attitude in a lot of people I know, good Christian people in some ways, about the issue of love vs. truth. If I am just making the situation worse I will drop the whole issue.

There is a small Unity movement (rejecting the Trinity) among non-denominational charismatic Christians.
They see the Trinity as a Catholic invention.
I think what happens is that, as people find out a little about Church history, they discover that some of their own long-held beliefs have deep roots in Catholicism. This causes a crisis, because they KNOW that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon", so they begin to wonder just how much Catholicism has polluted their creed.
Any doctrine that they discover is solidly, historicall Catholic gets called into question.
So doctrinally, they end up with "whatever Catholicism ISN'T".

J.R.-
"Some time in front of the Blessed Sacrament might help."
I understand that you don't like people being mean.
Being condescending isn't nice, either.
God made us each a little different, and none of us will handle a situation in exactly the same way. We are not supposed to. God created us as individuals, and I figure he likes it that way.
Besides which, you have no idea how much time any of us might spend praying before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.
I'm not knocking you... especially on the internet, we can all use a reminder once in a while to mind our manners.
But, trust me, I've seen some real meanness and vitriole in comboxes, and this is NOTHING.

Jared, your comment to me about Jesus' words I answered in my post. If I were you I would look into my heart and ask why I seem to have a problem with love, associate it with Liberalism (I am no liberal) and so on. Not to judge, just a suggestion. Some time in front of the Blessed Sacrament might help.
Wendy, just to clarify, all those heresies I mentioned did not originate with the Council and their rejection. Rather, some guy would show up preaching something new, the Church would gather together and condemn the new heretical teaching, and the holders of that belief would reject the council and from then on be a distinct group.

JRS: Your comment appeared while I was typing and is, obviously, a much better and more thorough explanation to Wendy than mine. Good job.

JRS: Not trying to bag on you, man, but Jesus, though God incarnate and therefore Love Himself did not always act "lovingly" as many moderns would understand the term. Though I can't recall any examples of Him using rough humor, I do recall that He (A) called the Pharisees "whited sepulchres" and a "brood of vipers" and ; (B) beat the living snot out of the money changers with an improvised whip.
Wendy: Yes, all major Protestant groups believe in the Trinity (though the word itself doesn't appear in the Bible) and tend to have the exact same understanding of "One God, Three Persons" that Catholics do. (In fact, depending on the definition used, I'd actually say that ALL Protestant groups, not just the major ones, have this understanding of God in His Triune Nature.) In fact, to my knowledge, the only major related groups who don't have this understanding are the Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS. That is one reason why we tend to not refer to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians.
Question for you, Wendy: being that you believe in the same Bible as we, how do you, as a member of LDS, explain the opening of John's Gospel wherein John refers to Jesus as the Word and states that "the Word was God?" How does a member of LDS explain all of Christ's various claims of Godhood going even so far as to say "I AM," to the great consternation of the Jewish clergy of the time? Not trying to put you on the spot; just trying to understand.

btw, I never misuse the words "is" and "are." That typo at the top came about as the result of changing what I had written in front of it.

Wendy,
Yes, just about all Protestants believe in the Trinity. Some (not most in my experience) may not like using the traditional language and creeds concerning it because they is Catholic in origin (from long before there were protestants) but I doubt any would deny that the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and there is only one God. If any one out there knows of an exception besides the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses and the Way International, feel free to correct me. The Eastern Orthodox have the same doctrine as us except they believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and we believe He proceeds from the Father AND the Son. A seemingly minor detail it seems to me, and the Catholic Church generally does not make much of it, but the Eastern Orthodox do.
The Nestorians (those who rejected the council of Ephasus in 431 ad, today in small numbers in Iraq and Iran) classically believe Jesus to have been two persons, the devine Son of God and the human son of Mary. Those who reject this herecy call Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos) to proclaim the fact that the Son of God is same exact person as the Son of Mary, one Divine person. Most protestants in my experience will accept this, even though they do not want to call Mary the Mother of God because they think it will lead people (wrongly of course) to think Mary was somehow the origin of God not a creature created by Him
The Monophysites (those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the modern "Oriental Orthodox Church" found in small numbers in Egypt, Syria, and India) classically believe Jesus had only one nature, the Divine nature. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most any Protestant that has hearn of the issue, believe that Jesus had two natures, Divine and human. Thus he is one Divine Person, the Son of God, who is God Himself, who has taken on, besides his Divine nature, also a human nature, becoming for us fully God and fully man. Beautiful!
The Arians also diserve mention. They are the ones that rejected the Council of Nicea in 325 and became the prominant religion (besides paganism) of the Germanic peoples before their conversion tribe by tribe or kingdom by kindom to Catholicism. They died out, but their basic premise has been resurrected by such groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses and I think the cult called the Way International, as well as having apparently influenced Islam. Their basic premise is that God is One, quite simply and Jesus was created by God, a preexisting spirit of some sort that was less than God which became man. In the Jehovah's Witness version that preexisting spirit is the angel Michael.
I'm glad to hear your idea of God is not as limited as the basic premiss of having three gods would have suggested by itself. My biggest concern here would be that the One God, the creator of the universe and of each soul, is not the one who became man and died to reconsile us to Himself, Who will be our joy and fulfillment for eternity. In fact, the way you describe it, it sounds more like Arianism to me than anything else, that, vocabulary aside, there is one great God the Father and then Jesus and the Holy Spirit as great but lesser spiritual beings serving God. This perhaps maintains the identity of God Himself, but makes the Incarnation and Redemption something less. Would you disagree with this assessment?

JR, no worries about the mis-spelling. :)
I'm not really sure if my feelings about God and yours are really that different. I worship God the Father as the all-knowing, all-encompassing God. He is our Father and He is responsible for all that is. I've honestly never really thought about where he actually "lives," but He is here and He loves us all and takes a personal interest in all our lives and all His creation.
Christ, as I've mentioned before, is my Savior and my elder spirit brother. He is not a god as the Father is God, but everything He does reflects on the Father and glorifies the Father and is basically what the Father would do if He were right there. We believe them to be separate individuals, but they might as well be the same since their intents and goals are basically identical. We pray to the Father in Christ's name.
The Holy Spirit is a separate entity (and I don't think we really know a lot about him), but again, everything he does reflects the will of the Father. It is His touch to our souls that brings us closer to God and bears witness to His existence and love for us.
I don't think that I have the words to express how great is my love for God, or for my gratitude at the sacrifice of His only Son. The fact that the Father delegates His work to others does in no way take glory from Him, and...
Oh gosh, I just don't even know what I could say to say how much I feel for the Godhead. Nothing finite or limiting about it.
Thank you for answering the question. Do pretty much all protestant religions believe in the Triune God the same way Catholics do?

Sorry about misspelling your name above, Wendy.

Wendey,
I think an underlying reason why we tend to not call Mormons Christians is that you seem to reduce God to something less great and personal than he is. I don't know much about Mormonism, I'm just saying what the perception is.
We mainstream Christians veiw God as the Eternal One, the One whose very nature is to exist. He is immaterial, all powerful, all-present. He is one, but three, a unifed communion of Love. He creates the universe out of sheer generosity, and loves each thing in it as if it were the only thing He created. Each creature, each tree, chipmunk, rock, river, raindrop, star, reflects His Divine Beauty in its own way, and he holds each in existance by His infinite power and love. Each human being he also holds in existance, and calls to Him even when we stray and reject Him.
Far from condemning us for our apostasy, He goes so far as to take on our very nature, ennobling it beyond our comprehension, and dieing in a most terrible way to redeem us and prove His love for us. By that death He gives us His very Life, the Life of God, and makes us veritable Children of God, partakers in the inheritance of the Son. "In him we live and breath and have our being". In Him is the fulfillment of all our desires and the purification of our unworthy souls. He is all in all. Our lives are, or at least could be if we would accept the grace and will be if we persevere to the end, no longer our own but His. "To me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." "I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me."
When you say the Father is one God and lives on some planet and the Son is another God and the Holy Spirit yet another, it makes each god finite and it becomes hard to see how you could have the same basic view.

mr, love without truth could be called sentimentality, but who is separating love from truth here? Truth without love is fundamentalism, hypocracy, phariseeism, legalism, fanaticism.

Wendy's last comment goes for me, too, and that includes some of the statements that she would not be crazy about.
By the way, I missed Wendy's middle post and the responses by jd and Breier, which were posted while I was writing a comment, so those put the discussion of a battle in context. I'll still point to my comment on that as something to keep in mind when using that metaphor.
A point about useing the actions of saints and biblical figures to justify your actions: First off, the saints were not perfect. For instance, while I am no big basher of St. Olaf Haraldson (I'm part Norwegian after all and pray to him for the conversion of Norway) I do not agree with his killing and maiming of pagans who would not convert. When you consider his personal Viking background and the social and historical context of his actions, they become understandable, but still wrong.
That is an extreme example, but the same basic principle can be applied to the sharp toungues of some saints or the attitudes and actions of OT people. Just because they did it and were generally holy people doesn't mean you should do it.
When it comes to Jesus, I don't recall him ever using this kind of mockery (though again nothing here has been that bad and the majority of what has been written in the combox I'm fine with) and when it comes to his harsh words to the Pharisees, etc. don't forget he was (and is) God and knew them in every way possible, and knew exactly how his comments would be received and what good would come of them. You and I are in a very different situation.
And it seems clear to me that saying "irony is a legitimate tool of rhetoric and God and saints used it and I am in the right so I can use it without worrying about love" is just wrong.
Here is some Pauline teaching to consider:
"knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him."
"If I speak in human and angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
You will all agree with this, sure, but do you live it? If you automatically and confidently say "yes" I would take that as an indication that you do not. I know I do not. Not as I should. Don't let familiar scripture passages stop burning in your heart and challenging you to live and think in a radically different way.

The New Testament says quite clearly that it is finished, that no one can add other testaments to it. That includes the Koran and the Book of Mormon.
Also, to imagine that Catholicism is "incomplete" because it does not include the crackpot fantasies of a 19th century American charlatan is to be in a denial so deep that no argument, no appeal to reason or faith, no dialogue is possible. It reveals a stunning ignorance of the "faith once given." This kind of thing can only be overcome by prayer and fasting. I have as close a relationship with Mormonism as I could possibly have without being one, and I know this is true.
God is Love - but "love" divorced from Truth is not Love at all but sentimentality. The Love of the Great Physician can in fact be very painful - His love is sharper than a surgeon's knife as he cuts away all falsehood.

Re: Infallability of popes:
Oh, my bad! I think I knew that and I forgot. I am sorry, but I wasn't ridiculing anyone for it anyway. And I still stand by my statement that he was a great man.
Anyway, believe it or not, I really appreciate a lot of the comments here. There are some pretty neat people hanging about.
Wendy

Let's try a different tact. Can one laugh at the devil, or is that uncharitable? Are we supposed to feel pity, charity, for the demons?
Can we laugh at the devil's works, or must be view them sympathetically?
But better still. Let's stop this ecumenical wrangling. I want to test our consistency.
Forget Mormonism, and the book of Mormon.
Let us replace these with some bad thing we presumably agree on, the Supreme Court Decision of Roe v. Wade.
Is it wrong to mock Roe v. Wade? Is it wrong to hold it up to ridicule? Many people hold Roe to be a kind of holy thing; a sacred presevation of an invaluable right. And it's not all bad, there are legal truths in it, and some interesting historical sections.
Many people will be extremely offended, outraged and hurt, if you attack Roe v. Wade. If you mock it's legal reasoning, you're really attacking those people.
So we shouldn't ridicule Roe v. Wade, or the abortion cause, that's uncharitable.
After all, God is love, he doesn't want us agitating others, we might be martyred.
Far more people treasure Roe v. Wade, or a right to an abortion. Sure, we think it's monstrous, but a lot of people don't. Who are you to judgmentally trample on the feelings of others?
I know many pro-choice people, and they're very nice and generous. How dare you attack what's precious to them?
Isn't this line of argument absurd?
We can all think of appropriate and inappropriate arguments to make re: abortion, but is holding an evil decision up for ridicule objectionable? After all, it's caused the deaths of millions of people; on what absurd grounds does it deserve respect? That millions of people hold it dear is irrelevant. They are in error.
People deserve respect. People deserve love. Books do not deserve that. Heretical errors do not deserve that. Falsehood does not deserve that. Being polite and civil is part of charity, but love often demands harsh sayings too. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Love the errant, hate the error.
That is clearly the attitude of anti-Catholics as well. It has the virtue of being is logically consistent without falling into ecumenically sensitive contradiction.
Humor is a gift of God. We can use it for good and ill. But if we can rationally make an argument about something, a afortiori we can make a funny remark establishing the same thing.
Being a comedian is also a calling of God.

Previous post:

Next post: