Haven't Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?

jefflindsay.com ^ | Nov. 5, 2006 | Jeff Lindsay

[restornu]

---

Haven't Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?

It is a common myth that anti-Mormon attacks have completely overwhelmed the intellectual position of Latter-day Saints, leaving us with nothing but blind faith in "warm feelings" we get about the Church. The portrayal of Mormons as idiots without any intellectual foundation in our religion is a common caricature based on deceptive marketing. With the flood of anti-Mormon arguments, books, pamphlets, movies, and Web sites, it is easy to think that Mormonism would be completely devastated if only 10% of all the things said against it were true.

I once met a new convert, a college student, in my town of Appleton, Wisconsin, who showed me a couple of thick books loaded with accusations against the Church. She was upset and angry and planning to leave the Church. I tried to calm her down, and one by one, we discussed the arguments that were bothering her. Once one attack was diffused, she raised another, and another, and I think I helped her see that there was little merit to what she had raised so far, and that the bulk of the anti-Mormon material was truly deceptive. Then she just dug in her heels and said, "Well, it doesn't matter. If only 10% of all the things in here are true, that's enough to destroy the Church!" She left the Church, and if she had lived 2,000 years ago as an early Christian convert, I'm sure she would have left the Church then, too. After all, if only 10% of the things that the anti-Christians said were true, then that would be enough to destroy Christianity, right? (Oh, how I wish modern education would help people understand that critical thinking means more than just thinking of criticism.)

Anti-Mormon literature is often ignorant of what Latter-day Saints really believe and especially ignorant of LDS authors have written in response to anti-Mormon attacks. Many of the common attacks against the Church are regurgitated arguments from the nineteenth century, arguments which have been thoroughly and carefully treated by responsible LDS writers who do much more than just talk about some warm feeling in their hearts. But the anti-Mormon writers and speakers of today make it sound as if no Mormon has ever dared to respond to their awesome arguments, and that the Church can only retreat and hide when faced with an intellectual battle.

The flaws in some standard anti-Mormon arguments have been pointed out by a number of non-LDS writers. In one interesting example, two evangelical critics of the Church, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, presented a paper at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting, April 25, 1997 that warned the evangelical community about the impressive efforts of LDS scholars and criticized the blind approach of typical anti-Mormon literature. Their article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" (later published in Trinity Journal, Fall 1998, pp. 179-205), is one of the most intriguing non-LDS articles I've ever encountered from critics of the Church. (One of several copies of it on the Web can be found at ComeToZarahemla.org, Ben Spackman's Website, or Cephas Ministry.)

Mosser and Owen note that anti-LDS writers have ignored the work of some LDS scholars who are providing "robust defenses" of the LDS faith. In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few critics have done: they have actually read a wide variety of LDS scholarly writings. As a result, they came to the following five conclusions:

The first [conclusion] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories--traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibility interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.

(Further analysis based on the paper of Mosser and Owen has been provided by Justin Hart in "Winning the Battle and Not Knowing It," in MeridianMagazine.com, an article in five parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. For an interesting example of the issues that Owen and Mosser have raised, see Paul Owen's rebuttal of anti-Mormon John Weldon's response to the original article of Mosser and Owen. Owen appears to be appalled at the "head-in-the-sand" approach of John Weldon, who has demonstrated the very problems that Mosser and Owen speak against in their paper and says that Weldon's anti-Mormon "intellectual narrow-mindedness" is "astounding."

Latter-day Saints who study the responses of LDS writers to anti-Mormon criticisms know that there are many excellent resources which may refute or at least defuse many of the arguments hurled against us. These resources, found at places like FARMS, The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRLDS.org), SHIELDS, and even my little Web site (including my Mormon Answers section), do not rely on blind faith and emotional feelings to deal with the critics - though there are some tough issues like polygamy for which we don't have good answers (ugh - I really don't like polygamy!). But for many issues, Mosser and Owen are correct in observing that there are "robust defenses." In fact, many of the defenses turn the tables on the critics and leave them in intellectually untenable positions. In fact, we could turn around and ask them a few tough questions of our own -- see, for example, "My Turn--Questions for Anti-Mormons."

What is an anti-Mormon? Anyone who disagrees with you?

This is a poorly defined term, but I would say that only the activists who attack the Church in a way intended to generate misunderstanding, fear, and shock are the ones who deserve the epithet of "anti-Mormons." Many such "Mormon bashers" feel that the end justifies the means, and use tactics that are incompatible with the truthful example of Christ.

There is plenty of room for decent people to disagree with us. Sometimes I even disagree with "us." Most Protestants and Catholics who disagree with us are not "anti-Mormons" but simply people of another denomination. But when someone strives to stir up anger toward the Church and relies on misinformation or half-truths, then I'm inclined to apply the anti-Mormon label--especially when they do it for a living. On the borderline are well meaning people who feel an evangelical duty to battle "cults" (which tend to be any group that disagrees with them) and write articles regurgitating the sensationalist and shocking diatribes of full-blooded anti-Mormons. I tend to call such critics anti-Mormons as well (I sense that they usually don't mind the title, unless they are posing as "loving friends of the Mormons" in order to launch more effective assaults on our faith). Those of other faiths who disagree with us and engage in civil discourse with us about their differences are usually not "anti-Mormons" but perhaps simply critics or just adherents of a different faith.

What tactics do anti-Mormons use?

Some pastors and ministers who might consider themselves as anti-Mormons are sincere in their differences with LDS theology and write intelligently and honestly about their views. They can differ without distorting the truth and can be respectful and kind in their discussions. I guess that intelligent and honest writing doesn't sell well, because the vast majority of popular writing against the Church is ugly, deceptive, and inflammatory. This is the stuff that I tend to call "anti-Mormon."

But others are deliberately deceptive, at least in my opinion. Some know what we really believe, but go out of their way to distort it. I feel that way about Ed Decker's classic work, The God Makers. His movies and writings create the impression that temples are evil, scary places with devil worship, homosexuality, and conspiracy. He alleges that Mormons are plotting to take over the country and impose a theological dictatorship. He warns people not to pray to understand the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, frightening them with the idea that Satan will come and deceive them if they do. I think this goes beyond the sincere.

One of the strangest and most dishonest tactics of some anti-Mormons is falsely claiming to have advanced degrees in order to buttress their credibility. An amazing example is Dee Jay Nelson, who gained the trust of many people by claiming to have academic credentials and an international scholarly reputation--all of which was entirely bogus. He was a con-man who led many gullible people out of the Church during the peak of his illegitimate career as an anti-Mormon lecturer. Others include "Dr." Walter Martin and the amusing "Dr. Dr." John Ankenberg (yes, he lists himself as "Dr. Dr." as if he had two doctorates, though he lacks even one - and no real Ph.D. with two degrees would describe himself as "Dr. Dr."!). The father of anti-Mormons, Doctor Philastrus Hurlbut, was actually named "Doctor" by his parents but lacked a degree. I don't think he promoted himself as if he had the degree, but that title has been used by others to increase respect for that immoral and twice excommunicated anti-Mormon. Other questionable anti-Mormon "Drs." include John Weldon, and James White.

Michael T. Griffith has a page showing some of the tactics of a prominent anti-Mormon. It illustrates how some anti-Mormons seem to deliberately distort LDS writings to achieve their own questionable purposes. The anti-Mormon in this case is Mr. Bill McKeever, the director of the anti-Mormon group Mormonism Research Ministry. I have also corresponded with Mr. McKeever and encountered yet another tactic that typifies many of the self-appointed cult bashers on the Internet. I grew frustrated that my responses to lengthy lists of charges and allegations were largely ignored, and simply followed by other lengthy letters loaded with more allegations and accusations than I could possibly deal with. Any issue I addressed was ignored and followed by additional long letters on new topics. Soon it was clear that the communication was intended to be only one way. It took many requests and finally a complaint to McKeever's e-mail provider before Mr. McKeever would quit sending me unsolicited lengthy anti-Mormon articles.

But that may just be enthusiastic zeal. Maybe it's being overly enthusiastic that leads me to use the "anti" label with some folks. Look, it's subjective, and may be used in error sometimes.

Among the specific tactics used by those I consider anti-Mormons, an especially interesting one is their creative use of definitions to classify Mormons as a cult or as non-Christian. Ironically, the non-standard definitions they craft would also condemn Christ and His early disciples in the New Testament as cultists and non-Christians. For details, see my page, "Do Latter-day Saints Belong to a Cult?" For a tongue-in-cheek demonstration of related anti-Mormon techniques, see my spoof page about an exciting new software product, CultMaster 2000.

A useful resource for information of major anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon organizations, with links to refutational material, is the Critics Corner at Shields-Research.org.

An excellent resource exposing many anti-Mormon tactics is They Lie in Wait to Deceive, Volumes 1-4 by Robert and Rosemary Brown.

Why do evangelicals get so down on Mormons?

Daniel C. Peterson authored the following passage on the Evangelical approach:

The fact is that evangelical Protestantism represents a faction, no more, of a minority faction, no more, of Christianity. That faction arose, relatively late, in northwestern Europe, and it is still basically dominant only among those of northwestern European extraction. It is distinctly a minority in Italy and Brazil and Mexico and Spain and France and Argentina, and it is virtually invisible in Greece and Romania and Russia and Armenia and the Ukraine, to say nothing of Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Iraq.

Latter-day Saints do not claim that their faith-group is exhaustive of Christendom. We recognize that there are Catholic and Orthodox and other Christians. Some evangelical Protestants seem reluctant, however, to grant that the Copts or the Catholics are Christians at all. Some say so implicitly, and others have told me so explicitly, under direct questioning.

Latter-day Saints do, of course, claim that God has acted to restore the true fullness of Christianity, and that that fulness is embodied in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Such a claim can seem arrogant, and I, for one, would be very hesitant to make it -- indeed, I would refuse to make it -- were it not for the presupposition of direct revelation that undergirds it.

To assert, as some evangelicals have declared directly to me, that they alone are Christians, and that they have arrived at their unique Christianity by virtue of their own reading of the Bible -- implicitly dismissing the other claimants to Christianity as either preternaturally stupid or irrationally evil or some mixture of the two -- seems to me both arrogant and, in view of the fact that the preponderant majority of world "Christians" hold to different opinions, quite unlikely to be true. Even to claim that evangelical Protestants alone are "biblical" or "orthodox" Christians, seems an improbable and smug declaration.

That is the point. Ironically, Latter-day Saints rely, here, upon God's grace, where some of my evangelical interlocutors -- the ones that I have in mind -- seem quite evidently to trust in their own understanding.

But most envamgelicals, though critical of our religion, are not what I would call "anti-Mormons." In fact, many are very respectful and tolerant, in spite of their strong disagreement with our views. The evangelicals I have know over the years have largely been fine examples of Christians who were not out to defame us or stir up fear about the Mormons, and have been great people to dialog with.

What Do Scholars Think of Hugh Nibley?

Some anti-Mormons seem ignorant of Hugh Nibley's work. When forced to confront his writings, many rapidly dismiss him as irresponsible, biased, sloppy, deceitful, etc. On the other hand, there are some non-LDS folks who have pointed out a variety of flaws in Nibley's writings. While Nibley did much to advance study of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, LDS people must understand that his work can be rather dated now and often contains errors that he is not around to correct now. Enjoy it, but proceed with caution. But proceed with even more caution with anything I write, for I am far less competent and qualified that he was - I'm just an amateur apologist, guys.

Regarding Nibley, as brilliant and talented as he was, he spent much of his life writing for LDS audiences, and thus may not be widely recognized by other scholars in his field. in spite of some great early publications. That's my opinion, though I have incredible respect for him, having watched him in action and having read much of his work.

Some related insight into Nibley is provided by two well educated anti-LDS writers, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, mentioned above, whose article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?," is one of the most intriguing anti-LDS articles I've ever encountered. It warns that anti-LDS writers have essentially completely ignored the significant scholarship of Hugh Nibley and many other LDS scholars who are providing "robust defenses" of the LDS faith. In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few anti-LDS writers have done: they have actually read a variety of LDS scholarly writings. Their response, paraphrased, is: "Wake up, anti-Mormons! We're losing the intellectual war without even knowing it!" Here is what they say about Nibley:

Hugh Nibley: The Father of Mormon Scholarly Apologetics
Hugh Nibley is without question the pioneer of LDS scholarship and apologetics. Since earning his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley in 1939, Nibley has produced a seemingly endless stream of books and articles covering a dauntingly vast array of subject matter. Whether writing on Patristics, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the apocrypha, the culture of the Ancient Near East or Mormonism, he demonstrates an impressive command of the original languages, primary texts and secondary literature. He has set a standard which younger LDS intellectuals are hard pressed to follow. There is not room here for anything approaching an exhaustive examination of Nibley's works.(1) We must confess with Truman Madsen, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at Brigham Young University: "To those who know him best, and least, Hugh W. Nibley is a prodigy, an enigma, and a symbol."(2)

The few evangelicals who are aware of Hugh Nibley often dismiss him as a fraud or pseudo-scholar. Those who would like to quickly dismiss his writings would do well to heed Madsen's warning: "Ill-wishing critics have suspected over the years that Nibley is wrenching his sources, hiding behind his footnotes, and reading into antique languages what no responsible scholar would every read out. Unfortunately, few have the tools to do the checking."(3) The bulk of Nibley's work has gone unchallenged by evangelicals despite the fact that he has been publishing relevant material since 1946. Nibley's attitude toward evangelicals: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."(4)

No doubt there are flaws in Nibley's work, but most counter-cultists do not have the tools to demonstrate this. Few have tried.(5) It is beyond the scope of this paper to critique Nibley's methodology or to describe the breadth of his apologetic.(6) Whatever flaws may exist in his methodology, Nibley is a scholar of high caliber. Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigiliae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review.(7) Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom.(8) The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"(9) Nibley has not worked in a cloister. It is amazing that few evangelical scholars are aware of his work. In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work.

Footnotes from the above passage:
1. FARMS is currently working on a twenty volume collection of Nibley's works, ten of which are already published (abbr. CWHN).

2. Truman Madsen, foreword to Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), ix.

3. Ibid., xiv.

4. Quoted by Madsen, ibid., xi.

5. In fact, the only substantial evangelical interaction we have seen to date is James White's 56 page (single spaced) disputation of the proper syntax of the pronoun in Matthew 16:18. This paper can be acquired from the Alpha & Omega Ministries Internet site.

6. For a sharp critique of Nibley's methodology from an LDS perspective see Kent P. Jackson in BYU Studies 28 no. 4 (Fall 1988):114-119.

7. Specific references can be found in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1990), 1:xviii-lxxxvii.

8. See the contributions by these men in volume one of Nibley's festschrift By Study and Also by Faith.

9. See Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 147 n. 105.

Where can I find resources to respond to anti-LDS attacks?

I think my LDSFAQ Suite offers useful answers to many common questions and allegations. Other general resources with many articles and responses include:

FARMS

The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies in Provo, Utah, is the leading organization for scholarly understanding of LDS issues, especially the scriptures. They are a tremendous source of valuable research and publications. As one of many examples from FARMS, one of the best written articles dealing with typical anti-Mormon attacks is that of Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999, pp. 90-298 (I said it was good, not short!).

The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRLDS.org)

Offering many sound articles and other resources for those wishing to understand intellectual issues involving Latter-day Saint religion.

SHIELDS

A competent and diverse LDS resource for those wishing to explore LDS doctrine, history, and rebuttals to anti-Mormon allegations.

Russell Anderson's Response Page"

A collection of resources and discussion of common anti-Mormon attacks. There is also some fascinating information on some of the most famous professional anti-Mormons.

A Resource for LDS Apologetics

By Kevin Graham. A collection of articles and resources, including many articles by Kevin.

Other specific resources:

• Credible responses to Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters' Inventing Mormonism are found on a page by Russell Anderson.
• Information on "Dr." Walter Martin - by Russel Anderson

[sevenbak]

Where in the Old or New Testaments does it say anything about Christ’s death not being “good enough” that God “requires” an additional “prophet” to fulfill the Law of the Old Testament?

Nowhere. You are trying to make an argument that doesn’t exist. Christ alone fulfilled the law, but he has always worked through prophets. His church organization is the same today as it was when He was here. As stated here in Ephesians, his servants are that we might have unity in the faith, unto a fullness in Christ, not instead of Christ.

Ephesians 4:

11 And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[nicmarlo]

. You are trying to make an argument that doesn’t exist.

Not from how I see it. You are saying that belief in Christ as the Savior and His death wasn't good enough for salvation. You've added on the ADDITIONAL "requirement" that one has to BELIEVE IN Joseph Smith. Christ never said that belief in Him wasn't good enough. LDS did.

[greyfoxx39]

You can disagree with me all you want, and you can be as vehement as you like about your disagreement. You don’t have to condone my beliefs by any means. But a line is crossed when you decide that my faith must be refuted, that such ends justify the means, and that you must lie, misrepresent, and distort what I believe in order to do so. That person is an anti-Mormon, a religious bigot, and certainly not a Christian in their heart.

" But a line is crossed when you decide that my faith must be refuted"....interesting YOU would say this, tant, in light of your previous post:

All this is why I say that the precepts of mainstream Christianity are as dross to me when compared to the pure, refined, abundant truth of God of which I have sampled. I have found a fine diamond, whereas others have only found a lump of coal. Is it any wonder, then, that you find me entirely intransigent on such things? All I can do is invite. There are diamonds aplenty for all. 173 posted on 09/24/2007 4:57:49 PM MDT by tantiboh

Link

So, your statement: "you must lie, misrepresent, and distort what I believe in order to do so. That person is an anti-Mormon, a religious bigot, and certainly not a Christian in their heart... wherein you judge the hearts of Christians is, to you, permissible while you castigate those who would question YOUR belief.

How revealing. More of the "bigotry for me, but not for thee" attitude of the mormon apologist.

[nicmarlo]

BTW, which parts of Ephesians are “okay” to use?

I was told that “THE BIBLE (which means all of it) IS A SANITARY VERSION.” That means the Bible, all of it, is in error. I was also told there are “ omitten [sic], distorted, or deleted...passage[s].”

So....which “parts” of the Bible can be relied upon?

[sevenbak]

Well, you are seeing it from the wrong angle apparently. The Lord has always had servants. He works through those he has called, not those who want to take the honor unto themselves.

Consider Hebrew 5: 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

And Amos 3:7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

[sevenbak]

All of it. We reverence the bible as truth. Which parts were you told were sanitized and not to be taken at their word?

Or is this something you are reading from anti talking points?

[greyfoxx39]

LOL, you were expecting lucidity?

[sevenbak]

I see it's more spam by the over used gahamm_photos bucket. ;-(

[Zakeet]

Re: So....which “parts” of the Bible can be relied upon?

Re: All of it. We reverence the bible as truth. Which parts were you told were sanitized and not to be taken at their word?

A more accurate response would be:

We reverence the Bible as truth in as far as it is translated correctly, and to the extent it is not supplanted by the other Standard Works or pronouncements by our Prophets.

I wonder why Saints persistently refuse to come clean, and I wonder why this practice irritates Christians?

[greyfoxx39]

However, some choose to hate, lie, deceive, rail, and insult. It is my theory that such do not know Christ. They have chosen a different master, though they hide behind a veil of piety and faith. Of such ilk is the genuine anti-Mormon. Of such ilk is any religious zealot who uses despicable tactics to tear down another faith.

Of such ilk is any religious zealot who uses despicable tactics to tear down another faith

[sevenbak]

Please point out what parts of the bible we don’t believe in. It’s a very simple question. The anti’s love to take those words about translated correctly. They have very VERY little impact on our doctrine from the Holy Bible. In fact, I would dare to say that the LDS likely have more reverence for the complete bible than do most orthodox “Christians”

A lot of them simply throw out the Old Testament entirely. Some also discard books in the NT that seem to contradict their accepted views. (Jesus trumps Paul, etc.)

Again, show me what we “throw out” if you please...

[nicmarlo]

you are seeing it from the wrong angle apparently. The Lord has always had servants.

Well, "my" angle on it comes from Christ, Himself. He said while dying on the cross, "It is finished." It is through belief in HIM that we are saved, by grace, because HE took it upon Himself to suffer and die for all mankind's sins.

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

John 2:

18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

John 3:

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 4:

25 The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

26 Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

John 5:

17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

36 "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

[nicmarlo]

hoping? : )

[nicmarlo]

Which parts were you told were sanitized and not to be taken at their word?

I've been trying to find that out, and keep asking.

Or is this something you are reading from anti talking points?

Why, no. Resty told me this. But she won't say how or in what way or by whom "THE BIBLE" we have "is a SANITIZED VERSION."

[sevenbak]

Great references about the Savior. Thanks.

But were you attempting to point out that Christ doen’t use His chosen servants? I didn’t see that you did that. Nowhere in Holy Writ does it say Christ no longer works with his chosen servants to do His will and work. In fact, it says just the opposite, as I have pointed out.

[sevenbak]

You may be asking for a long time. We use the King James version, unaltered. We have additional footnotes that are cross references to our other standard works.

Here is our KJV online with all footnotes included if you want to peruse it and see where we are in error.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/nt/contents

[nicmarlo]

By claiming that salvation cannot be RECEIVED without BELIEF IN JOSEPH SMITH goes wayyyyyyyyyyyy beyond “USING servants.”

[narses]

Come nopw, list the heresies you clAIM WE BELIEVE IN. gO AHEAD.

[nicmarlo]

We use the King James version, unaltered.

Well, that's nice to know, and it contradicts what I was told up thread. Now....next question: which "parts" of the Old and New Testaments, in the KJV, are, according to LDS: "omitted, distorted, or deleted...passage[s]" and should be questioned as to their meaning or intent, as written in the KJV?

[sevenbak]

You are totally misrepresenting exactly the same language that is used in Matthew 19:

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Salvation is in and through Christ Jesus alone. We will be judged by both Christ and His anointed servants whom we either listen to or disregard.