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

[Tennessee Nana]

As for your accusation, with the exception of your own subjective interpretation of scripture, you have no evidence to support the charge that God is intolerant of Mormon belief.

Do try to keep your arguments grounded in substance.
______________________________________________

I will...

God is intolerant of any belief that does not line up with the Bible...

Anything outside of the Bible is not of God’s making or leading...

[Cvengr]

In post 134 you allude the Book of Mormon as being with the northern kingdom. Ez 34 refers to the two sticks which are the split Israelite nation being reunited in the land. If you believe the LDS is identifiable with the northern kingdom, then there is a duty to return to the one nation and rule with Him, in recognition that Jesus Christ is the King whose rule will never end. The Palestinian Covenant well defines the land.

IMHO, though, all believers other than the seed of Abraham, explicitly the Israelite nation, are of the Gentile nations, who have relationship with God through faith in Christ, upon which God the Holy Spirit regenerates our human spirit and seals us with eternal security. For these reasons I do not understand why anybody would add to Scripture by associating the LDS with Mannasah or Ephraim.

[meandog]

Not only was he not a historian, he wasn't even right-wing...

Touche` What I should have put is that Hibley was to the right of Noam Chomsky...but even Karl Marx was probably to the right of Chomsky!

[Cvengr]

Most people I observe opposing the doctrines of the LDS, do so by placing their faith in Christ and studying His Word.

Now comes the issue of how one should properly behave and act in the face of adversity, especially if that adverse behavior is attempting to counterfeit the Word of God with religion.

Some appeal to rationalism, which essentially appeals to the soul, rather than to the spirit.

Some simply witness through faith in Christ, remaining in the spirit and manifesting sanctified mind, soul and spirit. Sometimes that mechanism doesn’t require or may even preclude commenting upon the counterfeit, not out of an effort to win an argument, but by recognizing the war is already under control by God Himself. Those who choose to reject Him, have bigger issues to deal with than being convinced by rational argument.

[meandog]

THIS is an example of not 'a half-truth', but a complete lie! LDS Inc. is NOT a 'protestant' group!!

Well, what would you call Mormons? They certainly aren't Roman Catholics.

[nicmarlo]

Okay resty....throughout this thread you have repeatedly dodged answering my post #72, denied that Scripture is accurate and to be relied upon, and deflected onto other topics. If I reposted all this in one post, it would be longer than the article of this thread. I repeat, for the third time:

According to whom and in what way, specifically, are the Old and New Testaments a "sanitary version" and what, specifically is "omitten [sic], distorted, or deleted"? Which parts of the Old and New Testaments are in error, specifically? Which rabbi scholars of the Old Testament have found it in error? Which scholars of the Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew languages have declared it substantively interpreted incorrectly into English?

I now further ask, are only the Old and/or New Testament Scriptures that YOU post the "correct, unsanitized, undistorted, and without error", etc., version?

[bonfire]

They have more in common with RC’s than Prot’s, IMO.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The Book of Mormon is about the descendants of Ephraim and Menasseh.***

But wait! An old Freeper, Lost Tribe, claims the lost tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) are the white races of Europe, as do many of the Aryan Nations nuts including the followers of H.W. Armstrong and late “Pastor” Gene Scott.

[tantiboh]

~”As I pointed out on other threads, the average group lasted between 200 and 500 years before they disappeared.”~

So, let’s see. The Church was founded in the 1830’s... Another 20 years or so, and we’ll be into what you have determined is the danger zone. Seems we’re doing pretty well so far, though, for a faith that is on the cusp of slipping into extinction.

If you’re right, RDB, then you’ve nothing to worry about it.

You might consider heeding the advice of Gamaliel. You’ll find it in Acts chapter 5, toward the end.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Really ???

Oh, goody

I’ve read the Iliad and the Odyssey so now I dont have to read the book of mormon...

Thanks

:)***

Saint Augustine was taught on these books and the Bible. See what happened to him.

[Salvation]

Excellent question, FRiend.

[tantiboh]

~”God is intolerant of any belief that does not line up with the Bible...”~

I agree, though I would question the word “intolerant.” God loves His children - universally - a lot more than you seem to be giving Him credit for. He tolerates a lot from us.

Still, your point is valid. The question, then, becomes whether or not your beliefs line up with the Bible.

We Mormons have a lot more evidence supporting our interpretations of the Bible. I thing I’ll stick with them.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:****

This does not sound like Jackson County Missouri!

[restornu]

You are getting silly and continue to distort my words and all you really know is what you read from someone else and I am not going to solely waste my time on what someone else says I use to do that in the past but I find it is useless for you are going to blindly believe anything contrary to the LDS!

I am so thankful for my Testimony of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!

[Zakeet]

Re: The Standard works have given me a greater understanding of the Bible.

Re: Did you ever read The Book of Mormon, and if so did you read it like you would the Bible.

Re: Do try to keep your arguments grounded in substance.

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM LDS MEMBERS

I would like to gain a greater understanding of the Bible, and to learn to read the Book of Mormon like the Bible, but as many of you probably know:

1. The LDS Church has made thousands of CHANGES to the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants; and

2. Even after all of those changes, hundreds of obvious ERRORS still remain; and

3. Even after all of those changes, there are still many serious CONTRADICTIONS in Mormon Scripture.

In light of these facts:

1. Which version of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price is correct?

2. How can someone know the Standard Works are true and Joseph Smith was not a false prophet?

3. And is it wise to trust in my feelings when your own church leaders teach I should have solid evidence to rely on before I seek guidance in prayer?

I have asked these question many times in the past and I have yet to receive a reasoned response.

Perhaps you can help me ... or perhaps somebody else can ... maybe today ... on this thread ...

And in keeping with the spirit of the LDS posters, would you please try to keep your arguments grounded in substance.

Thank you.

[tantiboh]

~”Most people I observe opposing the doctrines of the LDS, do so by placing their faith in Christ and studying His Word.”~

I agree. The genuine anti-Mormons are few in number, albeit annoyingly loud.

~”Some appeal to rationalism, which essentially appeals to the soul, rather than to the spirit.

Some simply witness through faith in Christ, remaining in the spirit and manifesting sanctified mind, soul and spirit.”~

Yes. Most fall into the categories you list. 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.

[nicmarlo]

ty Salvation. I ask because I would like an honest answer from which to base future questions.

I cannot do this if Scripture “cannot be relied upon” as my entire belief system is based on the Scriptures.

[tantiboh]

~”I have asked these question many times in the past and I have yet to receive a reasoned response.”~

[Sigh] And we have answered these same questions many times in the past.

If your questions are genuine, I think there are several of us here who would be happy to engage with you in a reasonable manner. Past experience, however, leads us to predict otherwise.

Perhaps some assurance of your genuine intent would be helpful?

[Tennessee Nana]

Didnt you say this to nic ???

“My first teething was on the Bible and it is because of the short comings that I continues my quest because I knew from the Bible there was more for the Bible scriptures testify of it which could not be denied.

It is not the scripture that fall short but what has been omitten, distorted, or deleted if a passage says according too, and one looks for it and it it not available, I want to know for myself not someone explination!”
______________________________________________

For me and millions of other Christians, the Bible is a complete work of God...

I have successfully completed 60 years of living using the Bible, the Word of God, as my guide ...

It is a Lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path ..Psalm 119:105 ...

I have never felt that I was short changed and/or needed more than the Bible...

It is unfortunate that you did not find what you were looking for in the Bible all those years ago...

however, if you had been looking for Jesus, the Son of God, you would have found Him, right there, in the Bible..

Keep on asking, keep on seeking, keep on knocking, and the door will be opened unto you Matthew 7:11

and while you were searching for Jesus in all the wrong places, He was reaching out to you and loving you,

Jesus shed His precious blood and died in your place, Resty, just for you...

Written in Red

VERSE 1
In letters of crimson God wrote His love
On a hillside so long, long ago
For you and for me Jesus died
And love’s greatest story was told

CHORUS
I love you, I love you
That’s what Calvary said
I love you, I love you
I love you written in red

VERSE 2
Down through the ages God wrote His love
With the same hands that suffered and bleed
Giving all that He had to give
A message so easily read

CHORUS
I love you, I love you
That’s what Calvary said
I love you…
Oh precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow
No other fount I know
Nothing but the blood of Jesus

CHORUS
I love you, I love you
That’s what Calvary said
I love you, I love you
I love you written in red

[Tennessee Nana]

Did you ever read The Book of Mormon, and if so did you read it like you would the Bible
__________________________________________

I worship Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith...