| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/20/2008 6:54:12 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 02/16/2008 3:13:15 PM PST by restornu
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.(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."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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Other specific resources:
So, since exaltation is gained ONLY through the ordinances in the LDS temple, if "accepting the fullness of the Gospel" is the prerequisite to salvation, explain the need for No. 4, sustaining the "the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys
HOW then can the "acceptance of the prophet be incidental since these questions determine the "worthiness" of one to be allowed entrance to the temple and partake of the required ordinances??
TEMPLE RECOMMEND QUESTIONS
1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
5 Do you live the law of chastity?
6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
10 Are you a full-tithe payer?
11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?
12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:
Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?
I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 45:5
YOU CAN START HERE
Then, you can continue with this ARTICLE and this VIDEO. Together, they provide abundant examples.
Re: A lot of them [Orthodox Christian sects] simply throw out the Old Testament entirely.
Would you please name just one?
Frankly, I am truly grateful that the Lord has seen fit to give us the Bible, after 2000 years, that confirms his truth and great love for us. Would that all men would use it and believe it!
Another day of “my religion is better than yours” na na na na na.
Sitting in judgment. Those who believe in HIM are no longer judged:
John 5:24:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.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.
I am more than grateful for His Word. But it is the ONLY text upon which I rely to determine Truth.
The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
Both the Protestant and Catholic versions must contend with the fact that other Biblical authors taught an inevitable apostasy. It would seem strange for such Biblical authors, including Peter, to teach something which Jesus here denies. [Sevenbak]
”Inevitable” doesn’t equal a totalitarian apostasy, now does it? Jesus denied that Satan would completely overtake His church (“prevail”); He never denied that the Church wasn’t threatened by both Satan & apostasy. (In fact, he mentions plenty of sweeping risks for the church in the last days in Matthew 24).
I understand your view that a universal apostasy is impossible, because Jesus told Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) This claim means that the Church organized by Jesus would never suffer apostasy and loss despite being predicted by several other NT writers. (Jesus trumps Paul, etc)
It means no such thing (this claim means that the Church…would never suffer apostasy). Seven, if you were to prophesy to me that some of my adult kids would leave the faith, and if I then said to you that I stick to my earlier prophesy that the gates of hell would not prevail against the C family, those are NOT mutually exclusive claims. (Both prophesies could happen; or neither prophesies could wind up being true…but me prophesying that the gates of hell would not prevail against the C family doesn’t rule out the possibility of spiritual warfare family attrition.)
You’ve introduced a straw man. Mormons seem to have HUGE problems delineating between the qualifiers of “partial” and “complete”—between “localized” and “universal.” (What? When your Mom told you that you could have a “piece” of pie, you ate the whole thing because you thought "piece" = devouring its entirety?)
Why is it that LDS have to conclude that apostasy is ALWAYS an all-or-nothing interpretation? (Just like your above comment, where you wrongly conclude that just because someone observes no complete apostasy takes place, it renders Paul’s claims as suspect). The Scriptures you “snipped,” which are the third such almost exact Bible list I’ve seen sourced by a Mormon in FReeper threads & FReepmails (Nowandlater did the same thing last May), don’t even pretend to describe a total, complete or universal apostasy [see below where I answer them verse-for-verse].
This reading of Matthew 16 [the interpretation you gave] reconciles all the other biblical reference to the apostasy, and agrees with the interpretation given by Joseph Smith.
Listen, whatever church Jesus Christ said he was building there, it wasn't going to be a shabby structure, which the LDS directly accuse Jesus of building. It wasn't going to "go to pot" in 300+ or even 1800 years, like the LDS commonly accuse Jesus of doing. In fact, the force of the future tense from this passage depicts a mighty, strong church--and one so sustained by an Almighty, strong Christ who PROMISED to be ALWAYS present (Matt. 28:20)—along with an always-present Holy Ghost (John 14:16) . In fact, Rev. 20:8-9 says this Church will never be overthrown.
This claim means that the Church organized by Jesus would never suffer apostasy and loss despite being predicted by several other NT writers. (Jesus trumps Paul, etc)
I address all of Paul’s verses you cited further below, but let’s just look at two of them to address head-on what you claim here:
LDS essentially label Paul as a “false prophet” when he told the Ephesians: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph. 3:21)
Any Lds here care to point out exactly how it is that Paul falsely prophesied by mentioning which "age" that the church failed to bring glory to God? (Wanna go on record & be exact if you’re going to make such a slanderous accusation of the apostle?) How can there "be glory in the church...throughout ALL ages" if it's a total apostasy? Ya wanna speculate exactly what glory was brought to God by the church in the years 400 to 1800 if the current writers defaming the entire Christian church are right?
Furthermore, LDS label the Holy Ghost also a liar when the Spirit prophesied that the apostasy would be partial: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, thqt in the latter times SOME shall depart from the faith..." (1 Tim. 4:1) [What? Are you claiming the Holy Ghost had trouble with his long-term vision when He communicated what He did to Paul?)
Tell me, why is that the Holy Ghost speaks so "expressly" about this matter in 1 Timothy 4:1, yet LDS are so hostile to what He has to say?
One must also notice that gates only prevail against something that is already inside of them; they cannot prevail against something that is external to those gates. Was Christ saying that His Church was already inside the gates of hell, and needed to come out? Or was He saying, in His normal “hidden teaching” manner, that His Church would one day be dead (i.e., in apostasy), held back by the gates of hell, and that it was revelation—the rock—that would free it from those gates?
No, when it came to pronouncements about “death” He was farely forthright (for example, his own suffering & death). Besides, LDS, just like claiming that Jesus wasn’t directly prayed to or fully worshiped in their own Book of Mormon (which is an outright lie), are also disengenous about a complete apostasy just looking at their own Scriptures:
(1) Three Nephite disciples are supposedly still alive, wandering around the earth somewhere, tarrying until Christ returns (3 Nephi 28:6-32). Sevenbak, you yourself are being disengenous when you claim that His Church would one day be dead when Book of Mormon adherents have to acknowledge 3 Nephi 28.
(2) The same thing applies to the apostle John. Mormonism is unique in claiming that John, like those three disciples, is also alive & well & tarrying until Christ returns (D&C 7). Since you’ve gone out on a very weak limb with your post, you need to answer how it is the church can be both completely dead and not completely dead at the same time? What? John didn’t have any authority? (Give me a break)
(3) Notice also how the LDS church tends to play down linking passages together like Doctrine & Covenants 84:17-18, which says the priesthood would be one continuous priesthood and in D&C 86:8 it says it continued thru the lineage of fathers.
It is not surprising that this issue revolves around how one interprets Jesus’ remark.
Well, based upon your inability to interpret the Scriptures
Here are some other biblical references pointing to an apostasy. [You cited in your first grouping of Scriptures: 2 Th. 2:2-3; Amos 8:11-12; Is. 60:2-3; 24:5]
2 Thessalonians 2:2-3…the day of Christ is at hand…that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first
Are you claiming, then, that the apostle John and those 3 Nephite disciples from 3 Nephi 28 fell away if the “falling” was total? (No? Yes?)
Amos 8: 11-12 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
What? (Now you’re claiming the Bible totally disappeared from the earth, too?)
Isaiah 60: 2-3 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
This passage twice references a “rising”…hmm…sounds like prophetic resurrection language re: Jesus rising to me. And sure enough, the Good Friday account speaks of an afternoon darkness. Notice the order: Darkness first, then a “rising” of “his glory.” (Not Jesus rising first, then a darkness)
Isaiah 24: 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the cordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore thebinhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
Did you happen to notice those last three words? (few men left). Few men left of what? (Habitants of earth, it says in v. 6). Beyond that, you should quote it in context starting with v. 1, where it says the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste…and scattered abroad the inhabitants thereof. In v. 4, it says The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth an dfadeth away… (Clearly Isaiah is talking about the entirety of the earth and all its inhabitants, not just God’s people in the church) [Talk about a pathetic attempt to indict the historic Church!]
BTW, I notice in LDS lists it "conveniently" skips over the OT passage of Daniel 2:44 (And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed...it will stand for ever.") and the NT passage of Hebrews 12:28 (Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved...). God's Kingdom delivered will stand for ever...it can't be shaken.
Then you went on and added the normal lineup of passages on “apostasy” in the LDS KJV or Quad. You said: I would recommend reading them in their entirety. [Yeah, well so would I, and I think next time before you give that recommendation you ought to practice what you preach…because if you did, you would stop giving out most or all of the passages you cite as a supposed undergirding for a universal apostasy…here’s what I mean]:
Matt. 13: 25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. Look again at Matthew 13. Jesus talks about several groups of people here. Are some these groups unfaithful & fall away? (Yes) Do ALL of them (no). Therefore this passage doesn’t apply to a TOTAL apostasy...stop using as such.
Matt. 24: 5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.
OK, do you know the difference between the words “many” and “all?”
Matt. 24: 24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets.
Yes, so? It doesn’t say all of the prophets at that point will be “false” ones, does it?
John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Again, you take one verse and then stop there. Jesus then asked his close disciples if they ALSO were going to leave. How did Peter respond? “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” The close disciples did NOT apostacize. Stop using this verse to describe a total one.
Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.
I agree with this passage. Where does it say that these wolves would devour everyone in sight?
Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him. Gal. 3:1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.
Please read all of Galatians 3. It's the LDS church that has done what the Galatians were doing, turning the good news of the gospel into a vast system of works, deeds, command-keeping, ritual-keeping of the flesh, etc: "v. 3, 5-6, 10: "Are you so foolish? After beginning w/the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?..Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? Consider Abraham: 'He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'...'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do EVERYTHING written in the Book of the Law.'"
1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.
You keep making my point: “Some”
1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.
Hey, I cited this. And this verse says "some"--which you left out. (Wanna explain why ALL LDS always leave out "some" when summarizing this verse? Not you, but intentional deception on the part of the originator of this list?)
2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.
NIV says "province of Asia" and they "deserted" the apostle Paul...so everyone who aschewed some of the things McConkie wrote when he was LDS "apostle" (including LDS general authorities who had heartburn with much of what was included in the unapproved "Mormon Doctrine") is an apostate? Even if we say, "Yes, they all apostacized" this was provincial apostasy.
2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.
Nice try. Read the context: vv. 16-17 says who the "Who" are: Specifically it is Hymenaeus and Philetus who are among a group of "godless chatterers"...so from that you extract that ALL Christian churches have such leaders?
2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.
2 Tim. 3:1-2 says this is true of "last days...people." These "people" inhabit every structure: Homes, offices, churches of every stripe. But that doesn't mean they are primarily concentrated in Christian churches, now does it? You're not repeating the error of JoeSmith and offending all of us by applying this to being overly unbalanced re: our churches, are you?
2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.
OK. At least here you finally hit upon a serious widespread prob in the church. The prob, tho, is "id'd" in v. 3: "men will not put up w/sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great # of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." The main problem id'd here is grassroots' "itching ears" and not top-down authoritative creedal problems.
Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.
OK. Stop taking things out of context. V. 15 specifically says this is talking about unbelievers.
James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.
Are you a witness describing my family? :) Anyway, the bickerings of families alone are enough for you to label every family as "apostates."
2 Pet. 2:1 false prophets also among the people.
Please stop taking things out of context. Read v. 2: "Many will follow their shameful ways..." "Many!" (All? Not even close)
2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.
Lawless men are always out to "carry us away." So? Despite that reality, what was Peter's confidence in those he wrote? v.18: "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
So? The churches are filled to the pew brim w/antichrists?
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Always more room for "average Joes"
Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.
"Certain men"--not "all"
Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.
Rev. 2:2 speaks positively of the church @ Ephesus for the fact that they tested these false prophets...they sifted them and found they weren't so. In other words, the church @ Ephesus was "noble" according to Acts 17:11-12. BTW, if Paul says "First are apostles, second prophets..." why again has the LDS church reversed it to "first prophets and second apostles?"
Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.
OK. This was written to One of the churches in Revelation. How many were there again? (Same as your moniker, 7). So you've hit the mark w/ approximately 14.3% of churches.
Rev. 13: 7 to make war with the saints.
OK. Nobody disagrees that there are real "saints" opposed by the devil. It says nothing that the reality of false "saints."
I will say it here loud and clear: Any Mormon who believes that every and all other members of different churches are automatically and inherently apostates of the faith, are liars and proclaimers of a false gospel.
Colossians 2:13-14: "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."My sins, which deserve judgment, were nailed to the cross with Christ. I was already found guilty and deserved to die: "The wages of sin is death."Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
But, thanks be to Christ, the gift of God is eternal life. Christ paid MY penalty for MY sins, and took upon Himself MY punishment.
Christ only had to die but once. When Christ takes the saints (the believers) with Him, it is not to judge whether or not I have eternal salvation. Indeed, I have passed through judgment and have been given eternal life. Rather, those who are believers will have their works judged to determine whether deeds subsequent to salvation deserve reward or whether they will be destroyed as through fire.
(Romans 5:18-21, NRSV):"Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification (unto acquittal which brings with it the bestowment of life) and life for all. For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to “eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”.
1 Corinthians 3
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Insurance!!!
They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.
He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.
He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.
As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.
Who has made this so?
Have I?
Have this people?
Have the world?
No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.
If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.
If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.
Can you pass without his inspection?
No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.
In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.
They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?
They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?
“If I ever pass into heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of Prophet Joseph”
—Brigham Young
—JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224
Dear Reader: what does it sound like to YOU?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It sounds like you keep posting the same complaint over and over and over, even though it has been answered over and over and over.
How about moving on so we can discuss the answer, that has already been given and given and given.
Just watching pure evil unleash
yes it is a pled to “Elevate your Thoughts” so I don’t have to watch you have a melt down!
ROTFL......pot, meet kettle!
"TO ALL WHO WANT TO HELP US TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT CHRIST AND HOW HE GUIDES HIS PEOPLE ON EARTH." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1936976/posts?page=36#36 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946208/posts?page=27#27 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948931/posts?page=101#101 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=114#114 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952443/posts?page=119#119 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953006/posts?page=55#55 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1946976/posts?page=16#16 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1947113/posts?page=4#4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1948442/posts?page=27#27 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1949098/posts?page=20#20 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1949585/posts?page=16#16 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1955250/posts?page=4#4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1955729/posts?page=17#17 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1956371/posts?page=5#5 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1956394/posts?page=14#14
Forgot to ping you to 333.
“TO ALL WHO WANT TO HELP US TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT CHRIST AND HOW HE GUIDES HIS PEOPLE ON EARTH.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1936976/posts?page=36#36 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946208/posts?page=27#27 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948931/posts?page=101#101 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=114#114 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952443/posts?page=119#119 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953006/posts?page=55#55 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1946976/posts?page=16#16 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1947113/posts?page=4#4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1948442/posts?page=27#27 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1949098/posts?page=20#20 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1949585/posts?page=16#16 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1955250/posts?page=4#4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1955729/posts?page=17#17 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1956371/posts?page=5#5 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1956394/posts?page=14#14
+++++++++++++++++++
Already answered this for someone else.
She was complaining about this befortime, then she continued to do the same with her favorite posts, and her other favorite post, and that other posting, on, and on, and on.
Seven, because I respect you as a person I am responding to this gross misrepresentation of Mormonism by you. We are told that Mormons believe and follow the Bible 'so far as it is translated correctly'. Joe Smith made a rather lengthy 'translation' of the King James Bible, into King James English, even adding thousands of words you apologists have claimed were inspired via the peepstone he used since they are not found in any Greek or Hebrew manuscripts in existence. I've posted the lengthy addition Smith made to the fiftieth chapter of Genesis, several times, with silence from Mormonism apologists as the response. Smith even went so far as to 'edit' the Revelation, a task which guarantees a curse upon the doer, found right in the Book. Your 'prophet' made the lengthy changes/'corrections' to the King James Bible.
Why is it that you now try to distance yourself from what your peepstone prophet claimed were the 'corrections' to the King James Bible, to presumably bring it into being 'translated correctly' and have the 'purposely omitted sections' added back in (like that crap added to the end of the fiftieth chapter of Genesis, which I will post for all to read, shortly)? It certainly comes across as your apologist platoon trying to have it both ways and maintain the deceit and heresies in Mormonism. You claim that the Bible as received in 1820 was incorrectly translated, and had major sections omitted by 'someone' in the past, yet your peepstone prophet claimed to have updated the King James translation, supposedly correcting it, yet you try to distance your platoon's modus operandi from the 'updated translation'.
Well done. Pearls cast into the dust I suspect, but well done.
Duh. The same reason we get down on anyone with non-biblical beliefs being passed off as Christianity.
My dear friends we must let the anti's figure it out for themselves!
That is your myth!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.