In the early 1500’s, a man named Martin Luther figured out something important — the Roman Catholic Church, of which he was a devout member, was abusing its power. Among other things, the church was selling — for money — forgiveness and passes to heaven.
Luther could see that the Church was in error because Luther had thoroughly studied the Holy Bible.
In Luther’s day, the Catholic lay-people knew little of what was in the Bible. The Catholic clergy used a Bible written in Latin, a language that the common people did not speak or read. The clergy, by keeping the Bible to themselves in this way, were free to misinterpret the holy book to their own benefit — and thus they did.
In an attempt to end the wrongful practices of the Church upon the people, Luther himself translated the Bible into German. Though he did not, at the time, particularly agree that a few of the books belonged in the Bible, he did not presume to add to, nor take away from, the Bible as it was. He translated God’s Word, making it accessible to the masses.
Skip ahead three centuries. In the early 1800’s, a man named Joseph Smith produced a book called the Book of Mormon, which condemned the Catholic Church for its errors, calling it the “great and abominable church”. It should be understood that the “Reformation”, a movement that had started with Martin Luther, would have been widely recognized by Smith’s day.
This is a good time to add just a little more information about the Reformation. According to Theopedia.com,
“The theology of the Reformers departed from the Roman Catholic Church primarily on the basis of three great principles:
* Sole authority of Scripture,
* Justification by faith alone, and
* Priesthood of the believer. ”
In other words, in the view of the Reformers (who had read and studied the Bible for themselves), where the Catholic Church was most errant was in
1- Going above/around the Bible for spiritual/religious doctrine
2- Teaching that justification had more requirements than faith in Christ
3- Claiming exclusive “priesthood” for the religious elite, rather than for each born-again believer (1 Peter 2:9).
Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon claimed that the Catholic Church had erred by taking many “plain and precious truths” from the Bible, and that he was the one to restore those truths. This post is not going to address his work on the Bible, other than to state that it is easy to prove that what Joseph “restored” came from his creative imagination and desire to prove himself a prophet.
The question for this post is, given that Mormonism in its inception considered the Catholic Church to be the church of the devil (or at least the main face of said church), why has it done the exact same thing?
Specifically:
1- The Mormon Church claims that there is authority over and above the Bible: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price (all produced by Joseph Smith), and the teachings of the LDS authority figures.
2- The Mormon Church has added to faith many other requirements.
3- The Mormon Church teaches that priesthood is only for worthy LDS male members.
The Catholic Church was able to keep its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
Martin Luther, by exposing people to the biblical gospel and making the Bible more accessible, freed people financially, emotionally, and spiritually from the religious wrong-doings of the Roman Catholic religion.
The Mormon Church keeps its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
The LDS have the Bible in their homes, in their own language. But their religion still keeps the Bible truth out of their minds and hearts in at least five ways:
1- The LDS religion insists that the Bible can not be trusted (cf. the 8th Article of Faith).
2- The LDS religion has created and taught new definitions for terms in the Bible, so that when a Mormon reads the Bible, s/he is confused. Some examples of this are the teachings a) that there are two God the Father’s (one above the other), b )that “salvation” equals universal resurrection by grace, distinguished from exaltation by works/merit, and c) that ‘priesthood’ is an authority or power that gets handed down from one faithful (to the church) Mormon man to another.
3- The LDS religion emphasizes Book of Mormon reading over Bible reading. The Book of Mormon contains plagiarized sections of the KJV Bible, with minor wording removed or inserted. It contains Bible stories with new character names and reworked story details. It also contains separated and recombined Bible passages. Because a Mormon is typically more familiar with the Book of Mormon than the Bible, Bible comprehension is negatively affected by the reader’s Book-of-Mormon ‘lenses’.
4- The LDS religion has an official version of the Bible, the KJV. The King James Version, written in Old English, contains uncommon words and phrasing. More modern Bible translations, such as the NKJV or the NASB, are much more easily understood by the modern reader.
5- The LDS Bible comes with chapter headings. These headings look like they are brief overviews of each chapter. However, they are really used to promote Bible-contrary LDS church doctrine. For instance, the chapter heading for 1 Corinthians 8 teaches that there are many real gods, just as Joseph Smith did from this same piece of scripture.
I was a Mormon. Like Martin Luther, I’m protesting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is keeping their members away from a knowledge of the truth of the Bible. My efforts, and those of people like me, will probably not bring the Mormon Church to its knees. But my prayer is that many Mormons will still find the Bible, and because of it, be freed from Mormonism and saved into the Life of Jesus Christ.
setfree,
Having been raised Catholic, I had a flood of emotions come over me as I read your article. I think it’s important to separate the early “Catholic” church from the organization of the middle ages. Some of our greatest thinkers and writers in the Christian faith come out of the early Catholic tradition. Even though as a Christian I don’t agree with a lot of Catholic theology, I’m not as vehemient in my feelings about the church as some are. My mother is a devout Catholic and I asked her one time, “If you were standing before Jesus and He were to ask you ‘Why should I let you into my heaven’ what would you say.” Without skipping a beat, my mother said, “I’d tell him because of what He had done for me.”
Catholics do depend on the Bible and on Church tradition to guide them in matters of faith. The concept of faith and works is a little more tricky. I watched Dr. Walter Martin and a Jesuit priest debate the topic one time on the John Ankeberg show. As I listened I thought, “They’re arguing profusely and saying the same thing only in a different way.” I told a Lutheran pastor I know, who happens to have a Ph.D from Notre Dame, my observation. His response to my “it sounds the same to me” was “that’s because it is”.
Anyway unlike Mormons, Catholics believe in the God of the Bible. Mormonism is basically a pagan religion with a false prophet and a false god. Mormons are willing to believe in this false god because Mormonism appeals to their pride and vanity in thinking that they too will become gods. Mormons know nothing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the promise of the Father to provide us with salvation through the shed blood of the cross if we will come to him in faith.
Mormon works is a false system with a false promise which is dependent first and foremost on the rejection of God and the embracing of a false system whereby men think they can be deified.
There Can Be No More Bible and the Apocrypha.
Revised and improved editions of the Bible are constantly coming from the press, and the Mormons have never believed in an infallible book or an infallible anything in which men have had a hand. God allows fallible humans to be co-workers with him on the road to a far-distant perfection, but he expects them to make lots of mistakes along the way.
“. . . There Can Be No More Bible,” CWHN 7:4
THE APOCRYPHA
* * * * * * * *
What are the Apocrypha? They are a large body of writings, Jewish and Christian, existing alongside the Bible, each of which has at some time or other been accepted as true revealed scriptures by some Christian or Jewish group.
Where do they come from? The actual manuscripts are as old as our Bible manuscripts and are sometimes written by the same hands, but their contents betray widely scattered sources, some of which are orthodox and some of which are not.
Then why bother about them? Because writers of the Bible respect them and sometimes quote them, thus including excerpts of the Apocrypha in our Bible, while the fathers of the church in the first three centuries accept many of them as genuine and quote them as scripture.
Janet. 🙂
Falcon, while I am sure there are many Catholics who are saved, and that much of Catholicism comes from the Bible, much of it simply is a rejection of the Bible or a going beyond it. Take the Council of Trent, for example, or indulgences or prayer to the saints and to Mary. If Catholics believe in the gospel (and many do), it is partly in spite of Catholic doctrine, not because of it.
In Luther’s time, many of these serious issues were even more poignant, and a Reformation was absolutely needed. A reformation of the Roman Catholic Church is still needed today, despite Vatican II and efforts to use overly ambiguous language to build an ecumenical bridge between it an Protestantism. On a personal note, most Catholics I know believe that if you are a good person (with God’s gracious assistance) then that will get you to heaven. Most seem to have no idea of the basic essence of the gospel, although some clearly do. Among other things it largely depends on what kind of culture a catholic has grown up in, and what kind of evangelical influence they have had.
Setfree’s point is that this Reformation was needed for some key reasons, that the Book of Mormon spoke of Catholicism as at least the main face of the church of the devil, and that ironically Mormonism went on to repeat many of the same errors that Catholicism did that yielded a need for a Reformation in the first place. That modern Catholicism modern and Catholic culture has become somewhat hazy on a number of points doesn’t take away from setfree’s points.
Our poster suggests, “which addresses the whole concept of the traditions of the Church and puts the whole concept into the context of the early Church Fathers and how they battled the heretics, especially the gnostic sects”
The Gnostic Merry-go-round
The hitherto despised and outcast sectaries of the deserts now stand at the door and knock for admission into the company of the orthodox. At the same time the backdoor by which fastidious scholars have in the past been able to avoid associating with such disreputable people is being effectively blocked as a way of escape. That door was the easy dodge of designating as Gnostic anything
Of the Jewish Apocrypha, Gaster writes: “Almost every sect which did not conform strictly to the tenets of the orthodox Church of the first centuries, which used mystical or allegorical terms and evolved an independent system of cosmology, eschatology and soteriology was indiscriminately described as Gnostic. “Nothing is easier,” writes R.M. Wilson, “than to draw up a schematic outline of belief, be it orthodox, Gnostic or Jewish-Christian, and apply it to the texts.” The trouble is that there is no agreement on what is meant by the term “Gnostic,” as F.C. Baur noted over a hundred years ago. Discussions of Gnosticism still remain futile “as long as ‘gnosticism’ is not a clearly defined concept, having certain definite sources. . . . Without a critical historical method it is impossible to advance further.”
Reference: Moses Gaster, “A Gnostic Fragment from the Zohar: The Resurrection of the Dead,” Studies and Texts, 3 vols. (New York: KTAV, 1971), 1:369.
Wilson, The Gospel of Philip, 15.
Ferdinand C. Baur, Die christliche Gnosis (TĂĽbingen: Osiander, 1835; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967), 10.
Johannes Munck, ‘The New Testament and Gnosticism,” Studia Theologica 15 (1961): 195.
I carded Janet (twice) for doing a copy and paste from FARMS (twice). I also deleted falcon’s responsive comments to her.
Falcon, I apologize if this article is rubbing you the wrong way. It was not written to accuse or excuse the RCC, but rather to acknowledge a similar problem –
Let me put it another way. Romans 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” God’s point, in giving us a Bible, was to bring us to faith in Christ
Isaiah 55:11 “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
If you were the enemy, would you not want to keep people as far from God’s Word as possible?
Oh brother.
This is nothing more than a statement of opinion from a person who is bitter after leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
You provide simple opinions about the church. You say it is “easy to prove that what Joseph “restored” came from his creative imagination and desire to prove himself a prophet.”
Well then, why don’t you “prove” it?
Your statement that “the LDS religion insists that the Bible can not be trusted” is simply not true and is pure manipulation of AoF 8.
Truth is, that article of faith is absolutely consistent with the EV view of the Bible. This is easily demonstrated by asking which version or translation of the Bible do EVs use. And why? People usually choose the version they feel represents the most accurate translation.
The difference is that we don’t know all the players in the translation of the Bible manuscript, but we do know that the BOM was translated by divine means- at least from our perspective. And this is very understandable and reasonable in my opinion.
Any religion teaches a particular interpretation of the Bible. Your point that we are biased in the way we read the Bible does not account for the fact that you too read the Bible with one particular bias and interpretation. Nobody is completely objective. Pure rhetoric.
You characterization of the BOM is uninformed and naive. You simply don’t know much about it, even if you read it in the past.
By the way, the BOM doesn’t designate the Catholic church the church of the devil. Yes, I know of McConkie’s original claims in “Mormon Doctrine.” The first presidency insisted he change that statement.
If you knew the BOM better, you would understand that the “whore” actually evolves over time and is represented by more than one simple entity.
This article is 100% rhetoric with no proof or support.
setfree,
This is well-written. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. AMEN!!
Peace…
To anyone who is just passing through and reading these posts, I must address OJ’s claims that the whore of the earth is not the Catholic Church. I was a Mormon until about 12 years ago, and I was indeed taught that the whore of the earth was the Catholic Church. I’m certain the Church has had to change its position regarding this statement, but it’s still true to say the Church has this view. We who are protestants, from the Mormon perspective, are bastard children of the Catholic Church. If this were not part of the JS message, then he wouldn’t have put words in God’s mouth saying that all the churches were false, an abomination, and that they taught false doctrine. JS condemned every religion and sect in order for his church (and it really is his church and NOT the Lord’s Church) to carry the banner of being the only true church on the face of the earth, and anyone who wants to be saved has to be a member of the church that JS established. Mormons can argue against this, but their history and the teachings of JS don’t support their claims.
I also want to address OJ’s claims regarding the LDS 8th AOF which states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Now, we can see that the Bible has a qualifier while the BOM doesn’t. This relegates the Bible to a secondary piece of literature subordinate to the BOM. Oh, Mormons will howl that they love the Bible just as much as the other books in their canon, but when push comes to shove regarding theology and doctrinal issues, Mormons defer to the BOM, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price over the Bible. Now, the 8th AOF says nothing about D&C and POGP, but they are considered to be scripture–and all these writings came from JS. Additionally, conference talks by General Authorities will supersede and trump anything else ever written. So, OJ’s claims about the 8th AOF dont’ ring true.
cont’d…
OJ tries to make a point about us not knowing all the players in writing the Bible. He thinks this is important, because he will point to the different writers in the BOM whose titles of the books are after the writer. As we all know regarding the Bible, there are serious debates about the authors of the different books. OJ sees this as a problem with the Bible and as proof that the Bible has been corrupted and, therefore, unauthoritative unless translated correctly. What he and other LDS fail to understand is that God wrote the Bible through a broken and fallen humanity, and that the Holy Spirit inspired broken people to bring forth the text we know as the Bible. We can argue that knowing the author of a book is important regarding an exegetical study but, ultimately, the Source of the material is God Himself through the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. OJ doesn’t get this. So, he has to make excuses for why the Bible isn’t authoritative for him ALL THE WHILE saying that it is authoritative for him. If it were, he would have rejected the teachings of JS et al a long time ago.
OJ’s attempt to cast doubt on our understanding of the BOM is purely acted out of fear. He’s afraid that those who have read the BOM and not believed it might cause others to doubt it. I could be wrong here, but that’s okay. I have read the BOM and, even after leaving the Church, read it again in hopes to find that was indeed God’s Word. My son had just come home from his mission, and I wanted so badly for the Church to be true. I prayed for God to restore my testimony of JS as a true prophet. Alas, God merely reminded that He had already revealed to me the truth, and the truth wasn’t going to change simply because I had an emotional reason for wanting it to change. If one wants to read a fictional story that teaches biblical truth, I would recommend Hugo’s “Les Miserables” over the BOM.
I hope this helps someone.
Peace and Blessings…
I think the distinction that Falcon makes is a valid one. The LDS religion bears no resemblance to Biblical Christianity, while Catholicism has a lot right and a lot wrong. The reformers were just that reformers. Martin Luther could see the errors in the Catholic Church, primarily the emphasis on salvation by works and neglecting what Christ had truly done on the cross – redeemed all those who trust in Jesus by grace through faith. Luther did not cast off the Church as an abomination, but rather desired to reform the Church and call it back to it’s roots.
Luther’s journey was very personal. As a Catholic monk, he read through the Scriptures and realized that he had been denied the truth – all his striving and trying to please God was NOT the way to God. The Church was not teaching the truth of salvation by grace – Luther felt a huge burden lift as he came to understand from Scripture that Jesus had done all to redeem him. All of Luther’s striving to perfectly keep God’s law had caused Luther to come to hate God – why would God make all these rules that are impossible to keep? He felt he could never live up to these standards and was condemned. Once Luther came to understand that salvation was not about him and what he did, but rather was about Jesus death on the cross for our sins, the condemnation was gone – he is forgiven in Christ! God’s law is there to point, drive, compel us to Christ. Luther then came to realize it was an evil thing to sell indulgences, causing people to place trust in purchasing their salvation through money and works. Similarly, today Mormons promise exaltation to those who pay their tithe, do good, and do the proper temple works – they are selling access the highest heaven. The Mormon Jesus may be thrown in there, but really it’s all about you and your good works.
OJ, having read the BoM I believe everything setfree has stated. I think just reading the BoM affirms everything said. I was actually reading the BoM this morning trying to figure out why your modern doctrine teaches that Jesus is Jehovah of the OT, while Elohim the father is nowhere to be found. This is a radical departure from the teachings of JS, BY, JT, and your other early GA’s. In just a short 30 minute perusal I found numerous contradictions between the BoM and itself as to the nature of the Son, and the teachings of the LDS church. Is he the Son or is he the Father? In Mosiah 3:5 your BoM footnote denotes the Lord as Jesus Christ. That means that according to modern LDS doctrine he essentially sends himself into the world..and you call our God schizophrenic? Is God made up of three persons as the bible teaches, or is he a modalist God as the BoM teaches at times, wherein he manifests himself at different times as different persons like in 3 Nephi 1:14 where I can’t figure out who the “I” that is speaking is. It must be the Son, but that means the Son is the Father, which is a totally heretical view of God by both biblical and LDS standards. I also found numerous anachronisms in language and NT revelation in an OT setting defining the name of Messiah and specifics unknown in the OT, most of which are direct plagiarism of the KJV. That means God withheld clear doctrine throughout the OT which we possess, but miraculously gave it to the Nephites, in the KJV translation no less, in the BoM. That’s pretty convenient seeing that it is the bible JS had access to. This is the hallmark of a book written by the human JS, who was trying to explain who he believed God is.
As far as I’m concerned, your post is nothing but rhetoric and opinion, and not based upon fact. You sir are the one who has no understanding of the BoM.
Jim started his post with this: “This is nothing more than a statement of opinion from a person who is bitter after leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” I particularly want to focus on “…from a person who is bitter after leaving the Church…”
What an assumption to make! Its as if there can be no good or valid reason for him to leave, and any opinion that he may have is invalid from the start.
I also disagree with his contention that our view of the Bible is the same as the 8th article of faith. Most Christians I know do not believe one translation is a better translation over another, just that they focus on different methods of translation and prefer the way one reads. Further, when studying, they use multiple translations so that they can get a more accurate view of what was in the original languages. This is a far cry from abandoning full trust in the Bible because it is not reliably translated. Our view recognizes different methods of translating and problems in translating, but instead of abandoning the whole thing, look to find ways around the problems. We also look to the vast manuscript evidence that shows that there is actually very little discrepency in the transmission of the documents.
The bottom line is that we view our Bible as fully reliable and have access to multiple translations to get to the original meaning. Further, we can study the original languages and go from there. Since the original languages are preserved in the Bible, we are confident that we have an accurate Bible.
So, no, Jim is wrong in how he presents our view of the Bible.
Because every time a person quotes Bruce McConkie in a sacrament talk, a puppy dies. And setfree loves puppies. Setfree was bitter about all the dead ones.
Mobaby & Falcon, thank you for fleshing out the Catholic/Luther side of this post. I mean it.
Jim, are you okay with point 2, part of point 3, and all of point 5 then?
B.H. Roberts said of the Book of Mormon:
“Having seen how strong parallelisms obtains between Jaredite and Nephite peoples… it remains in somewhat the same manner to show that a like sameness of repetition or parallelism obtains among the Nephites at different periods… I shall hold that what is here presented [concerning various accounts of Anti-Christs among the Nephites] illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history…” (Studies of the Book of Mormon, 1985, pp. 264,271)
We can argue which one of us, you or me, knows the Book of Mormon better. But I would bet that B.H. Roberts has us both beat.
Which characterization didn’t you like?
Unable to responde to all comments, but will pick salient ones.
Jack- sorry to say you are unable not only to judge my heart, but apparently cannot understand what is in my mind or words either.
My point about the “players” in the coming forth of the Bible is a reference to copyists and translators. In other words, the individuals involved in recording and copying the words of the Spirit AFTER they came out of the mouths of the Apostles and prophets.
Big difference. Can you see that?
Nobody can give a detailed account of the lineage of the Bible manuscripts from the time the words came out of the mouths of those who uttered the words to our versions today. It is different with the BOM. That is my point.
And I really don’t care what you were taught- it has never been doctrine that the Catholic church is the “whore.” I think that for a period of time, the Catholic church to some degree played the role of that “church,” but if you read the BOM carefully, you find it’s not that simple- the identity changes over time. Other things occupy that seat. And as of 2010- I do not think the Catholic church is currently that “church.” In fact, I don’t think it is a “church.”
I am not “afraid” about anything regarding the BOM. It really doesn’t need me to defend it. Ninety-nine percent of the claims about the BOM made by those who leave the church are ridiculous as any rational person who really knows the BOM can attest.
My initial point stands- this article is an opinion. There are as many of those as there are people.
Facts are different. And this article contains essentially none.
So then, Jim, you…. trust? the Bible?
“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327).
The Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll shows this is a gross exageration & pretty much false. There may be minor problems, but nothing that would warrant Smith’s inspired version, which is a total figment of Smith’s imagination.
When: “the book [Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew…it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record” (1 Nephi 13:24), but afterwards “thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church…after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles” (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:26,28). See also Doctrines of Salvation, vol.3, p.190-191.
No Mormon will take Rick B’s challange and post it for all to see here. Also, the plain and precious ‘truths’ not in the Bible are NOT in the Book of Mormon either. (Because Smith had not ‘invented’ them yet)
“The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the manuscripts of antiquity – manuscripts which passed through the hands of uninspired men who changed many parts to suit their own doctrinal ideas. Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious portions and many covenants of the Lord have been lost. As a consequence, those who rely upon it [the Bible] alone stumble and are confused… (The Ensign, December 1985, p 55).
False. All the relevant teachings of the Saviour are in the Bible. It is only Smith’s ‘add-ons’ like those of David Koresh, Ellen White and others that are not.
When his “revelation” about Adam being God was disputed, Brigham Young stated: “You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe…I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.6).
Mormons have to ‘disbelieve’ the Bible to accept their own blasphemous teachings. Or don’t Mormons follow their prophets anymore?
Orson Pratt stands up and says: “No one can tell whether even one verse of either the Old or New Testament conveys the ideas of the original author” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 28).
Gee, then why use it? Oh yeah, Smith tried to do that, but the Mormons don’t use his inspired version (just refer to excerpts that are not blatantly wrong)
McConkie again:
The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the manuscripts of antiquity – manuscripts which passed through the hands of uninspired men who changed many parts to suit their own doctrinal ideas. Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious portions and many covenants of the Lord have been lost. As a consequence, those who rely upon it [the Bible] alone stumble and are confused… (The Ensign, December 1985, p 55).
How would he know deletions were ‘common’? Oh yeah, he was an apostle. I find these statements arrogant and offensive. The Mormons have scholars, they could take any one of the newer more clear translations and [verify] & use them. But they won’t. They want to use an archaic, out of date Bible to keep harping about it’s unreliability. But we see through this transparent line of cow dung.
Here are a few points on the Historicity of the Bible:
Critics once claimed that the Law of Moses could not have been written by Moses, since writing was largely unknown at that time (about 1500 BC).
Then, the Laws of Hammurabi (1700 BC) were found. This showed that writing was definitely known at that time, and left no reason why Moses could not have written the Law of Moses.
For a long time, critics questioned the accuracy of Daniel 5, which mentions a Babylonian King named Belshazzar. Archaeological records show that Nabonidus was king at the time, and do not mention Belshazzar. Yet, in 1956, three stone slabs were found. These slabs showed that while Nabonidus went off to war to fight the Persians, he entrusted the kingdom to his son, Belshazzar.
Many critics have tried to discredit Luke as an accurate historian. So far they have been unsuccessful. A notable example is where Luke says that Lysanius is the Tetrarch of Abilene. Recently, archaeologists found two Greek inscriptions, which show that Lysanius was the Tetrarch of Abilene between 14 and 29 AD.
In the past, people have doubted whether Jesus even existed. Was he a historical person, or a made-up character? In fact, early Greek, Roman and Jewish sources make mention of Jesus. These include Tacitus (Annals), Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), Pliny the Younger (Epistles) and Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). As well, there is a letter from a Syrian, Mara Bar-Serapion, to his son. In it, he compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Jesus.
Try this with the Book of Mormon. IT FAILS MISERABLY.
“In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.” -11 Ravi K. Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? Word Publishing, 1994, 162.
There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.- F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible, Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950, 178.
[There are] over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.” -McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, vol. 1, 50-51
Setfree
You apparently don’t understand B.H. Roberts. What many don’t realize is the reason he said some of the things he said. His intention as directed by the first presidency was to point out what he thought would be the biggest controversies of the BOM from the perspective of a critic. He remained a faithful believer in the BOM throughout his life as attested to by his statements just before his death:
“Let me say once and for all so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine….our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon.” B. H. Roberts’s letter of 15 March 1922
“I hope that if anywhere along the line I have caused any of you to doubt my faith in this work, then let this testimony and my indicated life’s work be a correction of it.” General Conference 1929
And yes, I trust the Bible.
Grindael- How do you know that all the Savior’s teaching are in the Bible? Seriously. You don’t know what you don’t know, right?
I think one major misunderstanding on this topic is that, at least from my point of view, the plain and precious things that were lost have not as much to do with errors in what we possess in the Bible today, as in what was not included in the Bible. So the idea that I don’t trust the Bible is not correct. I just don’t think it is all God intends for His children.
Take the simple concept of faith. EVs insist that salvation has nothing to do with works- that is one particular interpretation of a several Bible verses. There are other common interpretations. Do you not see value in additional sources to clarify just what exactly was intended in those verses?
The BOM helps immensely to clarify those “plain and precious truths” such as faith and repentence, the spirit world, etc.
LDS have more proof of the Bible than anybody else- the BOM is the greatest proof of the truthfulness of the Bible.
Because of what I READ Jim. IN THE BIBLE. There is no more needed. Read Paul’s writings. His major points were always:
The life of Christ was shown to be a fulfillment of the OT, Jesus came, gave his life, was resurrected, and is the only way to salvation.
Believe on HIM and he will save you. Period.
It is simple and needs no embellishment. Mormon’s only say it is not all in there to justify Smith’s heretical ‘revelations’.
I wonder if Jim has ever thought that there is no more that was ever said. In other words, that the Bible is indeed the complete record.
It seems a reasonable inferrence from his position is that some of these things are unclear so there had to be a clarifier.
Unfortunately, that does not hold up in that there does not have to be anything more. There really doesn’t.
And he relies on the thought that it essentially makes sense for things to be left out or removed, and that is was common to do so. But the evidence doesn’t play out that way. All the evidence we have is that our current Bible reflects the orginal letters and stories pretty darn closely.
Alas.
Aaron,
In my post I noted that there’s a lot of Catholic doctrine I don’t subcribe to. I lived it for twenty years and it was a good feeling to throw it off, even though I lived like a pagan for a time. The emotional release was spectacular. When I’m talking about the Catholic Church, I’m referring to the first 400 or 500 years of history most specifically. That’s when much of the hard theological work was done by the Catholic Church battling the heretics and where the foundation of the faith explained. Those early theologians were definitely in the gifted and talented program.
In terms of tradition Kelly writes of Cyril and Theodoret, the latter who said “I yield obedience to Holy Scripture alone”. “In the eyes of both of them the authority of the fathers consisted precisely in the fact that they had so faithfully and fully expounded the real intention of the Bible writers. What they found impressive was that so many famous and saintly teachers, venerated in the whole Church, were unanimous in their interpretation of Scripture and in their statement of the doctrines set forth, or at any rate implied, in it.” (p. 50-51)
Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century in commenting on the need to address heretical teachings said that a twofold bulwark was needed, that is the authority of the Bible and the tradition of the Catholic Church. He conceded that Scripture was sufficient as a guide but because of the susceptibility of scripture to a variety of interpretations, as Christians we need to look to tradition. Tradition of course is the doctrine of the Church as handed down by the Church Fathers (“what has been believed everywhere, always and by all”)and protected by the Holy Spirit.
When we examine Mormonism what we get is like a real bad night of karaoke. But all that is needed is people who are willing to buy into this rather bad fantasy. The pseuo-intellectualism coming out of Mormonism is best typified by Smith’s BoA and his “interpretation/translation” of the KJB. Smith was quite clever and creative-granted, but theologically he was, well lets just say, as gifted as a man with a magic rock could be!
Setfree-
Great article. I would add that Luther, while doing a lot through the reformation was also highly anti-semitic and this prevented him from going far enough. The Catholic church did a huge disservice to the believers by separating them from the Jewish roots of their faith. This resulted in wrong interpretations, mingling with paganism, and an abandonment of biblical culture. This is why today Christians still celebrate all of the pagan festivals(Christmas, Easter, Halloween) and don’t observe the Sabbath or any of God’s feasts.
The really interesting point, and that which no Mormon has taken the time to answer me on, is that the LDS church recognizes and claims that the Catholic church corrupted the true “church” and yet they retain all of the corruption. If a modern day prophet claims to be restoring the early church, I would expect it to look like the early church. The LDS have adopted all of the pagan and corrupt things that the Catholic church instituted. And then they added more paganism by adopting the very pagan rituals of the Mason’s into their temples!
ah Messianic,
You forgot the major problem, Mormonism created their own god! So what other types of fiddle faddle they mess around with in addition to modern Christian tradition really doesn’t matter much. They’re pagans because they believe in a pagan god and believe they will become pagan gods themselves. Not only that but their occult foundation and temple symbols provide ample evidence that Mormonism operates within the realm of the spirit of darkness which opposes God and His Church-the Mystical Body of Christ. The counterfeit religion of Mormonism has as its main goal the destruction of the souls of men. Mormonism cleans up nice but under the facade is a bunch of dead men’s bones.
OJ,
You have bought into the lies and propaganda of Mormonism. It’s funny that you don’t care what I was taught, especially since one of the selling point for the Mormon Church is that the lessons are systematically taught throughout the Church, and that a person sitting in a classroom in California will get the same lesson as a person sitting in the classroom in Sweden. Your bankrupt doctrines leave you with the most worn-out defenses of Mormonism: “it’s not or never has been official church doctrine.” What a line that is designed to avoid doctrinal accountability. If that’s what you want to stand on, I just hope you realize it’s a foundation of sand.
To the Christian apologists:
WOW!!! Keep up the good work. I’m always amazed at how much you know.
Blessings…
Jackg,
I will say the same as OJ, I have not been taught outright that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable church as referenced in the BoM. I have been taught that it is a part of that church as are all other religions and faiths that are not true believers in Jesus Christ (ie, if you do not belong to Jesus’ flock you are not His but the devil’s). There are people that like to teach their opinion as doctrine/fact and maybe that is what the person who taught you was doing. But I have not seen it written in any teaching manual, so it should never be taught as such. And that is my experience of almost 40 years in the church.
Gee Ralph,
I see why some Mormons are still in the Church, they ignore everything. Is what apostles in the Mormon Church teach still relevant? If you want to think of it all as just opinion, then why have them? Here is Taylor in an OFFICIAL Church Magazine:
“The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters. Alas! alas! what doctrine, what principle, or what scheme, in allWhat prayers, what devotion, or what faith, `since the fathers have fallen asleep,’ has opened the heavens; has brought men into the presence of God; and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to an innumerable company of angels? The answer is, not any: `There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.’
– Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811
“Babylon, literally understood, is the gay world; spiritual wickedness, the golden city, and the glory of the world, The priests of Egypt, who received a portion gratis from Pharaoh; the priests of Baal, and the Pharisees, and Sadducees, with their “long robes,” among the Jews, are equally included in their mother’s family, with the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all that have not had the keys of the kingdom and power thereof, according to the ordinances of God.
– Prophet John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.939
I for one have to reject the premise of this entire argument. I see only pure opinion mixed with loosely used statements and quotes.
Instead of putting myself in a position to disprove your opinion, I would simply say prove each and every point. You make connections to the Catholic church which are unfounded, but by your word alone.
Come on man, Saul Alinsky much?
It is quite clear what you are doing.
1. You are trying to give an empression that you are the soul athority any anything christian. Unfortunately even I took that bait for a while.
2 and 3. You select only a very specifice target that you focus your individual attacks on while at the same time using various quotes and what-not to through us off our game.
4. I can’t count how many times you try to establish all the things we “believe” and rail us for not following it.
5. You certainly enjoy ridiculing our scripture and our prophet which, I admit, does stir the ire of some of the LDS posters here.
6. I am sure all of you are having a ball while doing this. I refer to the above post: “WOW!! Keep up the good work. I’m always amazed at how much you know.
7. Switching the issue every so often on this site certainly has kept your efforts going. Of course the fact that this is a blog may explain away this one a bit.
8. This one not so much. You have launched threats about the invalidity of our church, and the fact that we will suffer eternal damnation. I have yet to see an LDS poster show any signs of turning away.
..ctd..
..ctd..
(Sorry, 8 should have been 9)
Here is what I will say for 8.
8. You sure do keep up the pressure by using the quotations of all the past leaders and members of the church as a way of saying if we don’t have a proper response, a response that you don’t agree with, we are dodging the questions. However, you rarely if ever make any real ties to what we generally teach as doctrine in our church. I am sure we could pull up all kinds of quotes by great “christian” leaders of the past that can not be reconciled by your faith. But I guess it is easy to denounce them when you simply claim no particular connection to any of them by simply throwing them under the bus when they say somethiing you disagree with. But oh stick to those creeds of yours.
10. I have seen many complaints about LDS tactics which are completely avoided when we confront you on the same regards. ie you claim that faith in our scriptures is not enough for us to retain our membership; that there must be cold hard evidence backing up the scriptures. Yet aside from the fact that geographical locations and other evidence that certain individuals do exist, you can no more prove any of the miracles of the Bible or anything talkiing about things that happen outside our mortal sphere. I don’t have proof of their existence either, but I still have faith in them. I have faith in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (I am pretty sure we can confirm the geography in this book), and the Pearl of Great Price (again, is Egypt a real place? Were Abraham and Moses real people?).
..ctd..
Jacob5
Come-on Buddy, take a breath. What’s that line about someone thinking they are the sole authority on anything. What we have on this blog are well read and studious defenders of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some are exMos some are not, but the bottom line is the Christian posters here know what they are talking about and back it by with volumes of documentation. We get at least a half dozen document dumps a day that are well written and referenced. Some like me, mix in a ton of editorializing, humor and sarcasm just to keep an intellectual balance and a little fire in the burner.
You seem incredible defensive which tells me you have a totally different view of Mormonism than that which is well documented and presented here by folks who know Mormonism and Christianity. What I see with the Mormons who post here are a bunch of folks who know neither Christianity or Mormonism but have some romantic vision of their faith that has no basis in reality.
Grindael,
Look at your second quote. John Taylor said that it is all the … gives a list … the Roman Catholics, Protestant… and finishes with a couple more. So what this statement is saying is that the RC church is just one part of this great and abominable church or Babylon.
Now look at what I said – I have been taught that it is a part of that church as are all other religions and faiths that are not true believers in Jesus Christ (ie, if you do not belong to Jesus’ flock you are not His but the devil’s).
This agrees in total with what John Taylor said in that second quote. So there is no ignoring anything. I think BY also gave a talk placing the RC church as the corrupter of the true religion and called it the great and abominable church, but that does not mean that there are more facets to the great and abominable church, just that the RC church is part of it.
Setfree
As far as the list of 5 things go in the above, I will answer 1 and 3. Number 1 is just your opinion. I hear the Bible used many times in church in lessons and talks and in general conference. There used to be a section in The Ensign dedicated to Biblical figures and the lessons we can learn from them.
As for number 3, Seminary and Institute devote 2 out of 4 years learning from the Bible (for over a century). For the past 20 years (at least) Sunday School at church devotes 2 years out of 4 to study the Bible. The other 2 years are 1 year BoM, other year history of the church. Even in Primary we have 2 years dedicated to teaching from the Bible. This year I am teaching the 8-11 yrs from the OT. So if we spend half of our time studying the Bible and a quarter the BoM, how can you say that we emphasise BoM reading over Bible reading?
Jacob, I for one would welcome your posting quotes from Christian leaders. I’d enjoy that exercise.
#10 completely misses the boat, like usual. The BoM has absolutely no strong and credible evidence to suggest it is true. All that you will post in its defense is far short of strong and credible. This is not the case with the Bible, and while the miracles are part of the story, we have confidence based on what we can prove that what it says is true.
Soul authority in describing our scriptures? Not sure I completely understand, but I think you view this with Mormon lenses on. We are not about authority, and in fact believe we all have authority to speak about the scriptures. So, I think you address something that is non-existant to us.
I also think you miss our point in calling out your prophets and what they say. They say things that you later have to back away from. They speak with authority, don’t they? Or do they? If they don’t why have them say anything to clarify your faith? Why separate them out as leaders? One of the things that the Catholics do at least is give the Pope actual authority and believe what he says.
11. This one I love the most. “Pick the target,” (LDS church? I don’t see an Islam Alcohol post, a Jewish Bacon post, or a Buddhist Ant Stompers post,) “Freeze it,” (you certainly have been trying to freeze our progress, but I can’t say either way if it is working) “Personalize it,” (I can certainly see many personal attacks against LDS posters, leaders, and scriptures, as well as the church itself.) “Polarize it,” (you have really tried your best to paint our church in a negative light in order to turn opinion against our church. I don’t know if that is actually worked. I have yet to see a LDS poster show signs of changing their views here.) Identifying a responsible person is easy. You have a broad choice of past and current leaders of our choice to chose from but have yet to tie any of those quotes directly to any real doctrine that we currently teach in our church today. I am certain we can choose any of the great “christian” leaders of the past and hold it up to scrutiny, that is if you don’t simply through them under the bus upon exposure. But I guess that could be easy to do if you don’t really ascribe to any one’s teachings, but hey, hold onto those creeds.
In closing, I would like to thank Setfree for giving me a forum to voice my opinion. I still state my challenge. Prove all of your statements made in the above post.
You forget that we LDS posters here join out of courtesy, not of obligation. I know that words alone will not carry you over to our faith. But, in order to have a valid discussion or debate, back up your claims, otherwise it is clearly your opinion and will be disregarded as such.
AMEN
“It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Nephi 13:1-10)” – Mormon Doctrine, p. 130 (1958)
“Harlots. See Church of the Devil, Sex Immorality. Literally a harlot is a prostitute; figuratively it is any apostate church. Nephi, speaking of harlots in the literal sense and while giving a prophetic description of the Catholic Church, recorded that he ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it.’ … Then speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he designated the Catholic Church as ‘the mother of harlots’ (1 Nephi 13:34; 14:15-17), a title which means that the protestant churches, the harlot daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would themselves be apostate churches.” – Mormon Doctrine, pp. 314-315 (1958)
Of course this totally enraged people and the Church made McConkie edit the second edition. But it is there, he taught it and where oh were did he get it from?
Jacob5 and Ralph,
How about we start with number 5. Can we do that? Jacob, you want something to back up my opinion. Ralph, you did not address number 5. So let’s start there.
Let’s talk about the chapter heading I mentioned. Let’s talk about what it says at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 8, in the LDS Bible. Would that be okay. Let’s stick with that one issue, and go with it from start to finish. Would that be alright with either of you?
In fact, I want to extend the invitation to Jim as well. You also did not protest point 5, right Jim? Can we talk about 1 Cor 8 and its chapter heading?
Ralph,
Why don’t we skip all the B.S. It has been taught in your church that the catholic church is the ‘mother’ harlot.
But what it boils down to is that Mormons teach that there is only two churches on the earth. Mormonism and every other church which they claim is the church of the devil.
I can’t say it any more plainly than this.
Falcon
Defensive hardly.
I have seen documentaries where scientists can show that from the stride of footprints left by dinosaurs millions of years ago if they are warm blooded or cold blooded. Do they have evidence? They most certainly do in the study of the fauna of today and how they move. They also have fossil evidence of creatures that were supposedly the ancestors of man. They show all kinds of this all the time.
Now, how can this be? According to scripture, I don’t know if you believe this or not, man was created by God and therefore should not have any primitive ancestor, if so at what point did God say, “this is close enough of an evolution for me to take this being as my creation.” I still don’t believe the scientist’s views with all their proof to back up their points. I just know what the Bible and Pearl of Great Price say. A scientist may think me as ignorant, arrogant, and/or close-minded. You know what, I don’t care what they think.
My faith is based on my own experience. When science and scripture contradict each other, you know what, I side with scripture. I believe there are just facts that we do not know of yet.
You claim to have volumes of documents. You may get annoyed by this, and think of me as a fool, but, so what!
I do not place my faith in facts. Facts change with the winds of “progress”. I place my faith in God and the truth that He reveals to me. You may say that you have truth revealed to you that is contrary to mine, but that is irregardless to me.
God works through mortal men to accomplish His goals. You can find stories of great leaders who have made mistakes strewn throughout the Bible. Either through arrogance, ignorance, or plain stupidity, nevertheless the goals get accomplished. I am sure that Satan thought he made a great victory when he encouraged people to crucify the Savior, but we all know that was his self defeating blow.
Well Jacob5,
Where should we start. First of all your reasoning is typical Mormon from beginning to end pulling here and there with the implied conclusion “therefore the church is true”. You do not place your faith on facts you place them on feelings. You and a whole lot of people that have gone off the rails with aberrant and false religions are/were getting messages from “God”. So your implication is that you are super spiritual, getting super secret information from God, and getting all kinds of feelings that these revelations, no matter how ridiculous or goofy are the real deal.
I wonder how Smith and Co. “felt” when it was revealed to them that there were men living on the moon and Young who had them living on the sun. grindael nailed this down from beginning to end and proved they claimed it. So why should we bother with facts when they had revelation. I mean how many false prophecies do you want us to list here that are factually wrong. Yet you’re willing to believe them because “God” has spoken to you. Sorry pal I don’t consider that spiritual.
You and Ralph have the same malady which is to run to the Bible and try to find any connection between the heros of Mormonism and Biblical characters. It’s that old argument of equivalency that Mormons love to use. It’s like saying that someone who withdraws money from their bank account and a thief who steals from the bank are the same thing because they both removed money from the bank.
You’ve got to wake-up and get yourself out of Mormonism.
Jacob5,
I find you extremely naive. The difference between the NT and modern mormon ‘scripture’, is the messenger. Your own church has totally repainted Smith as a ‘rough rolling stone’ with a little flaws.
What works in Smith’s favor is that his ‘resoration’ took place in the 1800’s, and he got away with a lot.
Some points to consider (if you are honest, you will investigate them)
1. Smith was an adulterer.
2. Smith was a liar.
3. Smith changed his views about the nature of his god.
4. Smith was a hypocrite.
5. Smith was a false prophet.
These five points are easy to prove. Your religion is FOUNDED UPON THE BELIEF THAT SMITH WAS A PROPHET WHO SPOKE TO GOD. These incidents took place after his calling, so don’t try to compare him with Paul or any of the other original apostles. These were not just ‘mistakes’, they encompass the nature of who Smith was. He was by no means a prophet of God.
So says the LDS Church regarding the Roman Catholic Church:
“Catholicism – See Church of the Devil” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p. 108)
“But we would inform the Catholics, that the Church of Christ has not ceased to exist, neither has Peter ceased his existence, but both the Church and Peter are in heaven, far out of reach of the gates of hell, and far out of the reach of the ABOMINABLE soul-destroying impositions of popery. The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic MOTHER OF HARLOTS, and over all her Protestant daughters; but as for the apostolical Church of Christ, she rests secure in the mansion of eternal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together will all her HARLOT daughters shall be hurled down to hell.” (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, No.3, p. 44)
“The great Catholic division of the Christian world, the Catholic church, is a national liability to any country. It wields a great power over the minds and the hearts of the children of men, but it is a POWER FOR EVIL rather than for good.” (Hyrum Smith, Conference Reports, October 1916, p. 42)
Meanwhile, on the front cover of the LDS Church News for August 15, 2009 is Thomas Monson speaking at the (Roman Catholic) Cathedral of the Madeleine for their 100th anniversary in downtown SLC. The LDS First Presidency is there as well on the front row. Read the article and look at the pictures here:
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57763/Joining-celebration-at-Catholic-cathedral.html
I don’t know what is more embarrassing: the LDS false prophet and his false apostles who are hypocrits or the ignorant, naive Catholics who invited them and let them speak.
Hey Falcon, quite stealing from the bank! Hehe, that was just a bit of an attempt at humor.
Again, you mix your opinion with a bit of what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young said.
Well, I am getting ahead of myself. I wouldn’t profane as to tell you what truth is. That is between you and God. I receive revelation for me. However, I must not be a very good keeper of these secrets I get every day as I have been saying them in many locations. Again, there is no debatable point on that. I say it is true, you say it isn’t. You do not know my mind or how exactly I receive a confirmation of truth, so your point is irresponsibly ignorant. Come on man, you can do better than that.
“gone off the rails”?!? What exactly do you mean by that? Am I a Jihadist now? Am I one of those extreme religious end-of-the-world groups now? I would like some clarification. Maybe I am planning to strap Books of Mormon to my waist and run into a populated area and release some of these super secrets and commit mass conversion. I wish. I never had a whole lot of luck with the mass conversion deal like on the day of the pentecost. But you have no proof of what I have received of God is true or not other than your own opinion, and, like I said, that is irregardless of the debate.
You certainly are pressing this whole men on the moon and on the sun deal. Your right, those are obvious facts. I can’t refute it. But I only heard about it on this forum. I have yet to hear it being taught in our church classes. This maybe perhaps because IT IS NOT TAUGHT DOCTRINE IN OUR CHURCH. I know it frustrates you that I have no proper retort to that. But, such is life, and learn to deal with disappointment. I am sure a past prophet or leader of our church made an error on his income tax form at one point. Where was his prophecy and revelation then. Obviously the Lord did not let these things continue being taught as they were not truths.
Jacob5,
I actually like some of what you said. I agree that man and science are not, nor ever will be, as accurate as God in describing what’s what. And I agree that God uses us (miserable failures) to accomplish His purposes.
There is logical explanation for why faith MUST go together with evidence.
Evidence without faith – you know the truth (having done the research) but you reject it because you don’t like it, or don’t want God.
Faith without evidence – you accept what you think may be the truth, but you don’t do the research because you don’t want to know if it’s true, or you like what you believe.
Faith with evidence – God wants you to know WHO HE REALLY IS and WHAT HE REALLY WANTS YOU TO KNOW, so He makes it available to you in a book. Then, to make sure you know it’s real, He leaves some evidence in tact.
Now He has given you bedrock to stand on. You will still have times of doubt, wondering if He hears you, wondering if He cares, wondering what He’s going to do. The cool thing is, you KNOW that He really IS THERE, and how amazing HE IS… because you know that the book you are holding in your hands is actual history, the ACTUAL WORD OF GOD – that it IS BASED IN REALITY, and because it is, you can accept the spiritual aspects of it by faith.
There’s a huge difference. I don’t know how good I did at explaining it though.
Can we talk about 1 Cor 8 or not?
Setfree,
Thank you for your little definitions. I don’t disagree with the basis of your definitions.
It reminds me of the story of Thomas. You know the one. Thomas doubted the actual return of Christ. We all know that. He doubted because he did not believe the words which were spoken by those who had seen Him resurrected. After he did finally see Christ face to face and saw the markings did he believe. Now, Christ does not chastis him for not having believed it before. In fact He blesses him because he did believe after seeing Christ, but does not Christ say that those who have not seen but yet believe are more blessed.
The point is, I believe, much to your protest, that Jesus is the Christ without seeing him. Proving that Jesus was an actual living person is easy, but there is no actual evidence that currently exists, other than actually seeing the Savior in the flesh, so-to-speak, that He was resurrected.
My believe and faith in the Book of Mormon is true with the same belief and faith that Jesus is a resurrected being. The evidence could not convince me more that that I have received from God, and that is it. I have not seen the actual evidence, but yet I believe. Your view point regardless.
This is true as you cannot present any evidence to the contrary. An absence of evidence is not evidence in itself. And, since I don’t have to prove to you what I already believe, I would just have to say, tough! But, congratulations on your faith based on what you have seen.
As far as 1st Cor. 8, what do you ask. Are you trying to say that we are saying that our church says that there are many “Gods” because of that scripture? Please clarify. If that is so, then you are misreading the whole thing. In the verses it clearly states that you do not worship false idols. The “gods” and “lords” are clearly referring to the false idol “gods” and “lords” being worshiped at the time. That is why it goes on to state that we must worship the one “God”.
I know many Mormons will never see the truth.
I know many Mormons will continue to believe lies.
I know many Mormons will not understand my motives.
I know many Mormons are comfortable with their lives, and will never think of questioning their church.
I know many Mormons will be frustrated, angry, startled, repulsed & indignant over things I post.
I know many Mormons will look at what I post and say it is lies, twisted, or misquoted.
I know many Mormons will say what I post does not matter because it is not taught NOW in their church.
I know many Mormons will continue to be apologetic because they believe their church is progressive and their leaders only made simple mistakes easy to overlook.
I know many Mormons are good people that are caught up in a cult.
I know many Mormons have been taught all their lives that what they believe is the truth and they will have a hard time understanding people who don’t accept it as truth.
I know many Mormons have done great things with their lives, are friendly, and are worth having a dialogue with even though nothing may come of it.
I know many Mormons will question their faith in Smith because of what I post.
I know many Mormons WILL understand the truth and leave their church and come to the Jesus of the Bible.
Well Grendael, I am happy that you know so much. Good luck with that.
By the way, may I ask of the name. What is the meaning of Grendael? Is it your name, or is it referring to something.
To be fair, my name is not my own but a referrence to Jacob chapter 5 in the Book of Mormon.
Jacob5,
That it is provable that He was alive is reason to give an ear to the Bible. That He was actually God is a matter of faith. But at least we know He was there, and at least we know He claimed to be God. And we have the testimony of people who saw Him resurrected and who knew of many other people who saw Him as well. I didn’t see Him resurrect, so I have to take it on faith that He could do such a thing. But there are reasons to believe it… like why would His apostles die for His message if He never actually came back and showed them that He did it! Faith based on evidence. I also have not seen Jesus.
1 Cor 8. “Are you trying to say that we are saying that our church says that there are many “Gods” because of that scripture?” YES
“…In the verses it clearly states that you do not worship false idols. The “gods” and “lords” are clearly referring to the false idol “gods” and “lords” being worshiped at the time. That is why it goes on to state that we must worship the one “God”.” I COMPLETELY AGREE
I agree wholeheartedly that the gods and lords of the chapter are false idol gods and lords. Why, is my question, does your church give the heading “There are gods many and lords many – To us there is one God (the Father) and one Lord, who is Christ” as a heading? Why use part of verses 5 and 6, when verse 9 is CLEARLY a more appropriate summation of the chapter?
Jacob5.
It is grindael. The name is a nickname with a long history I won’t go into here, but my first name is Johnny.
Sometimes it is necessary to post what you know. I have had great effect doing so. I have had great success with some Mormons in regards to their cult, but some will never see the truth. Being a Mormon for years, serving a mission, going through the temple and learning it all was a great lie is my motivation to share the truth of what I learned with others.
What I know, as I explained, will not necessarily be liked by many Mormons, and really I don’t care about that.
Care to address any of those 5 points I made about Smith? That is the meat of the matter here. What he and Young and others taught. To discount it because it is not taught now, is very naive and dangerous.
The followers of those like Koresh woke up one day to the end of their world because of who they followed, even though they believed it as strongly as you do. Koresh was much like Smith, who self destructed just as Smith did. But you have to do what you feel is right for you.
Too many Mormons have tried to psychoanalyze me,so from time to time I try to make clear why I am here (among other places).
It is nothing personal, but some will take it that way because they love their church. Sorry if you do.