Reevaluating the Great Apostasy
by Steven Danderson on August 9th, 2008One week ago, I celebrated the twenty-eighth anniversary of my baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One reason for my baptism was the fact that I saw the various hallmarks of the ancient Church I gleaned from studying ancient Roman history that were absent from the other Churches I attended.
In my early days as a member of the Church, I had thought, like James Talmage in his book, The Great Apostasy, that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen away from the true Christian Church, and that other non-LDS Christian Churches were corruptions of a corruptions. I have found that my opinions have, …, um, …, evolved. Rather than being the Great Apostasy, I now regard the Roman Catholic and other non-LDS Christian Churches as pious humans’ valiant attempts to salvage true Christianity from the Great Apostasy; attempts that were, for the most part, successful–significantly more successful than I had previously thought.
Don’t get me wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still the only one with God’s unmitigated authority, and there is still the Great Apostasy. The hallmarks that I found still mark the Church as true, and I have found nothing that shakes my faith about God’s relationship with His Church. I have found, though, that I must assimilate new data.
Remember the nursery rhyme, “Humpty Dumpty”? Some people posit that it was a simile for the collapse of the Roman Empire. Now that I think about it, I realise that the rhyme could also apply to the Great Apostasy of the Christian Church shortly after the deaths of the original twelve Apostles. Just as, after the fall of the original Roman Empire in AD 476, nobody has reestablished it in the 1,532 years since, since the Great Apostasy, nobody (without God’s help) can restore the fallen Church.
To continue the Humpty Dumpty analogy, when the Church fell and was broken into several pieces, several of those pieces were irretrievable, many of those lost pieces were significant. Thus, we need God to restore those parts. Moreover, when attempts to gather in as much of the egg (Read: Church) as possible, it was quite easy for the gatherers to include impurities that were not part of the egg in the first place. Of course, only God has the ability to purge the impurities without purging parts of the true Church. While man cannot help “throwing the baby out with the bath water,” God can easily get rid of dirty water while keeping the baby.
Still, it is remarkable how much of the true Church was salvaged. For one thing, they salvaged the Books of the Holy Bible–with only about 10% corruption [Don Stewart and Josh McDowell, in their book, Answers, give a 10% difference in the earliest texts (p. 45).]. God says in D&C 91:1 that even the Apocrypha is most correct. And, of course, God refers to non-LDS Christians as being in a “saved condition” [D&C 132:17]. It is only the creeds that God found abominable–insofar as they spread incorrect doctrines [JS-H 1:19]. No wonder that Joseph Smith said that non-LDS Christians had much truth [HC 5:517]–and Brigham Young confirms it [JD 7:283]!
To those who accuse me of apostasy, I must, like John Maynard Keynes, say, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
UPDATE:
I received a comment from NOYDMB that, in effect, asked why I allowed some people to go off topic. I must state here that I was seriously considering deleting all the highjacking posts, but I had thought that the illustrative value of the comments–as written–carried a greater value. The sheer hate that the “orthodox” have for those they consider “heretical non-Christians,” I thought, was much too good a lesson for Latter-day Saints (and FAIR-minded others!) to miss–at least until the haters violated all bounds of civil conduct.
However, those people did remain within those bounds (though not perfectly), and I thank them for that. Nevertheless, because of space constraints, the time has come to separate that illustration from my original post. The early part of that exchange follows:
Marcus Brody Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I find it entirely appropriate that you compare mormonism to a fairy tale.
Steven Danderson Says:
August 11th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Hello “Marcus”!
You said, “I find it entirely appropriate that you compare mormonism to a fairy tale.”
You are wrong, Sir, on two counts:
1. I was not comparing Mormonism, but ancient Christianity’s decline from its New Testament state, and,
2. It was a nursery rhyme I was comparing it to. The nursery rhyme is an entirely different genre from the fairy tale.
Sincerely,
“Indiana Jones”
(I am a native Hoosier!)
Marcus Brody Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Indy,
Points of correction taken.
Let me then say, “It would be entirely appropriate to compare the Book of Mormon to a fairy tale”.
I believe that is more to the point anyway.
Galatians 1:8
TrevorM Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Marcus I will see your “Book of Mormon fairytale” and raise you: Universal Flood, Noah’s ark, Giants, 7000 year old earth, Samson, Job, Elijah, Daniel, Ananias and Saphira, and biblical inerrency “fairy tales”.
I would go “all in” but I don’t have time to type it all.
Those who live in glass houses ought not to pretend that they don’t use windex…. or throw stones.
P. K. Andersen Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Marcus Brody wrote,
Let me then say, “It would be entirely appropriate to compare the Book of Mormon to a fairy tale”.
However, it would be far more appropriate to compare the Book of Mormon to the Bible.
But perhaps you have read some fairy tales that I have missed. Which fairy tales do you find most resemble the tone, style, or message of the Book of Mormon?
Steven Danderson Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Marcus Brody” says:
**Indy,
Points of correction taken.
Let me then say, “It would be entirely appropriate to compare the Book of Mormon to a fairy tale”.
I believe that is more to the point anyway.
Galatians 1:8**
Indy replies:
In what way would it be appropriate? Are you arguing that the Book of Mormon is an “other gospel” [implied by your cite of Galatians 1:8, and, presumably, verse 9], and thus, is untrue?
Is it another gospel to say, as the title page of the Book of Mormon, that “JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD”?
Is it another Gospel to say that “there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ” (Book of Mormon, Helaman 5:9)?
Inquiring minds want to know! 
Thanks Trevor and PK, for your comments.
“Your prophets have made it clear that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament. And, “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over”, right?”
Kent,
August 13th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Marcus Brody wrote:
It’s not like any fairy tale I’ve read, but the creative process is the same.
In other words, comparing the Book of Mormon to a fairy tale is not “entirely appropriate.” The Book of Mormon does not resemble a fairy tale in tone, style, or content.
I am sure that those are very interesting questions (especially to a botanist or archeologist), but they miss the point entirely. My belief in the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with ruins, wheat or barley. I believe in the Book of Mormon for the same reason I believe in the Bible: I have studied both, made up my mind, and asked God for confirmation.
If you REALLY want to compare the BoM to the Bible we can, but I suspect you won’t be happy with what we find. We really don’t need to do it, for here is a very nicely done video that does it for us.
I have been comparing the Bible and the Book of Mormon for years, not by watching some video, but by actually studying the books themselves. I recommend the same approach to you.
Marcus Brody Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Indy,
Your “Book” calls itself “another testament of Jesus Christ”. Right? Testament means covenant. A covenant is an agreement or contract between two or more entities. If the BoM is another testament/covenant/contract/agreement of Jesus Christ, it would certainly follow suit that it meets the criteria of being another gospel…from an angel.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.) [Galatians 1:8-9 LDS website edition]
Your prophets have made it clear that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament. And, “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over”, right?
If the Prophet did not “make up” his story and and angel from heaven indeed gave it to him, then there’s a problem somewhere either in his story or the one that the angel gave him, for it is a different gospel than the one presented in the Bible.
So, it would be entirely appropriate to compare the BoM to a fairy tale, because somewhere, somebody made up the story; it didn’t come from God.
PK,
It’s not like any fairy tale I’ve read, but the creative process is the same. To be clear here, I’m calling it a work of fiction. Where are all ruins of all the Lamanite cities in the Americas? Why are wheat and barley listed among the plants found in America when they were brought here by Europeans? (These are serious questions you need to ask yourself) If you REALLY want to compare the BoM to the Bible we can, but I suspect you won’t be happy with what we find. We really don’t need to do it, for here is a very nicely done video that does it for us.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I appreciate your research on this. As a Protestant investigating the claims of the LDS Church in a serious manner, I am warmed to find that my own personal testimony of Christ is not negated as much as I thought it would be if I became a Latter Day Saint. You are quite correct though- the Roman Catholic Church was simply a reaction to the times and “needs must”. Much of the preservation of the NT was completed in and through the Catholic Church, so we all have much to be thankful for.
I must take issue however with making a 10% “corruption” equivalent to a 10% “difference”. Josh McDowell is a very clever person- schooled in archaeology and apologetics. If he had meant “corruption” he would have clearly said so- unless you can prove to me that this is indeed what he said. I am very open to being corrected. It’s just that in the 20 years I have been a Christian I have never read McDowell saying anything of the sort. What you *do* get are “variations” in that one ancient text will say something quite different to the other, though the context often leads to the same outcome. These are at times individual words, phrases, sometimes sentences and rarely entire books or passages (if ever).
That’s a world of difference between “corruptions” and “differences” there!
As an outsider looking in- and I understand that your Scriptures state that there are corruptions in the Bible so you have to admit to this from the outset- you *don’t need* corruptions in the Bible to make your position tenable. I hadn’t even imagined such corruptions and I am finding the evidence outstanding in favor of your position.
Anyway, I appreciated your entry and thanks for the opportunity to learn and contribute to the discussion!
Paul
August 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I appreciate your article Steven, and your simple and clear analogy. It rings very true that we should follow Paul’s admonition to “seek after”, express gratitude for and embrace all that is good in all things and in all people and in all churches. Often when we think of the Great Apostacy and/or *Dark* Ages, it is easy to imagine that the heavens were closed completely, however this cannot be, as you and others before have presented. And might I add that I am personally thankful for the inspiration Martin Luther received, and for his huge contribution to the preservation and expansion of musical liturgy. Indeed, throughout all of those centuries one of the greatest *pieces* of revelation [in my view] which remained and sustained was the music. Where would we be without all of that glorious, uplifting and divine music passed down to us which brings us ever closer to our Creator. Yes, as you have stated the authority was absoluely lost, along with many necessary *pieces* irretrievable without divine restoration, however it was the crucial pieces which remained - such as the Bible, hymns, prayer, personal revelation - which prepared Joseph Smith for his calling, and the early saints for conversion. Each of these things continue to be important preparatory gifts from the Lord for those who embrace the Restoration. Our own President Hinckley was keenly aware of the importance of this concept: “We invite all to come, and bring all of the good that you already have, and then we will add more to it”.
I also enjoyed very much reading Paul’s fresh perspective and contribution, which stands as a second witness of these truths.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I wonder if it is helpful to talk about a “Great Apostasy” when we will never know the details. Perhaps we are better served by simply describing the history of the early church as best as it can be recovered.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Rather than being the Great Apostasy, I now regard the Roman Catholic and other non-LDS Christian Churches as pious humans’ valiant attempts to salvage true Christianity from the Great Apostasy; attempts that were, for the most part, successful–significantly more successful than I had previously thought.
Even though I disagree with you altogether concerning there having ever been a Great Apostasy it is interesting to hear this perspective. Where Talmage’s view presents a closed and hardened face, yours seems to present a more open and understanding point of view.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
While I have long ago embraced the idea that traditional Christianity is owed a great debt of gratitude for carrying the torch so long, neither am I convinced that Talmage’s view is incorrect either.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Steven, you’d probably be interested in recent conversations at T&S on the same subject in these posts: “Apostasy is Back on the Bookshelf” and “Apostasy and the Dark Ages.” It’s my imprerssion that senior LDS leaders have really softened their tone on this subject over the last generation (although not, of course, abandoning any claims to exclusive priesthood authority).
August 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
“It’s just that in the 20 years I have been a Christian I have never read McDowell saying anything of the sort. What you *do* get are “variations” in that one ancient text will say something quite different to the other, though the context often leads to the same outcome. These are at times individual words, phrases, sometimes sentences and rarely entire books or passages (if ever).
That’s a world of difference between “corruptions” and “differences” there!”
-I would like to address this point quickly.
The 10% corruption can have no meaning to differences as those you described above. Reason for this is that because the early manuscripts have as much variations and differences than the new testament has words, so the differences you mentioned would soar in this case to ove 100% closely to even 200% accordiong to scholars, that’s how many “differences” there are that don’t change the actual meaning of what was said.
Knowing this, we can be sure that the 10% meant actual corruption of the text instead of differences and variations in the manuscripts.
Just thought to clarify this issue a bit.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“Rather than being the Great Apostasy, I now regard the Roman Catholic and other non-LDS Christian Churches as pious humans’ valiant attempts to salvage true Christianity from the Great Apostasy; attempts that were, for the most part, successful–significantly more successful than I had previously thought.”
Amen, Brother.
I believe that one of Satan’s greatest tools is for us, as LDS people to believe “we” have the only Truth. We don’t.
All spiritual truths are a stairway to the highest truths and each one of us has our own path to get there. Jesus Christ leads us to Him.
In the end, ALL knees shall bow. How they get there is the Lord’s buisness, not ours.
He brings all His sheep to where they need to be, gathering the experiences they need to get there. We need to make sure we stay out of His way as He calls them.
We also need to stay out of our own way as He tries to lead us.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
These might be useful articles on this subject.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4654#more-4654
August 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
But no LDS today is really serious about restoring what they think to be biblical corruption?
It puzzles me.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Hi Paul!
Thanks for the good wishes!
You said, **As a Protestant investigating the claims of the LDS Church in a serious manner, I am warmed to find that my own personal testimony of Christ is not negated as much as I thought it would be if I became a Latter Day Saint.**
I would image that your testimony of Christ would be negated not at all!
Unlike other Churches that last heard from God at the end of the first century AD (and thus, find it hard to rebut Nietsche’s boast that God is dead), here is a Church that testifies that Jesus Christ is around directing us on what to do–in the twenty-first century!
As a former Protestant, I can telly you that, since joining the Church, I have received new and exciting evidences that Jesus Christ is Lord–and He lives!
You said, **I must take issue however with making a 10% “corruption” equivalent to a 10% “difference”….**
**That’s a world of difference between “corruptions” and “differences” there!**
You’re right, of course, but I’d like to show you why I think that they make good proxies for each other:
Let’s assume that there are only two major complete earliest documents (For all intents and purposes, that is the case.), with one being either the original or the true copy. In this case, the 10% difference means that the non-true copy is corrupted by 10% from the original.
However, it is probable that neither of the earliest texts are true copies. In this case, the differences in the copies would mean that, in some cases, copy A would agree with the original, and, in other cases, copy B would agree, and, in still others, both copies are wrong. This implies, as you point out, that each copy is somewhat less than 10% wrong.
But wait. Since there is probably an original that differs somewhat from the other two, we have neglected an unknown number of instances where both texts agree with each other, but disagree with the original. In short, both copies are wrong, together. This makes, as members of the Jesus Seminar point out, that 10% figure an estimate, albeit a conservative one.
I’m not willing to go as far as the Jesus Seminar, however!
You also correctly point out that many, if not most, of those differences are just alternate ways of saying the same thing. Obviously, this mitigates the aggravating factors I described, above.
Moreover, additional support comes from Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Bible, which has similar differences.
All of this confirms in my mind that the 10% figure is nearly the correct amount.
Do I make sense?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Hi Thomas!
You said, “Even though I disagree with you altogether concerning there having ever been a Great Apostasy it is interesting to hear this perspective. Where Talmage’s view presents a closed and hardened face, yours seems to present a more open and understanding point of view.”
Dr. Talmage was educated at a Wesleyan college at a time that still smarted from three centuries of acrimony between Reformation and Counter-Reformation. This may have coloured his views, somewhat.
Elder Talmage had a reputation of altering his views when new data makes the old ones untenable. I believe that, had he known what most LDS know now, he wouldn’t have been so sharp.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Seth says: “While I have long ago embraced the idea that traditional Christianity is owed a great debt of gratitude for carrying the torch so long, neither am I convinced that Talmage’s view is incorrect either.”
I’m not saying that Elder Talmage was wrong, either. He did his homework, and I am convinced (long before I joined the Church!) that there was a Great Apostasy. His tone, however (perhaps influenced by his education), implies conclusions that I’m not willing to draw.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Juliann says: “I wonder if it is helpful to talk about a “Great Apostasy” when we will never know the details. Perhaps we are better served by simply describing the history of the early church as best as it can be recovered.”
The problem is, we know as little about the early Church as we do the Great Apostasy.
Further, when people see differences between the ancient and modern Church, I’m sure they will want to know how and why.
Correctly diagnosing the malady is the first step toward taking the right cure!
August 11th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Hi Susanne, Dave, and James!
I think periodic reassessment of our position from time to time is a good thing. That way, we are unburdened by untrue data, and we can avoid being too strident or arrogant.
As a former Evangelical, I am too familiar with the extremist “witness” who says to his target, “Did you hear the Good News? You’re going to be damned to hell!”
Somehow, I don’t think the target wants to hear any MORE news!
Fortunately, such are in the minority!
August 11th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Hi Todd!
You say, “But no LDS today is really serious about restoring what they think to be biblical corruption?
“It puzzles me.”
Actually, Joseph Smith was working on a “translation” of the Bible when he was assassinated. See Robert Matthews book, A Plainer Translation, for further details.
Since his work wasn’t quite finished, we don’t use it as our primary edition of the Bible. Unfortunately, nobody else has had that mantle since, and, without it, smart people won’t even try.
Do I make sense?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Hi Soprano!
It is sad that too many view the fact that we are in the only true Church to mean that all others are completely false.
Obviously, that does not follow, and it leads to a denial of others’ good faith and humanity.
That, in my view, is insufferably arrogant.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Jarko:
You make some good points. I address them briefly in my comments to Paul.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Steve - I have had this question for awhile now, so I think this would be a good time to ask it.
Why do we make allowances for mistakes of Joseph Smith, BY and others that we say did not diminish the truthfulness of our church, and yet the mistakes of the early church leaders somehow cannot be over looked? It would seem reasonable to me, if we make such allowances for us, then it would not be wrong to allow the same forgiveness/allowance for the early church leaders?
I guess I am asking, why did God not correct the old church instead of starting a new one? I am not trying to start an argument, just curious.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am
[...] FAIR blog had up an interesting discussion on reevaluating the apostasy. [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
CEF asks, “I guess I am asking, why did God not correct the old church instead of starting a new one? I am not trying to start an argument, just curious.”
I don’t view it as an argument. I really think that is a good question–one that requires a good answer!
Certainly, if God is capable of resurrecting a dead Lazarus [See John 11:], He can revive a moribund Church.
I posit two reasons that might explain why God established His Church anew, rather than simply restoring it to its earlier state.
1. There comes a point where the Church just stops being the Church, and becomes something else entirely. I think that, if, say, Pope Benedict were to align the Church with ancient Christianity, Catholics could not help noticing the radical changes done by his predecessors. From their view, the radical change back would make *him* look the heretic, or the massive reversion would expose many of his predecessors as heretics; the latter would undermine his authority to make the changes, since he is supposed to be the successor to those heretics. I guess I’m saying that if Pope Benedict XVI were to radically revert Catholicism to Christianity, he would undermine his own authority.
Further, the “Reformation” is merely a human attempt by the Reformers to restore the ancient Church anew. As I mentioned in the main entry, it was a valiant attempt, but it was an impossible task without God doing it.
2. More likely, I think, is that it was a fulfillment of Saint John the Baptist’s prophecy, “that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” [Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8]. Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims of Joseph Smith’s era (and NOW!) were quite arrogant in their superiority complex to others.
Of course, as Dennis Miller says, it’s just my opinion, and I could be wrong!
August 12th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Marcus Brody” says:
**Indy,
Points of correction taken.
Let me then say, “It would be entirely appropriate to compare the Book of Mormon to a fairy tale”.
I believe that is more to the point anyway.
Galatians 1:8**
Indy replies:
In what way would it be appropriate? Are you arguing that the Book of Mormon is an “other gospel” [implied by your cite of Galatians 1:8, and, presumably, verse 9], and thus, is untrue?
Is it another gospel to say, as the title page of the Book of Mormon, that “JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD”?
Is it another Gospel to say that “there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ” (Book of Mormon, Helaman 5:9)?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks Trevor and PK, for your comments!
August 13th, 2008 at 9:14 am
CEF asks, “I guess I am asking, why did God not correct the old church instead of starting a new one? I am not trying to start an argument, just curious.”
Good question. It would be like what Alma the Elder did in the Book of Mormon. The church was already there, it was just reorganized.
IMO, the apostasy occured long before any of the existing churches were founded. So which one does God pick to “correct”? And if he picks one, does that by implication validate the actions/policies/doctrine of that church prior to the “correction”? It is kind of like the parable of putting new wine in old bottles. Matt 9:17
August 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
BruceC Says:
**IMO, the apostasy occured long before any of the existing churches were founded. So which one does God pick to “correct”? And if he picks one, does that by implication validate the actions/policies/doctrine of that church prior to the “correction”? It is kind of like the parable of putting new wine in old bottles. Matt 9:17**
Good point! I had forgotten about that text. :-[
August 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“Marcus” says:
**Your “Book” calls itself “another testament of Jesus Christ”. Right? **
Right.
**Testament means covenant.**
That is one meaning. There are others.
**A covenant is an agreement or contract between two or more entities. If the BoM is another testament/covenant/contract/agreement of Jesus Christ, it would certainly follow suit that it meets the criteria of being another gospel…from an angel.**
You assuming too much, and your conclusion does not follow from the facts you present. While there may be more than one “contract” based on the Gospel, or “Good News,” that fact does not mean that the “Good News” has changed–or that there is another Gospel.
**Your prophets have made it clear that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament. And, “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over”, right?**
As Kent pointed out, you are wrong on both counts.
**If the Prophet did not “make up” his story and and angel from heaven indeed gave it to him, then there’s a problem somewhere either in his story or the one that the angel gave him, for it is a different gospel than the one presented in the Bible.**
You’re assuming facts not in evidence.
**So, it would be entirely appropriate to compare the BoM to a fairy tale, because somewhere, somebody made up the story; it didn’t come from God.**
That is something for you to prove; not for us to accept without question.
Do they not teach elementary logic where you went to school?
August 14th, 2008 at 6:54 am
I hate to break in on the epic battle between Indy and Marcus, but I wanted to offer my interpretation of the ancient vs modern church discussion.
Since we have many, many examples of things in the real world that relate to the Savior, His death, and His resurrection, then I think it would be appropriate to compare the church in that manner, as well.
The ancient church had to die, only to be resurrected, never to be taken away again.
Just my thoughts…
– Dr. Henry Jones, Sr.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Actually Marcus, pre-Columbian barley has been discovered by archaeologists - in Arizona I believe. So the plant was in the Americas prior to European introduction.
So, are you willing to retract your “fairy tale” comment?
Of course you aren’t.
BECAUSE IT’S UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. Nobody bases their faith on silly factoids. You don’t, I don’t. So why are you wasting our time with this rubbish?
August 14th, 2008 at 7:05 am
“Kent,
Why do you say that neither statement is correct?”
Because that’s the truth.
On the first statement: Our leaders have consistently taught that the Jesus we worship is the Jesus of the New Testament. The statement that they “…have made it clear that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament” is false on its face.
This makes your second statement moot. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that it is also incorrect. While it is true that some Church leaders have suggested that “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over,” the fact that I disagree, and remain in full fellowship in the Church, is an existence proof that this statement is false, is it not?
But, beyond that, Joseph Smith consistently taught that every member was entitled to his own testimony, by the Holy Ghost, of anything Joesph Smith preached. His statements were not to be taken on his authority alone.
Furthermore, the Doctrine and Covenant’s standard for something to be canonical is that it be formally promulgated by all the members of the First Presidency, not just the President. So, for your first claim to have any validity, you would have to show me a formal statement by the united First Presidency stating that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament. I think you’ll search in vain for such a statement.
On the contrary, this document:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=735b862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____
*is* a formal statement by the united First Presidency *and* the Quorum of the Twelve that starts with the statements:
“As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.
He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New….”
The language of the final statement is poetic, but the meaning is clear: The Jesus of Mormonism *is* the Jesus of the New Testament.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Ryan Says:
I hate to break in on the epic battle between Indy and Marcus, but I wanted to offer my interpretation of the ancient vs modern church discussion.
Since we have many, many examples of things in the real world that relate to the Savior, His death, and His resurrection, then I think it would be appropriate to compare the church in that manner, as well.
The ancient church had to die, only to be resurrected, never to be taken away again.
Just my thoughts…
– Dr. Henry Jones, Sr.
———————————————————–
Those are GOOD thoughts, “Dad”!
Unlike the revival of Lazarus, where Lazarus died again, the Church stays alive.
All we need now is “Sallah.”
–Indy
August 14th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Kent,
I care to disagree:
The LDS Church News reported: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times’” (June 20, 1998, ).
And, as to the second point being moot, I humbly submit this quote:
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”
LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78
PK, Let me try to make even clearer what I was really trying to say: The Book of Mormon isn’t LIKE a fairy tale: it IS a fairy tale.
My points about not finding the cities named in the BoM and the inaccuracies regarding the flora and fauna DOESN’T miss the point. The point is, Joseph Smith made up the story wrong. If the events in the BoM really took place, (that is, if is really a true story) then there would be archeological evidence to support it. Sadly, in the only officially recognized “archeological” site by the LDS, (The Hill of Cumorah) the Church knows there is nothing there so they won’t even allow research of the site.
If you truly have studied the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you would also realize that you can actually visit many of the sites listed in the Bible. If you want to book a flight to Jerusalem or go see Nain or Bethlehem, you can do that. If you want to see the ruins of Zarahemla, or the City of Bountiful, well, you’ll have to do it like Joseph Smith did; in his imagination.
Steve,
First of all, the ad hominem attack was uncalled for.
Evidence? My goodness, man! That’s what I’m asking for! Where is the evidence that anything in your Book of Mormon took place? Evidence? Tell me how your prophet was able to pick up the golden plates and run with them under his coat. They weighed at least 100 lbs, probably more! Even FARMS explanation of this has been ignored by most Mormons. Me provide the evidence? Is that how Mormons are taught to answer critics?
Seth, it is very “convenient” that it was LDS “researchers” that discovered this barley. Even if this was true, look at how much of the Book is clearly made up.
Rubbish? Wasting your time? I’m sorry you feel this way.
Mormon readers: I realize that I am “in your house”. It is obvious I am not welcome. You must understand how your religion looks to non-Mormons. Your scriptures are from, at best, dubious sources. If Joseph Smith truly did encounter an angel, it wasn’t from Heaven. He has either been deceived, or has perpetrated the most devious hoax in history. Look at the Book of Abraham. He translated a common “letter of the dead” into an entirely made up history of Abraham. Why can you not see that if he was willing to do that, and pass it as genuine and authentic, that he would not also continue to make up his religion?
I realize that many of you have found comfort in your faith. I know that many of you are sincere. Do you remember the story of “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”? Linus was convinced of the existence of the Great Pumpkin. He recruited his friends to go out and wait in the pumpkin patch with him. He was sincere in his beliefs. When it was all said and done, it turned out that he was sincerely wrong. He mistook a fable, story, fairy tale, whatever, as Truth.
Don’t let this happen to you!
August 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Well, I will give you this: you are persistent.
Of course, persistence is not always a good thing. The old saying applies here: When you find yourself stuck in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Your insistence that the Book of Mormon must be a fairy tale raises doubt that you know anything about the fairy tale genre or the Book of Mormon. Frankly, it makes you look foolish.
Your faith in archeological evidence is entirely misplaced. The truthfulness of the Bible is not established by archeology, and never will be. Yes, one can visit Jerusalem and find an ancient city there, but so what? Even the most ardent atheist would not doubt that most of the places mentioned in the Bible actually existed.
But where is the archeological evidence that one Jesus of Nazereth—son of a virgin, worker of mighty miracles, sinless teacher of righteousness—was crucified, arose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven?
(I might add, that archeological support for the Book of Mormon is much stronger than you seem to realize. Another poster to this thread already mentioned that you were wrong about barley being absent from the Americas. As for cities, I would point out that Central America is full of ruined cities, some dating from the Book of Mormon times. My guess is that even if we could establish that a particular ruined city went by the name Zarahemla in ancient times, anti-Mormons would not be satisfied. So I do not bother arguing archeology with them.)
By the way, you never bothered explaining the “creative process” that you believe produced the Book of Mormon. If you had studied the book, as I have, you would have realized that it was beyond the abilities of a young, relatively unschooled person such as Joseph Smith to fabricate such a book. Indeed, I believe it was beyond the abilities of any of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries.
Nor have you bothered to explain why so many people who have studied the Book of Mormon and asked God about it, have received a witness by the Holy Ghost that it is true.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Marcus,
If you truly believe that Joseph Smith “made up” the Book of Mormon (excuse me while I gather my jaw from the floor), then I suggest you attempt an unscientific experiment: Try it yourself.
Chances are, you’re far more educated than Smith, himself, was. You should have a much easier time of it. Just remember, there are a few ground rules you must follow:
Your work of fiction must be several hundred pages in length. It must consist of a secular and spiritual history of a heretofore unknown civilization. It must also be recited from memory as you mimick “translation” from golden plates which witnesses will affirm that you received from an angel of the Lord. Millions must then testify of the truthfulness of your work of fiction, to the point of giving their lives for the “truths” contained therein. You must then willing give your life for the claims you have made.
Can you do it? No?? Come on, Marcus. You’re the curator of a museum of antiquities. A learnEd man.
You might also want to brush up on your history of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith never claimed that it was a direct translation of the papyrii.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Of course, that should have read “be willing” or “willingly”. How about an edit function? Oh, which, incidentally, Joseph Smith did not have the luxury of, either, as he busily “fabricated” the Book of Mormon. After you take a break for food or rest, you must continue your recitation of your memorized tome without having had the last line read back to you.
Good luck, Mr. Brody! I eagerly await your masterpiece.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
As we discuss sources of the apostasy, and the timely conversations occuring elsewhere, it would be well to remind us all of Brother Robinson’s translation of apostasy, how the word contains a connotation of “mutiny”. Those who try to lead and control the church and usurp the proper leadership. One need only read abit from various blogs to see this same process starting to occur amongst ourselves today. Even from those among the fair board (not in this post). You gotta be careful who you trust.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
I understand that you Marcus believe your religion. Maybe you even got “comfort” from it at times.
Do you remember the story of “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”? Linus was convinced of the existence of the Great Pumpkin. Pumpkins exist Marcus. I can take you to a pumpkin patch. But the existence of pumpkin patch doesn’t mean that a dead pumpkin got up and walked around granting wishes or something. It is kinda like Jerusalem in Israel. Sure it’s there. But that doesn’t mean some dead guy got up out of his grave and walked around.
Listen… I know you’re sincere, but you have to understand how your faith looks to those of us on the outside. You believe old fables that assert crazy things that totally disagree with all the evidence in the world. Jesus saw “all the kingdoms of the world” (Matthew 8:4) from the top of a mountain. Impossible. the world isn’t flat, it’s round! Your bible says the sun moved backward in the sky 2 Kings 20:12. Clearly impossible. Your crazy “God” condoned genocide. You need to stop studying fables and be reasonable.
anyway back to my awesome Charlie Brown analogy:
Linus was convinced of the existence of the Great Pumpkin. He recruited his friends to go out and wait in the pumpkin patch with him. He was sincere in his beliefs. When it was all said and done, it turned out that he was sincerely wrong. He mistook a fable, story, fairy tale, whatever, as Truth.
Don’t let this happen to you!
August 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
An ancient defender of the Church started to rationalize that it is OK to use state force against heretics. Augustinus’ reasoning changed the church from being persecuted to being a persecuting church. Holy War was the result, and Islam learnt it from Christianity. Today we still have problems with it. It all began with “defending the church by attacking its opponents”.
Other apologists, for instance Justin Martyr, tried to show that Christianity is supreme philosophy. By doing so, they drove Christianity to Hellenisation.
To be honest, I fear that one major reason for apostasy was the honest but misled work of ancient apologists. We should learn from them and not repeat their mistakes.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Marcus,
“The LDS Church News reported: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times’” (June 20, 1998, ).”
There are two ways to take this. If you believe the traditional Christ (by which I think you mean the Christ of the creeds) is the Christ of the New Testament, then I can see why you might believe Hinckley is saying we don’t believe in the Christ of the New Testament.
I take it the way I believe President Hinckley meant it: The creedal Christ is not the Christ of the New Testament. It is modern revelation that has reacquainted us with the true Christ of the New Testament.
“And, as to the second point being moot, I humbly submit this quote:
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.””
Your original phrase was “When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.” I don’t see that anywhere in this quote. You’re moving the goalposts on us.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
“Marcus Brody”–
See my update.
“Indy”
August 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Indy,
I saw your update. I’m not sulking, nor did I leave in a huff. Nor do I appreciate your patronizing tone. I do have a life outside of the blog-o-sphere, and it was the weekend.
You said in your email to me, “One more thing on this point: We Latter-day Saints are on DEFENCE [sic] with your claim. We need not prove ANYTHING. Any evidence we DO present is out of the goodness of the hearts that the Most High God gave us.”
I realize what I said is highly offensive. Yet, the subtitle of this “FAIR BLOG” is “defending Mormonism”. I hope you ARE on defense, for the claims your religion has made is highly offensive to Christianity and to God. The very topic of this post is “Reevaluating the Great Apostasy”. That is quite a claim. Quite arrogant, in fact. Very offensive to me personally.
My educational background only includes a few undergraduate courses in philosophy, therefore I am not as skilled in the craft of identifying fallacies as you. But then again, Colossians 2:8. And with that, perhaps an ad hominem attack of Joseph Smith is appropriate as well, for your presidents have all said that if what he said didn’t happen, Mormonism didn’t have a leg to stand on. So, I think that any claims he made must be defended.
Regarding the gold plates, on May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled “Hands-on opportunity.” Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, “He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit.” Your church says they were solid. You compared the weight carried by soldiers in the military. Didn’t Joseph tuck them under his arm and run at full-tilt for two miles?
Kent,
Creeds? I don’t remember saying anything about creeds.
Regarding the “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over” statement… moving the goalposts? Really? I got that from your own news source:
http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/68994
I realize that it is hard to keep up with what the LDS church believes, because THEY keep changing the story. Some of the things your prophets have said are absolutely unbelievable: men on the moon, Jesus a polygamist, blacks are excluded, to name a few. I can certainly see why you would want to be able to think for yourself. Then again, you believe them when they say that Jesus is/was once the brother of Lucifer.
Ryan,
Why, if it is from God, does it have so many errors? Why can one not find any evidence that anything in it actually took place in the Americas?
Joseph presented the Book of Abraham as just exactly that. It turns out, that is is simply a very common “letter of the dead”. It wasn’t what he claimed it to be. He was either perpetrating a gigantic cruel deception, or he was deceived himself. There are no other options.
Richard,
Cute.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“Creeds? I don’t remember saying anything about creeds.”
Well don’t pussyfoot with us. Do you believe the Jesus of the creeds is the Jesus of the New Testament, or not?
Because President Hinckley’s point, which I think the rest of us all understood, is that we believe that the Jesus of the creeds is *not* the Jesus of the New Testament; and that it is modern revelation that has restored to us a correct understanding of the Jesus of the New Testament, the living Jesus.
” Regarding the “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over” statement… moving the goalposts? Really? I got that from your own news source:
http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/68994”
Did you notice the disclaimer at the bottom?
“This editorial represents the opinion of The Daily Universe editorial board. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of BYU, its administration or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ”
In other words, it’s the opinion of a bunch of college kids trying to prepare themselves for a career at a real newspaper someday. Not an official pronouncement of the Church.
I am perfectly at liberty to disagree with all or part of it. Happens I agree with most of it, but the use of the “debate is over” quote is one thing I disagree with.
“Some of the things your prophets have said are absolutely unbelievable: men on the moon, Jesus a polygamist, blacks are excluded, to name a few.”
This business of men on the moon is ably addressed at the FAIR wiki.
The idea of Jesus as a polygamist is absolutely unbelievable? Polygamy was a common practice in Hebrew culture. I consider it unlikely, but that’s a personal bias; it’s certainly not “absolutely unbelievable,” even for creedal Christians, if they know something about Hebrew culture.
Blacks not permitted to hold the Priesthood? I found the prohibition distasteful and was glad to see it go, but I note that God prohibited the Priesthood to any but descendants of Aaron in the Old Testament, so it’s hardly “absolutely unbelievable.”
“Then again, you believe them when they say that Jesus is/was once the brother of Lucifer.”
Yes, I do. However, it has not the significance you want to attribute to it.
Consider this: Does not your version of Christianity teach that Satan was once an archangel? That would make him most certainly a brother of Michael the Archangel. Does that fact somehow denigrate Michael the Archangel? Does the fact that God created a being that became pure evil somehow denigrate God?
It is important also to remember that we teach that Jesus’ relationship with the Father is different from the relationship of Satan, or any of us, to the Father. This is reflected in the title, frequently appearing in Mormon scripture, of Jesus as Firstborn. Though we do indeed teach that Satan, Christ, and the rest of us are all children of God — hence, all brethren — our sonship is not equal to Jesus’ Sonship, any more than Satan’s sonship is equal to Jesus’ Sonship.
To state that “Mormons believe Satan and Jesus are brothers,” without any of this additional context, is literally a reductio ad absurdum — stripping so much context that the statement becomes absurd and no longer reflects our understanding. Which, I suppose, makes it a highly convenient straw man.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Marcus if by “cute”, you meaning “ironically damning”, then yes, I agree.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“Marcus Brody” says:
**I saw your update. I’m not sulking, nor did I leave in a huff.**
Good! I’m glad you’re not that childish!
**Nor do I appreciate your patronizing tone.**
Nor do I appreciate your insulting, snarky comments. I suppose that we’re even, no?
**I do have a life outside of the blog-o-sphere, and it was the weekend.**
That was irrelevant. I am aware that we all have lives. It was your statement, “It is obvious I am not welcome,” that struck me as a prelude that you were leaving.
**I realize what I said is highly offensive.**
Then why did you say it? Do you not know that the Saviour said, “woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” [Matthew 18:7; see also Luke 17:1]?
**Yet, the subtitle of this “FAIR BLOG” is “defending Mormonism”. I hope you ARE on defense, for the claims your religion has made is highly offensive to Christianity and to God. The very topic of this post is “Reevaluating the Great Apostasy”. That is quite a claim. Quite arrogant, in fact. Very offensive to me personally.**
Yes, I am extremely aware that our existence is an offence to you!
If you aren’t Catholic, then I don’t see why talk of an apostasy would bother you. I’m sure you would agree that somewhere along the line, the institutional Church strayed from its New Testament mooring. You see, the Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, and others ALL broke off from the Catholics. The only question is WHEN was it apparent? If not, why aren’t you a Catholic?
**My educational background only includes a few undergraduate courses in philosophy, therefore I am not as skilled in the craft of identifying fallacies as you.**
I don’t see why not. The rules are simple enough, and taught in most college introductory philosophy courses. Did you simply forget them in your antipathy against the LDS?
**But then again, Colossians 2:8.**
I would think that is more relevant to your treatment of the LDS than of anything I’ve said! After all, I’m not trying to spoil your testimony of the Saviour!
**And with that, perhaps an ad hominem attack of Joseph Smith is appropriate as well….**
Didn’t you read the definition I provided for you? I remind you, Sir, that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. That is more like the “vain deceit” Paul warned about in the text you so kindly provided.
**Regarding the gold plates, on May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled “Hands-on opportunity.” Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, “He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit.” Your church says they were solid.**
Uh, no. Some reporter in a Church-owned newspaper said they were solid. I am no more bound by this than you are by what is written in a periodical published by your Church.
**You compared the weight carried by soldiers in the military. Didn’t Joseph tuck them under his arm and run at full-tilt for two miles?**
Ignoring your insulting tone, probably not. I imagine that he carried them in the most comfortable and secure way he could. And I doubt that Joseph Smith sprinted the full two miles. But then, I don’t think it necessary, because I doubt that his persuers could, either.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
This “tit for tat” thing is getting ridiculous.
Kent, I don’t read creeds, so I can’t say. I do not hold to a creed. I will definitely say, however, I believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, but not the one of the Book of Mormon.
Why would Lucifer being an archangel make him a brother to Micheal or any other angel. They are created beings. They are not sons of God, no matter what you think. They are simply created beings. No souls = can’t be saved. Jesus didn’t die for them, only for the souls of men.
Richard, no, I was referring to your style of trying to make a point. Ironically damning? Not a chance. (at least to me)
Steve, you missed my point. You said that you didn’t have to defend anything you said. I pointed out that the subtitle of your blog was “defending Mormonism”. So…
Your use of Matt 18:7 (and Luke 17:1)was interesting to say the least, but out of context. It was in reference to people trying to keep children out of the kingdom of God. Please read the verses around it and stop proof-texting.
Great apostasy? Yes, and Joseph Smith was/is a great contributor towards it, not against it. He was a liar. He was not a true prophet of God. A true prophet speaks for God and what he says comes to pass. Exactly what was his track record? No better than a tarot card reader or Jeanne Dixon. Perhaps, not even as good! It has to be ALL, not just a couple. Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God didn’t get it right? Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God presented a common letter of the dead as a history of Abraham? Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God also claimed to be able to read Egyptian, then it was proven that he couldn’t? Doesn’t it then, make you wonder, that if this man who claimed to speak for God, who got so many other things wrong, that he might, he just might, be wrong about the rest, too?
Mormons, when cornered, always fall back on the “I prayed and asked God”. Well, the same could be said for Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and snake handlers. The same is definitely true for me. I prayed about the Book of Mormon when I was searching for God and the truth (after I read it), and I got nothing but silence. I prayed about the Catholic church when I was searching for God and the truth and got nothing but silence. I prayed about the Bible when I was searching for God and the truth, and God answered.
Apostasy? No doubt one has occured. Mormonism restoring the Gospel? Not a chance in Heaven or in Hell. Jesus of Mormonism existing? Only in the imagination of Joseph and his followers.
I’m not trying to spoil your testimony of the Savior as you accused me of. I am trying to help you see that the True Savior is not found in Mormonism. Your savior is a myth. The one true Messiah is not the offspring of a man-cum-god. If you find the true Messiah, then you will indeed have a testimony.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“Marcus Brody” says:
**This “tit for tat” thing is getting ridiculous.**
“Getting”? It’s long since arrived! Please stop it!
When most Christians are called down for rude, unchristian acts, they apologise and adjust their behaviour. Are you going to do this or not?
As you rightly implied before, snarky, self-righteous boors are decidedly unwelcome here!
**Steve, you missed my point.**
And you’ve missed mine, Sir. Are you going to follow the common rules of the logical Christian house, or not?
**You said that you didn’t have to defend anything you said. I pointed out that the subtitle of your blog was “defending Mormonism”. So…**
No, I said that I didn’t have to PROVE anything. They are not the same thing. Please read more carefully.
**Your use of Matt 18:7 (and Luke 17:1)was interesting to say the least, but out of context. It was in reference to people trying to keep children out of the kingdom of God. Please read the verses around it and stop proof-texting.**
I’m not proof-texting any more than you are. Or do you insist on denying me rights that you assert?
**Great apostasy? Yes, and Joseph Smith was/is a great contributor towards it, not against it.**
FINALLY, you address the issue! Now, Where’s your proof?
**Exactly what was his track record? No better than a tarot card reader or Jeanne Dixon. Perhaps, not even as good! It has to be ALL, not just a couple. Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God didn’t get it right?**
You couldn’t give a few examples, could you? Since you’re playing the role of Satan the Accuser, you should know that in legal circles, you’re “assuming facts not in evidence.”
August 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“Marcus Brody” says:
**Mormons, when cornered, always fall back on the “I prayed and asked God”. Well, the same could be said for Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and snake handlers. The same is definitely true for me. I prayed about the Book of Mormon when I was searching for God and the truth (after I read it), and I got nothing but silence.**
And, assuming the Book of Mormon was true, exactly what were you planning to do with that truth once you got it?
Do you think God is in the habit of giving people faith and truth that they cannot and will not back up with works?
**I prayed about the Catholic church when I was searching for God and the truth and got nothing but silence.**
Good for you–and for the Catholics! I suspect that the Catholics have quite enough embarassment!
**I prayed about the Bible when I was searching for God and the truth, and God answered.**
Great! Now all you need to do is to live it!
There remains one question, though: WHICH Bible?
**Apostasy? No doubt one has occured.**
Agreed, though we disagree on its nature.
**Mormonism restoring the Gospel? Not a chance in Heaven or in Hell. Jesus of Mormonism existing? Only in the imagination of Joseph and his followers.**
That is something for you to prove, and not just assert. You are forbidden to convert this forum into a kangaroo court, with you as judge!
**I’m not trying to spoil your testimony of the Savior as you accused me of. I am trying to help you see that the True Savior is not found in Mormonism. Your savior is a myth. The one true Messiah is not the offspring of a man-cum-god. If you find the true Messiah, then you will indeed have a testimony.**
Your attempts at mind-reading are singularly unsuccessful–and highly annoying. Please stop it!
For your information, I first met the Saviour while worshipping with the Baptists. I’ve also notised Him around the Catholics and other Christians, as well. Yes, Sir, those other Christians include the Latter-day Saints!
Or you could simply ignore everything I said, and go back to reestablishing your kangaroo court. And I will immediately quash it.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
NOYDMB says:
**As we discuss sources of the apostasy, and the timely conversations occuring elsewhere, it would be well to remind us all of Brother Robinson’s translation of apostasy, how the word contains a connotation of “mutiny”. Those who try to lead and control the church and usurp the proper leadership. One need only read abit from various blogs to see this same process starting to occur amongst ourselves today. Even from those among the fair board (not in this post). You gotta be careful who you trust.**
I think you and Rene’ are quite right on this. Much of the Great Apostasy seems to come from those who try to “steady the ark.” Perhaps the remainder comes from those in charge who made too many compromises in an attempt to keep the Church alive.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:34 am
“**Great apostasy? Yes, and Joseph Smith was/is a great contributor towards it, not against it.**
FINALLY, you address the issue! Now, Where’s your proof?”
The Book of Abraham.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
“You couldn’t give a few examples, could you? Since you’re playing the role of Satan the Accuser, you should know that in legal circles, you’re “assuming facts not in evidence.””
OK,
1. Jesus didn’t return in 1891. HC 2:182
2. Mormons didn’t find a great treasure in Salem, MA, to pay their debts. D&C 111, HC 2:465-466
All that is needed is one example to make a false prophet. I gave you two.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Steven Danderson asks:
“Where’s your proof?”
“Marcus Brody” answers:
“The Book of Abraham.”
Steven Danderson responds:
Don’t be a wiseacre. You’ve drained our reservoir of good will.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
“Marcus Brody” attempts to “prove” Mormonism false:
“Jesus didn’t return in 1891. HC 2:182″
Who are you trying to kid? If you’d read D&C 130:15-17, which is appended to it, you’d see that he is saying that “the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:17).
And you damn ME for allegedly taking things out of context!
“Brody” continues: “Mormons didn’t find a great treasure in Salem, MA, to pay their debts. D&C 111, HC 2:465-466″
Yet Joseph Smith raised enough funds there to pay for the Kirtland Temple and erase his debts. Is that not treassure enough?
Here is a question for you: Do you believe that the Old Testament Prophet Jonah is a true Prophet of God?
As I said in the previous comment, you have drained our reservoir of good will. You will please answer my question about Jonah before we proceed further.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Ah, the typical Mormon response, “What about Jonah?” It looks like you are trying to bait me.
To answer your question, yes, I believe that the Old Testament Prophet Jonah is a true Prophet of God.
Here’s why:
God sent Jonah to the Ninevites. Jonah disobeyed and had the fish experience. He repented and did what God asked him to do. The Ninevites responded to God’s proclamation, repented of their evil ways, and according the the promise in Jeremiah 18:8, God did what He said: “If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Although God fully intended to inflict destruction upon the city of Nineveh, He relented based upon their God-fearing response. Jonah 3:10 says, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”
Jonah himself understood that there was a possibility the destruction of Nineveh might not come to pass when he told God, “I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil” (Jonah 4:2).
And since Mormons are so fond of ‘word play’, let’s take a look at what Jonah actually said. “And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Jonah 3:4 Overthrown is the word we’re looking at. It didn’t say ‘destroyed’. Is said “overthrown”. The ruler of that city had been the prince of darkness. After the city repented, God became it’s ruler. So, indeed, Nineveh was overthrown, inasmuch as it abandoned one ruler (Satan) for another (God).
The problem with equating Joseph with Jonah is that many of Smith’s prophecies did not come to pass even after all the proper conditions were met.
….
Now then, you said I have “drained [y]our reservoir of good will”. Might I point out that you are the one who has used the following terms to describe me:
“making rude, un-Christian acts”
“snarky, self-righteous boor” (I found that one particularly clever)
“playing the role of Satan the Accuser”
You insinuated that it is good I chose not to become Catholic, because “the Catholics have quite enough embarassment [sic]!”
After I said that I found God after reading the Bible, you said, “Great! Now all you need to do is to live it!” Then, you went on to question “which” Bible I might have used. (FYI, it was the KJV)
Exactly what “good will” were you referring to? The ability for me to comment, question, criticize the doctrine and beliefs of your religion on a public blog? If that is the case, you might as well change the subtitle of your blog to: “Defending Mormonism - as long as we don’t have to prove anything or put up with snarky comments”
If I have attacked you personally, then I apologize. I do not apologize for attacking your religion nor for the comments I have made about your lying prophet, your false scripture, or your imaginary Jesus.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“I do not apologize for attacking your religion nor for the comments I have made about your lying, [murdering], prophet[s], your false scripture, or your imaginary ["resurrected"] Jesus.”
My thoughts exactly Marcus, my thoughts exactly. Everything you say to them, I say to you!
Keep the irony coming! I can do this all week!
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Marcus, it really doesn’t matter that God is merciful, or that God later puts in a caveat in a completely separate book of the Old Testament.
You don’t have to convince any of the Mormons here that God is a nice guy. We already agree. And none of us thinks it was somehow inappropriate for God to spare Ninevah.
But all that doesn’t take away the bare fact that God gave Jonah a pretty explicit prophesy, and it didn’t happen.
God did not say: “say unto the people of Ninevah that they shall be destroyed UNLESS they repent.”
No, he said: “tell them they will be destroyed.” Period. No caveats, no provisos, straightforward. God said they’d be destroyed through His prophet. And it didn’t happen.
The end. The fact that God is ultimately a nice guy is utterly irrelevant.
I believe there’s a prophesy in Isaiah where the same thing happens. Maybe not Isaiah… Anyone else here know the exact spot?
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
“Marcus Brody” says:
**Ah, the typical Mormon response, “What about Jonah?”**
Ah, the typical anti-Mormon answer. Is it because you all try to dodge the hypocrisy you show in the standard Christian answer?
**It looks like you are trying to bait me.**
You need your eyes checked.
It was just an honest question to see whether you were consistent or hypocritical in damning people.
**To answer your question, yes, I believe that the Old Testament Prophet Jonah is a true Prophet of God.**
So do I, but I think I’m more consistent than you are.
**God sent Jonah to the Ninevites. Jonah disobeyed and had the fish experience. He repented and did what God asked him to do. The Ninevites responded to God’s proclamation, repented of their evil ways, and according the the promise in Jeremiah 18:8, God did what He said: “If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Although God fully intended to inflict destruction upon the city of Nineveh, He relented based upon their God-fearing response. Jonah 3:10 says, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”**
Your problem, as “Richard Dawkins” implied, and Seth rightly pointed out, “But all that doesn’t take away the bare fact that God gave Jonah a pretty explicit prophesy, and it didn’t happen.
“God did not say: ’say unto the people of Ninevah that they shall be destroyed UNLESS they repent.’
“No, he said: ‘tell them they will be destroyed.’ Period. No caveats, no provisos, straightforward. God said they’d be destroyed through His prophet. And it didn’t happen.”
Why are you SO willing to cut “your own” some slack, but not others?
**The problem with equating Joseph with Jonah is that many of Smith’s prophecies did not come to pass even after all the proper conditions were met.**
But your examples didn’t show that. As an example of your refusal to look at evidence which qualifies or contradicts your thesis, Joseph Smith provided two qualifications: “I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time (Doctrine and Covenants 130:17),” which did come to pass, and several reasons why he THOUGHT Jesus would come in 1890 or 1891 (HC 5:336, et seq.), which did not. You are obviously willing to cut Jonah slack, even when his prophecy is cut-and-dried, but you refuse to extend the same courtesy to Joseph Smith, whose prophecy you cited was anything but. Where I come from, that is called, “hypocrisy.”
**Might I point out that you are the one who has used the following terms to describe me:
“making rude, un-Christian acts”
“snarky, self-righteous boor” (I found that one particularly clever)
“playing the role of Satan the Accuser”
You insinuated that it is good I chose not to become Catholic, because “the Catholics have quite enough embarassment [sic]!”
After I said that I found God after reading the Bible, you said, “Great! Now all you need to do is to live it!”**
I’m sorry. Your comments, in light of Jesus’ command that “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them” (Matthew 7:12), led me to believe that you wanted me to treat you roughly. I apologise for not realising that what you REALLY wanted was to “dish it out” without having to take it! How silly of me!
**Then, you went on to question “which” Bible I might have used. (FYI, it was the KJV)**
That, believe it or not, was an HONEST question. The Bible you use gives me some idea of your religious position.
You DO know that the KJV is not the only Bible–or am I assuming too much?
Thank you for answering, though. That clears things up for me.
**Exactly what “good will” were you referring to? The ability for me to comment, question, criticize the doctrine and beliefs of your religion on a public blog? If that is the case, you might as well change the subtitle of your blog to: “Defending Mormonism - as long as we don’t have to prove anything or put up with snarky comments”**
You are perfectly free to “comment, question, criticize the doctrine and beliefs of your religion on a public blog” as long as you do so by civilised rules. But you didn’t; instead, you chose to insult us with amateur mind-reading and other personal attacks.
You claim to be a Christian; thus, I take you as one, and expect you to act like one. I, too, claim to be a Christian, because I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour–many years before I was baptised a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your snarky claim that I am not one is telling me that you think I am either too stupid to know what I think, too dishonest to tell the truth about that, or both.
Let me restate that I was attacking your actions ONLY. I try to leave such things as mindreading and judgment of one’s relatioship with God to God Himself–as I am totally incompetent to do those things. On the other hand, you appear to think you can do both of me and my fellow LDS, as shown by your comments:
**I do not apologize for attacking your religion nor for the comments I have made about your lying prophet, your false scripture, or your imaginary Jesus.**
As it happens, I first met the Saviour in the First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana. Are you trying to tell me that the Baptists are non-Christians who preach an “imaginary Jesus?”
Or, are you engaging in a personal attack by implying that I am lying when I say that I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour many years prior to my becoming a Latter-day Saint?
If the latter, you impel us to question the sincerity of your statement:
**If I have attacked you personally, then I apologize.**
However, I DO accept your apology, and ask you not to repeat it.
As I said above, you are quite free to question the truth of the Restored Gospel. You are not free, however, to “poison the well,” by attacking our honesty. You have your own blog. Do that in “your own house!”
August 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Seth & Steven,
Thank you for your in depth analysis of my comments.
Seth, would you mind quoting God’s exact words and Jonah’s exact words, for the record? If you don’t want to, I’ll certainly understand. Be sure to cite your source so that everyone can double check. An internet source would be preferable so that I can go to see exactly where you got it and then see for myself.
==
Steven, if you truly accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior back in Indiana, then Praise the Lord! You are indeed saved. However, simply by the fact that you have abandoned the Jesus that you accepted and now embrace the Jesus of Mormonism, gives evidence that there is a problem.
The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. (I just called them long distance to verify that) The Jesus you accepted in Mormonism requires that you do all that you can do, then grace is administered to make up the difference. (2 Nephi 25:23) Your readers have tried to make it very plain to me that (in the eyes of Mormons) the Jesus of non-Mormon churches (creedal churches, as you would say) is not the same Jesus as Mormonism. The “creedal” Jesus (whom you accepted) provides salvation by grace. The “Mormon” Jesus, whom you now proclaim, provides salvation “after all that you can do”. So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
In fact, your prophets have said: “One of the most pernicious doctrines ever advocated by man, is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone,’ which has entered into the hearts of millions since the days of the so-called ‘reformation.’” [Joseph Fielding Smith, page 192 of The Restoration of All Things] and Spencer W. Kimball said “In view of the emphasis thus far made on the importance of good works in returning from sin and establishing a repentant life, it may be well to say a word about the idea of salvation by faith alone. Some people not of our Church like to quote, in support of that concept, the following words of Paul: ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.’ (Eph. 2:8-9.)” Kimball went on to say, “One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation.” [The Miracle of Forgiveness, under the sub-heading "Faith and Works" p. 206] Why would you give up “grace” for “works”? That doesn’t make sense. (I’m not talking about general salvation; I’m talking about individual salvation/exaltation) That doesn’t sound like a “restored gospel”; that sounds like a different gospel.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:17 am
To clarify things a bit. There are two parts to Jonah’s prophesy:
First, there is the part where God tells Jonah what to say in Jonah 1:1 (I’ll use KJV since they’re all basically the same message):
Jonah 1
1Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,
2Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
After this, you have the part where Jonah actually prophesies to the people in Jonah 3:4:
“4And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.”
So, I suppose you can read this as Jonah prophesying incorrectly rather than God. But for purposes of comparison with Joseph Smith, it hardly matters.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Seth,
Thank you for providing the words of each. I actually do appreciate your doing it.
As we all take a look at what it actually says, we see that “overthrown” is the operative word. As I took another look at this portion of Scripture, I realized that “destruction” was an assumption. We all assumed God meant destruction, but Jonah said it would be overthrown.
If you take a look at what actually happened, wouldn’t it then follow to say that the city WAS overthrown? Wasn’t it an evil city and following Jonah’s proclamation, it became a repentant city? Did it, therefore, go from being a city ruled by evil to a city ruled by God? Couldn’t you then say that it was overthrown?
I’m not trying to play word games, but actually look at what the actual words are. Merriam-Webster defines “overthrow” as:
1 : overturn, upset
2 : to cause the downfall of : bring down, defeat
The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon defines it: (Strongs #2015)
I. to turn, overthrow, overturn
1. (Qal)
a. to overturn, overthrow
b. to turn, turn about, turn over, turn around
c. to change, transform
2. (Niphal)
a. to turn oneself, turn, turn back
b. to change oneself
c. to be perverse
d. to be turned, be turned over, be changed, be turned against
e. to be reversed
f. to be overturned, be overthrown
g. to be upturned
3. (Hithpael)
a. to transform oneself
b. to turn this way and that, turn every way
4. (Hophal) to turn on someone
Perhaps God “meant” to destroy it, but the prophesy recorded was “overthrow”. Perhaps everyone understood that they were getting ready to die, but the prophesy proclaimed was “overthrow”. Perhaps Jonah even expected God to destroy Nineveh, but he told them it would be “overthrown”.
I think that what happened met the criteria of the prophesy. So, I agree that you cannot compare Joseph Smith with Jonah; Jonah’s prophesy came true.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Marcus,
You wrote,
I have always read 2 Nephi 25:23 to mean that we are saved by grace in spite of our best efforts.
Even accepting your interpretation—which many Mormons appear to share—a question remains. What is meant by “all we can do”?
In other words, how much grace is necessary to “make up the difference”?
August 26th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Jonah’s prophesy was destruction in 40 days.
Now, what God told him to say may have been different. But what Jonah prophesied - in God’s name - was an unconditional destruction. Period.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:41 am
PK,
That is certainly the question for Mormon theologians. How much grace?
The Mormon religion teaches, (does it not?) that forgiveness comes from repentance and baptism. The repentance spoken of requires you to stop your sin, (p 67, Gospel Fundamentals); abandon that sin, (Spencer W. Kimbal, The Miracle of Forgiveness p. 163); and to overcome sin (ibid. p 210). This sounds like a tall order to me. Are you personally able to do all of this? Is anyone you know able to do this?
The Bible says that ALL of our most righteous acts are as filthy rags (a polite way of saying ‘used tampons’) before the Lord. (Isaiah 64:6) Your personal interpretation is much closer to the truth than what your religion actually teaches.
To require you to “do” anything to gain the Lord’s favor, merit, grace, etc, puts that religion into a works based religion, along with Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism. To do “all you can do” then apply grace is contrary to what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.
The whole point of the Gospel (Good News!) is that while we were struggling under the Law of God, trying to make blood sacrifices and keeping all the commandments, God saw we weren’t able to uphold our part of the testament (covenant). Because He loves us so much and desires a relationship with us, He sent Jesus to die IN OUR PLACE so that He would BECOME the perfect sacrifice to satisfy the requirements of God.
We are to “repent and be baptized” BECAUSE OF or AT the forgiveness of our sins; not IN ORDER TO GAIN. There is a Bible Study tool I like to use called the Analytical-Literal Translation. It reads Acts 2:38 like this: “Then Peter was saying to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, to [or, for; or, because of] [the] forgiveness of sins, and you* will receive the free gift of the Holy Spirit.”
To try to “do” anything to earn God’s favor, merit, or grace, nullifies the “work” of Christ on the cross. His blood atonement on the cross “bought” our forgiveness from God. That is why the Bible says that “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9.
How much grace? It is ALL grace, by the design of God. Anything more is a different gospel.
=
Seth,
That isn’t what the Bible says. That’s not even the words that you copied. Where did you get that?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:20 am
“Marcus Brody” says:
**Steven, if you truly accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior back in Indiana, then Praise the Lord! You are indeed saved. However, simply by the fact that you have abandoned the Jesus that you accepted and now embrace the Jesus of Mormonism, gives evidence that there is a problem.**
There you go again! Did they teach you in your “Ministry to the Cults” classes to assume that anything a “Mormon” says about himself is a lie?
For the record, Sir, not only have I not “abandoned” Jesus Christ, the Latter-day Saints have neither required, recommended, nor even suggested that I do so.
Your attempts at mind-reading are not only singularly unsuccessful, they are highly annoying.
**The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. (I just called them long distance to verify that)**
Did you call long distance, because you thought I would deny that? Your assumption of bad faith is appalling, Sir.
**The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. (I just called them long distance to verify that) The Jesus you accepted in Mormonism requires that you do all that you can do, then grace is administered to make up the difference. (2 Nephi 25:23) Your readers have tried to make it very plain to me that (in the eyes of Mormons) the Jesus of non-Mormon churches (creedal churches, as you would say) is not the same Jesus as Mormonism. The “creedal” Jesus (whom you accepted) provides salvation by grace. The “Mormon” Jesus, whom you now proclaim, provides salvation “after all that you can do”. So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.**
Let me get this straight: You called long distance to verify the doctrines of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, USA, yet you feel that you must tell ME what *I* believe! You cannot even trouble yourself enough to ask me how I understand the Scriptures that I accept, can you, Sir?
Do you think that I am so stupid, or so dishonest (or both!) that I need YOU, whom you deem so God-like, that you can tell ME what *I* believe more accurately than *I* can?
Do you not see the arrogant disconnect, Sir?
For the record, I read II Nephi 25:23 as PK Andersen does: All we can do is insufficient to save us; only the Grace of Jesus Christ can do that.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Marcus Brody says:
**In fact, your prophets have said: “One of the most pernicious doctrines ever advocated by man, is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone,’ which has entered into the hearts of millions since the days of the so-called ‘reformation.’” [Joseph Fielding Smith, page 192 of The Restoration of All Things]**
Indeed. That is because it is not possible for true faith to be alone [See James 2:17; dead faith is not true faith.], any more than it is possible for God to lie [Hebrews 6:18].
**Why would you give up “grace” for “works”? That doesn’t make sense.**
That doesn’t make sense to me, either. And that’s NOT what I did. True faith manifests, or “perfects” itself through works [See James 2:22].
Do you think that doing works means that one has no faith or grace? I don’t. While I agree that it is possible to do works and not have faith (Believe it or not, the phrase “dead works” occurs more often in the Book of Mormon than it does in the Bible!), I would, like the Apostle James, submit that it is impossible to have faith and not do works.
If those with faith do no works, are they any better off than devils, who also believe, but work no righteousness [See James 2:19]?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Marcus,
Thanks for your reply. I would like to comment on a few points that you raise:
A tall order, yes; but it is exactly what God requires of us. We are commanded to be perfect, even as Jesus and the Father are perfect.
Obviously, all that is beyond my ability. That is why I need the grace of God.
Do you not agree that the Bible teaches faith, repentance, baptism, and abandonment of sin?
I have a fairly good idea of what my religion teaches, and I do not see a discrepancy.
I cannot pretend to be an expert in Catholicism, much less Buddhism or Islam. However, my Catholic friends would probably disagree with your description of their faith. They tell me that both faith and good works are the product of God’s grace and are only possible with God’s grace.
Apparently we disagree on the the gospel is “all about.”
The Bible is full of exhortations to action. As James wrote, we must be “doers of the word, and not hearers only.”
When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he could do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him to keep the commandments. When the young man said he had done so from his youth, Jesus said, “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (Luke 18:18-21).
Perhaps my reading of the Bible is too literal, but I see Jesus as telling the rich young ruler to do something to receive eternal life. Jesus said nothing to him about grace; he spoke of obedience and works.
I do not see how any effort on my part could somehow nullify the Atonement. Quite the contrary. The Atonement makes it possible for me to follow Jesus Christ.
Following Jesus requires great effort. As Jesus said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24; see also Mark 10:38.) That is only possible through the grace of God.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Steven,
There is no attempt at mind reading. I am simply restating what the readers of this blog stated: the Mormon Jesus isn’t the same as the “creedal” Jesus. You said you accepted Jesus at the First Baptist Church in Hammond, IN. The Jesus that they believe in is the “creedal” Jesus. If the “creedal” Jesus is imaginary, how can He save you? I want to know how you can resolve that.
I’ve never taken a “Ministry to the Cults” class, but it sounds interesting.
No, I called them to make sure it wasn’t some funky kind of Baptist church. Their website didn’t show any affiliation with any group, so I called them to ask. Your assumptions towards me are equally as appalling. As is your vilifying my every statement.
Your over-use of the word “sir” is interesting, too, but I think you are using it derogatorily. (Am I reading your mind, or will you say that you truly regard me with respect?)
No, I do not think you are stupid. Not at all. Nor do I think you are dishonest. I do, however, think you have been deceived.
I am very glad to know that you think the same as PK regarding II Nephi 25:23. Again I say, that from everything I have read on LDS websites and in your material, that is not what the LDS Church teaches. After all, if you can get saved in a Baptist church, why does the Mormon church bother to exist? Aren’t all non-Mormon Christians apostate?
Your 28 years as a Mormon surely has shown you the differences, right? What part is the restoration? Please tell me what YOU believe.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
PK,
Thanks for your comments and question.
First of all, WOW! I really like how you put those little gray lines to denote my quotes. That is really neat. Much more defined than my “cutting and pasting”! But, here it goes…
PK said, “Do you not agree that the Bible teaches faith, repentance, baptism, and abandonment of sin?”
Yes, I do, but I think it teaches faith comes first, then as a result of faith there will be repentance and baptism. In other words, there is repentance and baptism BECAUSE the forgiveness of sins. Romans 10:9-10 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” There is no talk of repentance or baptism here.
PK said, “However, my Catholic friends would probably disagree with your description of their faith.”
It is possible that some would. My father’s family is all Catholic and this is most assuredly what they believe.
PK said, “Apparently we disagree on [what] the gospel is “all about.” ”
Yes, I think we do.
PK said, “…I see Jesus as telling the rich young ruler to do something to receive eternal life.”
I see it as Jesus reading the man’s heart and exposing it as unwilling to follow Him. I see the man as wanting to prove his righteousness and Jesus called him on it. It was a matter of the heart not a matter of works.
PK said, “The Atonement makes it possible for me to follow Jesus Christ.”
There is no bait here. Would you describe your understanding of the atonement so that I can understand where you are coming from?
August 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Marcus Brody says:
**There is no attempt at mind reading.**
Then why do you persist in telling me what I believe, instead of asking me?
**I am simply restating what the readers of this blog stated: the Mormon Jesus isn’t the same as the “creedal” Jesus.**
There are two senses to the word “different.” One is in the sense that Cleveland, Ohio is a now different city from thirty-years ago, before it was cleaned up; and the second is that Cleveland, Ohio is a different city from Cleveland, Tennessee. Why do you insist that we can only mean the latter sense?
**You said you accepted Jesus at the First Baptist Church in Hammond, IN. The Jesus that they believe in is the “creedal” Jesus. If the “creedal” Jesus is imaginary, how can He save you? I want t