Examining Mormonism in light of Mormonism

[Hoops22]

If there's a third one, it stands to reason there is a first and a second, no?

I don't see where there's a first, second, or third. Just a heaven

Oh well...why not?

"Else why are they baptized for the dead..." etc...

The greek is even plainer in it's meaning by the way...

I'm familiar with the greek. The verse does not command what you think it does.

The Godhead will take me longer than I have right now...

I'd start with the New Testament... :-)

I will get back to that question soon though, I'm not blowing you off :-)

I don't think you are. But an additional point: considering the low view of the bible that lds have, how could you possibly support your case from the bible?

[mpschmitt]

I don't see where there's a first, second, or third. Just a heaven

Yet the text says "third"...

How do you interpret that? (not being snarky here, just genuinely curious)

I'm familiar with the greek. The verse does not command what you think it does.

I am by no means a greek scholar, just handy with a computer (I copied and pasted that from a greek lexicon).

If I'm off base there, I'm open to correction. Please do elaborate... (again, not a hint of snarkiness)

I don't think you are. But an additional point: considering the low view of the bible that lds have, how could you possibly support your case from the bible?

Au Contraire Mon Fraire (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly or if I just insulted you in French. If the latter, it was unintentional)

I love the Bible. It fills my soul with light and truth. I read it daily in addition to LDS scriptures, and hold it in the highest esteem. I came to a love of the Bible through being inspired to explore it by the teachings of the Church. I think you'll find most Latter-day Saints feel the same way and our doctrine supports that view. The Book of Mormon and the Bible go hand in hand (the stick of Eprhaim and the stick of Judah) They complement each other. What gave you the impression that we did not feel that way about it?

By the way, please do take the time to read those scriptures I referenced above if you really want to understand the LDS view of the Godhead. Critics do such a poor job of painting the full picture...

I also added a few other links into the reply above (probably after you read it) that point to ancient evidence for baptism for the dead.

[Hoops22]

MP:

I'm no greek scholar either - so we'll muddle through together. But, before even that, let me offer this:

I think there is little doubt that this baptism was practiced - though we're not really sure who did. But, I think, you have to establish that this practice was the norm - thereby buttressing your position that this is a part of restorative Christianity. I can't see that there is any evidence for that. Additionally, you must also show that this was an apostolic practice/tradition - forcing one to the same conclusion.

I've glass-eyed my way through several of your citations. I'll try to do better when I'm more alert. We shan't wait until I'm smarter - by then we may all be living in "the kingdom" (which, as you know, is not now but at Christ's second coming )

[LeSellers]

Au Contraire Mon Fraire (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly or if I just insulted you in French. If the latter, it was unintentional)

Not too far off. It's "Au contraire, mon fr

[Hoops22]

It's possible for someone to be insulted in your saying this, but he'd have to work at it.

Lehi

He's mormon, isn't he? Consequently, I'm insulted.

[Dr. Fizzy Soda]

There is a very popular Christian apologetics ministry that is very adamant about the principle that one must "examine scripture in light of scripture".

Ironically, this same ministry is decidedly anti-Mormon in it's teachings and supports it's claims against Mormonism by violating it's own stated principle. What I mean by this is that it fails (as many anti-Mormon ministries do) to examine Mormonism in light of Mormonism. Mormonism must be examined and understood in the context of all of it's various interwoven parts. It is a complex tapestry and there is a tremendous depth to it, that ministries (if they may be termed such) like these barely even scratch the surface of acknowledging (if that). To compare one thread of the tapestry against an entirely different tapestry altogether (Nicene Christianity) will not provide the seeker of Truth (with a capital T) with the conclusive data they need to draw the right inferences about Mormon theology. Yet this is precisely where many anti-Mormon groups and writers fall down in their efforts.

I am not suggesting that these ministries need to agree with our theology, but if they are to be sincere in their efforts, they must acknowledge the philosophical and theological depth of Mormonism and attempt to explain it by some other means than divine intervention. One cannot, for instance take a single quote from Brigham Young about Adam out of context (as many anti-Mormon writers do) and then draw a conclusion about what the entirety of Mormon theology has to say on that subject without considering that statement in light of the other things Brigham said on the subject, as well as what other Prophets and Apostles before and since Brigham have said about it. It must also be viewed and measured in light of what the standard scriptural works of the Church have to say on it. Then and only then, does the meaning of these allegedly outlandish statements become clearer to the observer. The doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constitute the most philosophically and theologically complete system of belief that I have encountered (granted, I'm biased, but I have studied many other faiths fairly extensively, so cut me some slack on that statement ). If Joseph Smith was not a prophet then he was a theological genius unlike any I have encountered outside of Canonical Judeo-Christian history.

Another ironic thing about this ministry to which I refer above is that their slogan is "Because Truth Matters". Any who are familiar with the work of genuine scholars and historians like Robert V. Remini, Richard Bushman, and Jan Shipps will find the humor in the fact that this ministry with such a statement about it's commitment to Truth with a capital T seems blithely unaware of such giants in the area of Mormon history, and favors instead folks like Sandra Tanner and Richard Abanes, putting them on a pedestal as paragons of meticulous research and objectivity. This adds a great deal of incredulity to their methods and teachings for me, which is a good thing as I desire that they not have success in their intent to tear at the moorings of my faith. But it also saddens me because of the inaccurate and woefully incomplete picture of my faith that it provides. They pull out threads here and there from this beautiful tapestry that I see as my faith, and shout "Lo! Here! This one is red! How can you possibly have a red thread here! Our manual, which we've ratified a number of times by the votes of erudite biblical scholars, says that red threads only go around the edges! Blasphemy!" Which interjection understandably falls on deaf ears in my case...

I know better...

Thoughts?

_______________

Hi MP,

I hope your week is going well.

I've never been a big fan of what I have seen in the Evangelical movement regarding your religion. I have seen them blame suicides on your Church, teen pregnancy, depression in women, and all sorts of unproveable nonsense.

When I decided to explore the Book of Mormon, I wanted to consult people who were adept (and preferably secular) in the history of America, it's early inhabitants, and archeology. I met a certain man in '2000 who is an authentic scholar and teaches at UC Fullerton. He had the people and resources I was seeking.

The fact is, several reputable archeologists are left quite puzzled when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Many of these people are secular, and from what I could tell, had no discernable axe to grind against the Mormon Church. The evidence just isn't there. There is no evidence to support that Native Americans are actually Israelites. Short of Mormon authors and historians, I don't find any debate out there about this within the historical and archeological communities. They just do not support the claims of the Church, anymore than the claims by some that Africans built the pyramids.

I am very aware of the many, many differences between our faiths. There are so many of them, and scriptural debate can go on for years and nothing changes. I do feel that science, historical record, and archeology are good starting points. I say this with no bias at all; There is not a very strong case to support your Church's claims. Again, I would suggest if one is interested, to seek out secular scholars on this matter. There are tons of them out there. I would Google "archeology" + "early American people" or, "Native American people + origins". There is a ton of stuff out there. You just have to sort through it.

Dr. Fizzy

[mfbukowski]

_______________

Hi MP,

I hope your week is going well.

I've never been a big fan of what I have seen in the Evangelical movement regarding your religion. I have seen them blame suicides on your Church, teen pregnancy, depression in women, and all sorts of unproveable nonsense.

When I decided to explore the Book of Mormon, I wanted to consult people who were adept (and preferably secular) in the history of America, it's early inhabitants, and archeology. I met a certain man in '2000 who is an authentic scholar and teaches at UC Fullerton. He had the people and resources I was seeking.

The fact is, several reputable archeologists are left quite puzzled when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Many of these people are secular, and from what I could tell, had no discernable axe to grind against the Mormon Church. The evidence just isn't there. There is no evidence to support that Native Americans are actually Israelites. Short of Mormon authors and historians, I don't find any debate out there about this within the historical and archeological communities. They just do not support the claims of the Church, anymore than the claims by some that Africans built the pyramids.

I am very aware of the many, many differences between our faiths. There are so many of them, and scriptural debate can go on for years and nothing changes. I do feel that science, historical record, and archeology are good starting points. I say this with no bias at all; There is not a very strong case to support your Church's claims. Again, I would suggest if one is interested, to seek out secular scholars on this matter. There are tons of them out there. I would Google "archeology" + "early American people" or, "Native American people + origins". There is a ton of stuff out there. You just have to sort through it.

Dr. Fizzy

Doc, you seem like a nice guy, but as a criticism to this group, this is kind of like one of us saying to you: "I understand that Catholics believe that the host becomes the body and blood of the savior, yet there is no scientific evidence that this is true." You came here in peace, I thought seeking unity between the faiths, and we returned the feeling, but I have noticed a bit of a polemic change in your posts of late. If you want to ask questions, feel free. If you have come as a Catholic apologist however, that is fine too, but be prepared to get into some serious debates. You can't have it both ways.

The bottom line is that no one here will follow your advice about googling archaeology and the BOM. We have all been through that so many times and been through this argument so many times that it is almost not even worth responding to. If you want to ask for an explanation of BOM archaeology, just ask. But trying to inform us that we are uninformed about this issue is just silly.

[e=mc2]

Hoops: saying of 1 Corinthians 15:29 - baptism for the dead...

I'm familiar with the greek. The verse does not command what you think it does.

I'm also familiar with the Greek, and there is no commandment at all in this verse. Perhaps you didn't spell out what you mean? I dunno, I'm more than likely out of context with your comment. Not trying to start a fight.

[LeSellers]

He's mormon, isn't he? Consequently, I'm insulted.

As there are no "Mormons" (notice the capitalization), he is not. He's a Saint, like those of the biblical Christianity of which you claim to be a part (but which you do not resemble too very much â?? not even taking the name they applied to themselves).

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.

41 And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.

10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

That's just Paul (and Luke). Here are others:

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

All these (and the other 52 instances of "saint" in the New Testament) are from the same Greek word: ἅγιος (hagios), meaning "a most holy thing" or "a saint".

Your choosing to be insulted is a matter between your left and right ears. You'll have to deal with that on your own, perhaps with professional help.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

As there are no "Mormons" (notice the capitalization), he is not.

My cap button is BROKEN. I'll work on it.

He's a Saint,

I don't know him, but if he is, he better try and get them to draft a receiver. They can't stretch the field as it is.

like those of the biblical Christianity of which you claim to be a part (but which you do not resemble too very much â?? not even taking the name they applied to themselves).

Ah, it's all in a name is it? I thought it was about a Savior. Okay, got it.

Your choosing to be insulted is a matter between your left and right ears.

My haircut? Actually, I shave my head.

You'll have to deal with that on your own, perhaps with professional help.

I'm seeing a massage therapist this pm - will that do?

I'm finding it hard to believe that you actually believe I was insulted - nobody is that dry and humorless - even a mORMON

[LeSellers]

I'm finding it hard to believe that you actually believe I was insulted - nobody is that dry and humorless - even a mORMON

Humor is best when very dry. Apparently you need a moisture infusion.

Lehi

[mpschmitt]

The fact is, several reputable archeologists are left quite puzzled when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Many of these people are secular, and from what I could tell, had no discernable axe to grind against the Mormon Church. The evidence just isn't there. There is no evidence to support that Native Americans are actually Israelites. Short of Mormon authors and historians, I don't find any debate out there about this within the historical and archeological communities. They just do not support the claims of the Church, anymore than the claims by some that Africans built the pyramids.

I've actually tackled this in another thread. The Book of Mormon has only been known about for about a century and a half. The Bible has considerable time and resource advantages when it comes to archeology and the Old World is far more excavated than the new.

One Example: How long did it take for reputable archeologists and scholars to demonstrate that Solomon actually did have the horses that the Bible says he did?

Answer: Well over 2000 years

There have been a number of such controversies over the Bible over the centuries and one by one they are resolved.

I expect the same to occur for the Book of Mormon. All in good time, Doc, all in good time

In the meantime you can get a certain answer from the Holy Ghost, that much is certain in my experience...

I am very aware of the many, many differences between our faiths. There are so many of them, and scriptural debate can go on for years and nothing changes. I do feel that science, historical record, and archeology are good starting points. I say this with no bias at all; There is not a very strong case to support your Church's claims. Again, I would suggest if one is interested, to seek out secular scholars on this matter. There are tons of them out there. I would Google "archeology" + "early American people" or, "Native American people + origins". There is a ton of stuff out there. You just have to sort through it.

I'm actually not looking for a strong case to support my faith. I have my answer already from the strongest case there is...

(And I've sorted through a great deal of material claiming to be scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon, and been so disheartened by how conjectural and unscientific much of it was that I decided to stop sorting)

I would suggest we not make the mistake so many Christian apologists do of thinking that faith is based on historical or archeological evidence, for we both know that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). Let us never forget that it was the scholars and the experts who couldn't recognize the Savior they crucified...

My purpose is not to win debates, or be able to demonstrate by a series of logical intellectual proofs that my beliefs are reasonable. That is an error being perpetuated in Christian circles by groups like CRI, sometimes even at the expense of genuine faith, love, and brotherhood in Christ. A person convinced by logical argument and not by the Holy Spirit may just as easily be convinced to another point of view by some other logical argument later on. How did the early Saints preach in the days of Peter, James, Paul, John, etc? Did they go and amass a bunch of historical and archeological evidence, or did they preach by the Spirit? And the people who received their teaching, did they receive it by the Spirit or some other way? If it was some other way, it was not of God...

My purpose is to preach Jesus Christ and his Gospel; to declare that he suffered, died and rose again for the sins of the world; to win souls to him and bring them into the fully glory and blessings of his Truth; and to give the best that I have - all my heart, might mind and strength - to His cause and serve Him to the best of my ability. Am I perfect in this? No sir, but I know the Lord well enough that I walk daily in his Spirit and that he is a real, living part of my life. And I know by many infallible proofs that his priesthood is restored to the earth and his Church has again been established with prophetic direction. Have scientists and historians been wrong from time to time? Absolutely. Has God ever been wrong? No. That is why He is the best starting point.

Brother, if you can catch the spirit of that testimony, and get an answer from Him yourself, may God bless you in it.

[juliann]

I'm simply saying that mormonism must be examined in light of biblical christianity because of its own claims about itself.

There is no such thing as "biblical Christianity". Christianity existed long before a Bible. You can't even give a coherent explanation of what that is supposed to be (other than validation for whatever you believe). You certainly can't defend it. As far away as you think Mormonism is from the Bible, modern evangelicism is a lot farther. And let's make it clear that simply taking clumsy swipes at someone else's theology is not an explanation of your own version of Christianity....let alone a defense.

[juliann]

The fact is, several reputable archeologists are left quite puzzled when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Many of these people are secular, and from what I could tell, had no discernable axe to grind against the Mormon Church. The evidence just isn't there. There is no evidence to support that Native Americans are actually Israelites. Short of Mormon authors and historians, I don't find any debate out there about this within the historical and archeological communities. They just do not support the claims of the Church, anymore than the claims by some that Africans built the pyramids.

But a lot of Mormons don't think Native American's are actually Israelites either. Whatever that is supposed to mean. The problem with the evidence stuff is that evidence only demonstrates that everybody goes back to the same ancestors anyway. I had someone draw a cartoon for FAIR a long time ago....a suicide bomber who blew himself up as he blew up the BOM. Any attempt at using archaeology is going to do way to much damage to conventional Christianity to make it safe.....best to save that for nonbelievers. But they go after your beliefs, too.

[Hoops22]

There is no such thing as "biblical Christianity".

Your proclamations are hardly evidence of much of anything.

Christianity existed long before a Bible.

Well, in a sense, yes. That doesn't change that Christianity today is based on the Bible we have today.

You can't even give a coherent explanation of what that is supposed to be (other than validation for whatever you believe).

Of course I can.

You certainly can't defend it.

And this as well

As far away as you think Mormonism is from the Bible, modern evangelicism is a lot farther.

That's laughable.

And let's make it clear that simply taking clumsy swipes at someone else's theology is not an explanation of your own version of Christianity....let alone a defense.

I'll note that should I ever have the notion to do that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is no such thing as "biblical Christianity". Christianity existed long before a Bible. You can't even give a coherent explanation of what that is supposed to be (other than validation for whatever you believe). You certainly can't defend it. As far away as you think Mormonism is from the Bible, modern evangelicism is a lot farther. And let's make it clear that simply taking clumsy swipes at someone else's theology is not an explanation of your own version of Christianity....let alone a defense.

I recommend that this is the best post of the day.

[juliann]

It is your burden to define a term you use. So define biblical Christianity...and that is a call for references. You are not discussing anything you are doing drive-bys. Start putting your documentation where your keyboard is or give it up.

[mpschmitt]

MP:

I'm no greek scholar either - so we'll muddle through together. But, before even that, let me offer this:

I think there is little doubt that this baptism was practiced - though we're not really sure who did. But, I think, you have to establish that this practice was the norm - thereby buttressing your position that this is a part of restorative Christianity. I can't see that there is any evidence for that. Additionally, you must also show that this was an apostolic practice/tradition - forcing one to the same conclusion.

I've glass-eyed my way through several of your citations. I'll try to do better when I'm more alert. We shan't wait until I'm smarter - by then we may all be living in "the kingdom" (which, as you know, is not now but at Christ's second coming )

Well I can demonstrate that vicarious baptism for the dead had Apostolic sanction, but my pool of Apostles is larger than yours, I think...

As I often say, the most important thing in every thread we share here, despite our personal weaknesses, is that we are all seeking to bring one another closer to and not further from the Kingdom and the King.

[mpschmitt]

He's mormon, isn't he? Consequently, I'm insulted.

Well, well, well, now who's being snarky?

[Hoops22]

It is your burden to define a term you use. So define biblical Christianity...and that is a call for references. You are not discussing anything you are doing drive-bys. Start putting your documentation where your keyboard is or give it up.

How have you been Juliann? Well, I hope.

Now, what is it you wish me to reference? My opinion that mc is biblical Christianity?

[LeSellers]

It is your burden to define a term you use. So define biblical Christianity...and that is a call for references.

Now, what is it you wish me to reference? My opinion that mc is biblical Christianity?

Well, if you look carefully at her message, you'd see exactly what she is calling for. You must define "biblical Christianity". Ought not be too difficult, since you all use the phrase so often. Yet I (and others) believe that it is a meaningless term, at least as you employ it, since you imply that Evangelical Christianity is "biblical" while The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is not.

So, define away. Or start using a different term, one more acceptable to the forum. May I suggest "Creedal Christianity"? Well, I already did.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

since you imply that Evangelical Christianity is "biblical" while The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is not.

I've not implied it, I've stated such quite plainly.

Let's start with this as a signficance difference:

A biblical Christian is one who subscribes to the nature and character of God as revealed in the bible. I do not believe lds theology can make that claim. Protestant and RCC can.

[LeSellers]

I (and others) believe that ["biblical Christianity"] is a meaningless term, at least as you employ it, since you imply that Evangelical Christianity is "biblical" while The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is not.

I've not implied it, I've stated such quite plainly.

Yes, but that is not what we were discussing.

The implication is buried in the term "biblical Christianity" which does imply that you are, and that we are not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.

I will not be defined by my enemy.

Yours is not "biblical Christianity". It lacks many (the majority, in my view) of the hallmarks of the Christianity depicted in the Bible.

Let's start with this as a signficance [sic] difference:

A biblical Christian is one who subscribes to the nature and character of God as revealed in the bible. I do not believe lds [sic] theology can make that claim. Protestant and RCC can.

Your belief doth not truth make.

The nature of character of the God revealed in the Bible is the Father of spirits. You deny that. He is, in the Bible, the Father of Jesus Christ; you deny that.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

He is, as the Bible shows, the Man of War.

3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

You deny that He is a Man.

We are His children, we have the possibility to become like Him.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

You reject this fact in the Bible, too.

So, I will not call yours "biblical Christianity" when, in fact, it is not "biblical". You are a creedalist, and yours is creedal Christianity, nothing more.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

I've not implied it, I've stated such quite plainly.Yes, but that is not what we were discussing.

But it is the answer to a question asked of me.

The implication is buried in the term "biblical Christianity" which does imply that you are, and that we are not.

As I stated above, I'm not implying it - I'm stating it.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well, I disagree.

I will not be defined by my enemy.

When you guys can finally define yourselves, let us know.

Yours is not "biblical Christianity". It lacks many (the majority, in my view) of the hallmarks of the Christianity depicted in the Bible.

No, what it lacks is adherence to a relationship with God that was BEFORE there was a church. Biblical christianity reflects the relationship between God and His church, and its members.

Your belief doth not truth make.

Nor does yours

The nature of character of the God revealed in the Bible is the Father of spirits. You deny that.

As what I think lds mean by that, absolutely - as does the Bible.

He is, in the Bible, the Father of Jesus Christ; you deny that.

As what I think lds mean by that, absolutely - as does the Bible.

He is, as the Bible shows, the Man of War.You deny that He is a Man.

Please, get your facts straight. Jesus the Christ is fully man and fully God.

We are His children, we have the possibility to become like Him. You reject this fact in the Bible, too.

Since lds can never be pinned down as to what "like Him" actually means, Im left with no option but to deny that. As does the Bible.

So, I will not call yours "biblical Christianity" when,

That's fine. The text differs with your assessment.

You are a creedalist,

I will not be defined by you either.

and yours is creedal Christianity, nothing more.

Actually, it's not that, and it's so much more. It is true freedom in Christ.

[LeSellers]

Actually, it's not [creedal Christianity], and it's so much more. It is true freedom in Christ.

So, you reject the creeds?

Lehi