Mormon Missions = Anti-Mormon Ministries?

[Storm Rider]

I'd love to know which part the LDS church says wasn't translated correctly, that's part of the problem, they are evasive on this question. It's used, in my observation, as a blanket excuse...

As far as errors in the Biblical text, it's my understanding that 99% of the Bible is without error, and completely faithful to the original. God didn't allow any apostasy to change or effect the theology of biblical text, meaning even the small errors are so minor they don't effect theology. We have so many transcripts for such an ancient text.

Since we do not have any of the original documents it is impossible to say what percentage is accurate. It is possible it is 99%, but it is also possible that it is far less. What is absolutely clear is that you are using a claim that LDS require proper translation....which in reality all churches claim to have, possess, or acknowledges errors. Why deny us the same position of other churches? If you cannot tell what is rejected, I usre cannot tell you. What is clear to me is that there are errors in the text (see Comma Johanneum as first example). Further, I would saw the same thing about the Book of Mormon, which Joseph corrected several times because of printing problems.

Face the reality that the LDS Church actually teaches and LDS actually belive the 8th Aritlce of Faith: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. These books are our scripture and they represent the Word of God to us.

[Storm Rider]

So God was powerful enough to protect the theology of the text, but not powerful enough to keep the text itself completely pure from corruption?

That appears to be your position since you insist that the LDS position implies that God was not powerful enough to protect it since we accept possible errors in the text or its translations and then you state that there is at least 1% of the Bible in error, so God did not keep the Bible error free and with your logic that means he was not powerful enough to keep it errorfree (as opposed to the actual LDS position that if there are errors in the text, God allowed it even though he had the power to protect it).

One of the great weaknesses of critics of the LDS Church is their inability to use the same standard to judge their own beliefs that they use to critic the Church. When they begin to use the same standard their doctrines, their churches fall to pieces quickly and without fanfare. Proving that the Bible is full of errors (see Bart D. Ehrman or any accomplished textual critic) is easy. If they use God is perfect and the word is perfect, oops almost pefect, oops, mostly pefect, I mean, well, all the important, dang it, well I guess I believe it is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly comes to their lips. Welcome to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Xander]

Please keep your opinions to your blog; do you have facts for your statement? If not, then at least stay on topic. Things don't change much with your "comments"

This is a fact, not opinion. Just do the math. Most people who join the Church end up leaving it to some degree.The Church is roughly 30-35% active worldwide, and that is probably a charitable estimate. Just ask LDS researcher David Stewart. Those who tend to remain in the Church are among the 100k+ who are born into it. The vast majority of the "hundreds of thousands" who get baptized every year, end up leaving, usually within the first year. So yes, there are more people on this planet who used to be LDS, than there are those who are actively LDS.

[Storm Rider]

This is a fact, not opinion. Just do the math. Most people who join the Church end up leaving it to some degree.The Church is roughly 30-35% active worldwide, and that is probably a charitable estimate. Just ask LDS researcher David Stewart. Those who tend to remain in the Church are among the 100k+ who are born into it. The vast majority of the "hundreds of thousands" who get baptized every year, end up leaving, usually within the first year. So yes, there are more people on this planet who used to be LDS, than there are those who are actively LDS.

If you feel better with such thoughts please continue with them. I will pray for you and yours. It always amazes me at the "Christians", a name that has become used only in its loosest context evidently, get a kick out of attacking the LDS Church on its membership numbers. The Catholic Church is virtually void of attendance in Europe and the US; you certainly don't see them building buildings all over the world. Name a Protestant Church that is growing....none. What does that leave us with in the world? Islam seems to be growing and it is larger than Christianity...does that means it wins the crown?

What does Matthew 7:14 mean? (14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.) The first thing it means is that there will be few that find it. Few compared to what? The vast majority that don't enter thereby.

I think the sillness of arguing about numbers entering is for the scripturally ignorant and thus entirely moot.

[Pahoran]

Let's see. When I say that I believe in the Trinity... How many have told me that I actually don't believe in the trinity (as that's supposedly non-sense) and I actually believe in three gods.

I don't know; how many have? Call for references, please.

Or when I explain that I believe in Inerrancy, and then I'm told what exactly that means, even though the explanations given by Mormon Apologists are inaccurate and even though it's pointed out what the actual definition is, I'm still told what it is by Mormons. Oh well.

For example?

As to your thinking that LDS theology is superior? (sorry laughing too hard to reply)

IOW, you don't have a cogent response.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

Xander, just so you know, Cumorah.org doesn't exist.

So we need a link =P.

Sorry, =/

TAO

[Xander]

Xander, just so you know, Cumorah.org doesn't exist.

So we need a link =P.

Sorry, =/

TAO

Try .com instead

[Ares]

That's enough. Xander and Doctor Ninja don't let your posts devolve into personal jabs.

If someone fails to back up an assertion let the lack of response speak for itself.

[Doctor Ninja]

That's enough. Xander and Doctor Ninja don't let your posts devolve into personal jabs.

If someone fails to back up an assertion let the lack of response speak for itself.

Fair enough.

I was obviously under the wrong impression that the board rules stated that a CFR had to be answered.

They should be but after a couple of reminders it begins to look like badgering. -Ares

[Hughes]

So God was powerful enough to protect the theology of the text, but not powerful enough to keep the text itself completely pure from corruption?

That appears to be your position since you insist that the LDS position implies that God was not powerful enough to protect it since we accept possible errors in the text or its translations and then you state that there is at least 1% of the Bible in error, so God did not keep the Bible error free and with your logic that means he was not powerful enough to keep it errorfree (as opposed to the actual LDS position that if there are errors in the text, God allowed it even though he had the power to protect it).

I was hoping the statement was clear enough, that minor errors were similar to a missing period or something. Things that don't effect doctrine. I didn't think it was that hard to understand. Juxtapose this with the idea that the whole NT Church went into apostasy and had to be restored by JS. Quite a difference in teaching I'd say.

Since we do not have any of the original documents it is impossible to say what percentage is accurate. It is possible it is 99%, but it is also possible that it is far less. What is absolutely clear is that you are using a claim that LDS require proper translation....which in reality all churches claim to have, possess, or acknowledges errors. Why deny us the same position of other churches? If you cannot tell what is rejected, I usre cannot tell you. What is clear to me is that there are errors in the text (see Comma Johanneum as first example). Further, I would saw the same thing about the Book of Mormon, which Joseph corrected several times because of printing problems.

Face the reality that the LDS Church actually teaches and LDS actually belive the 8th Aritlce of Faith: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. These books are our scripture and they represent the Word of God to us.

I know what the LDS Church teaches, and when "as far as it is correctly translated" is actually defined, then that will mean something. Until then there is no reason not to trust the Biblical text as accurate. As for the BoM, please tell me where any documents of "Reformed Egyptian" are located.

One of the great weaknesses of critics of the LDS Church is their inability to use the same standard to judge their own beliefs that they use to critic the Church. When they begin to use the same standard their doctrines, their churches fall to pieces quickly and without fanfare. Proving that the Bible is full of errors (see Bart D. Ehrman or any accomplished textual critic) is easy. If they use God is perfect and the word is perfect, oops almost pefect, oops, mostly pefect, I mean, well, all the important, dang it, well I guess I believe it is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly comes to their lips. Welcome to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let's do what you said. Use the same standard to analyze each.

Evangelical Christian Church - Thousands of ancient manuscripts in the original languages: Ancient Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic

LDS Church - Not one Ancient document in the original languages

Evangelical Christian Church - Thousands of archeological artifacts confirming dates and existence of places and names

LDS Church - Not one artifact, except where it refers to already known Biblical cities or people.

Evangelical Christian Church - Widely accepted map of the ancient world based on archeological resources

LDS Church - No map is officially given by the Church

Response to critics:

Evangelical Christian Church - Faith based on facts of history supports the theological positions the church holds

LDS Church - Faith without the support of historical facts is seen a virtue not a detriment

I don't know; how many have? Call for references, please.

For example?

IOW, you don't have a cogent response.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not interested in dredging through the threads on the trinity to show how mormons were telling me what I believed. I simply don't have that much time or interest.

As for your "far superior" comment, reference the comparison I just made above, and no I didn't pull it from some "anti" website, it's simply my observation.

[Calm]

I was hoping the statement was clear enough, that minor errors were similar to a missing period or something. Things that don't effect doctrine. I didn't think it was that hard to understand. Juxtapose this with the idea that the whole NT Church went into apostasy and had to be restored by JS. Quite a difference in teaching I'd say.

No one is arguing that the LDS have a difference in teaching about apostasy and the scriptures than evangelicals. What I and others are arguing is by your own argument, you have logically implied that God as less than all powerful because there has been some loss, even if that loss is minute and trivial. Since you don't believe this, it follows that since your argument is invalid based on your own beliefs, it must be invalid for LDS beliefs as well.

Your argument given for LDS belief rendering God less than all powerful runs along the lines of:

If the Word of God contains errors, then God wasn't powerful enough to protect it.

LDS believe there are errors/missing text in the Word of God (scriptures).

Therefore, LDS belief implies that God is not all powerful.

However, you've stated that there are errors no matter how small (1%) in the text that we now have. Since God is perfectly powerful, then why didn't he keep the text perfectly pure?

In fact, since God is perfectly powerful, then why did he not keep those in the Garden sinfree and incorruptible?

Again it appears that your reasoning is that while God was powerful enough to keep the theology pure enough that there was no apostasy, he was not powerful enough to keep it completely pure.

Again, LDS belief is that God is all powerful and could, if he had chosen, to keep the text pure and uncorrupted, but he allowed men their agency and thus changes occurred. Changes in the sacred text are no more of a reflection of God's power than men sinning inside churches and temples (was God in your view lacking in power because of the presence of moneychangers in the temple or corrupt priests offering up sacrifices?), giving selfish and corrupted prayers or sermons, committing sin in their homes with their families or in any other places that God desires men to keep pure and untouched by sin, while allowing such to happen anyway.

Edited July 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[LeSellers]

I'd love to know which part the LDS church says wasn't translated correctly, that's part of the problem, they are evasive on this question. It's used, in my observation, as a blanket excuse...

The problem you seem to be having is that you do not know what "translate" meant to Joseph Smith two hundred years ago. It did not mean render the text from one language to another.

What we believe was lost is whole books (Zenos, Jasher, the Sayings of the Seers, etc.), and parts of books (e.g,. the last few chapters of Genesis). It also covers the inclusion of whole books (one in particular, The Song of Solomon) or parts of books (the infamous Johannine comma pops to mind).

There were some errors of linguistic translation, and there were smallish parts that scribes ignorantly or maliciously modified, but the focus of the VIII Article of Faith is not that the Hebrew and the Greek are badly rendered in English (or French or Japanese).

A huge piece of this problem is the process of canonizing the scriptures. Who did it, what was their motivation, and who authorized it?

Any good dictionary will show that the XIX Englishman did not use "translate" as you and I do today. They used more the way our astronauts do.

Lehi

Edited July 11, 2011 by LeSellers

[Hughes]

No one is arguing that the LDS have a difference in teaching about apostasy and the scriptures than evangelicals. What I and others are arguing is by your own argument, you have logically implied that God as less than all powerful because there has been some loss, even if that loss is minute and trivial. Since you don't believe this, it follows that since your argument is invalid based on your own beliefs, it must be invalid for LDS beliefs as well.

Your argument given for LDS belief rendering God less than all powerful runs along the lines of:

If the Word of God contains errors, then God wasn't powerful enough to protect it.

LDS believe there are errors/missing text in the Word of God (scriptures).

Therefore, LDS belief implies that God is not all powerful.

However, you've stated that there are errors no matter how small (1%) in the text that we now have. Since God is perfectly powerful, then why didn't he keep the text perfectly pure?

In fact, since God is perfectly powerful, then why did he not keep those in the Garden sinfree and incorruptible?

Again it appears that your reasoning is that while God was powerful enough to keep the theology pure enough that there was no apostasy, he was not powerful enough to keep it completely pure.

Again, LDS belief is that God is all powerful and could, if he had chosen, to keep the text pure and uncorrupted, but he allowed men their agency and thus changes occurred. Changes in the sacred text are no more of a reflection of God's power than men sinning inside churches and temples (was God in your view lacking in power because of the presence of moneychangers in the temple or corrupt priests offering up sacrifices?), giving selfish and corrupted prayers or sermons, committing sin in their homes with their families or in any other places that God desires men to keep pure and untouched by sin, while allowing such to happen anyway.

The more accurate statement of what I'm saying is that the LDS believe that God didn't protect the church from apostasy, therefore for over 1700 years the Christian church was in grievous error (or apostasy) until JS was used by God to restore the church to the truth.

To back up this idea the Doctrines derived from the Bible came under direct attack by JS, saying all the churches were wrong.

So, what do we have here?

We have a church started by Joseph Smith which believes that God didn't protect his word/doctrine/church from apostasy. This to me is a lack of faith in God, especially when there's no evidence to back up the claim.

So, no I'm not saying that unless the Bible is 100% perfect to the original, therefore God didn't protect his word. That isn't what I'm saying at all. Because it's obvious to me that God did protect his word/doctrine/Church.

The problem you seem to be having is that you do not know what "translate" meant to Joseph Smith two hundred years ago. It did not mean render the text from one language to another.

What we believe was lost is whole books (Zenos, Jasher, the Sayings of the Seers, etc.), and parts of books (e.g,. the last few chapters of Genesis). It also covers the inclusion of whole books (one in particular, The Song of Solomon) or parts of books (the infamous Johanine comma pops to mind).

There were some errors of linguistic translation, and there were smallish parts that scribes ignorantly or maliciously modified, but the focus of the VIII Article of Faith is not that the Hebrew and the Greek are badly rendered in English (or French or Japanese).

A huge piece of this problem is the process of canonizing the scriptures. Who did it, what was their motivation, and who authorized it?

Any good dictionary will show that the XIX Englishman did not use "translate" as you and I do today. They used more the way our astronauts do.

Lehi

I understand that the word "translate" can mean different things. I also understand that as an apologist, it's not going to make your side look good to admit that you haven't any ancient documents. Oh well. Talk about the different definitions of translation if you want.

The problem may very well be the process of canonization. And indeed it still comes down to a lack of faith on the part of LDS. Because God uses those who are weak to confound those who are strong, and the dumb to confound the wise. And there is only one authority.

[TAO]

Try .com instead

Ok, may I please have a link to the stated page you are referring to. Thanks =).

[Calm]

So, no I'm not saying that unless the Bible is 100% perfect to the original, therefore God didn't protect his word. That isn't what I'm saying at all. Because it's obvious to me that God did protect his word/doctrine/Church.

LDS believe that God protected his Word as well, enough so that his desires for men could be achieve in God's time. So will you agree that the claim that LDS belief implies that God is not powerful enough to protect his Word is a misrepresentation of LDS belief and its implications?

If not......

It appears that for you it is a matter of degree, not of actual ability. God chose not to perfectly protect his word in that he allowed at least 1% error into the text, but he chose not to allow so much error that there was an apostasy.

How does this make God any more powerful than God choosing to allow enough error so that there was an apostasy? Why is a little okay, but not a lot?

God doesn't need perfection in his work/word/temples/church to achieve his purposes according to your theory, what exactly does he need?

Do you believe that God with his perfect power could have caused Adam and Eve not to sin, but still let them? Did this not cause at least as much of suffering and error to enter into the world as the apostasy that LDS believe in?

Then there is the apostasy that occurred after Adam and Eve which eventually led to the destruction of all mankind in sin save those who few who were saved with Noah (assuming you believe in a literal global flood). How is this significantly different than God allowing men to go into apostasy after the Apostles' death to the point that the authority of the Church was lost?

Edited July 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[Hughes]

LDS believe that God protected his Word as well, enough so that his desires for men could be achieve in God's time. So will you agree that the claim that LDS belief implies that God is not powerful enough to protect his Word is a misrepresentation of LDS belief and its implications?

If not......

It appears that for you it is a matter of degree, not of actual ability. God chose not to perfectly protect his word in that he allowed at least 1% error into the text, but he chose not to allow so much error that there was an apostasy.

How does this make God any more powerful than God choosing to allow enough error so that there was an apostasy? Why is a little okay, but not a lot?

God doesn't need perfection in his work/word/temples/church to achieve his purposes according to your theory, what exactly does he need?

Do you believe that God with his perfect power could have caused Adam and Eve not to sin, but still let them? Did this not cause at least as much of suffering and error to enter into the world as the apostasy that LDS believe in?

Then there is the apostasy that occurred after Adam and Eve which eventually led to the destruction of all mankind in sin save those who few who were saved with Noah (assuming you believe in a literal global flood). How is this significantly different than God allowing men to go into apostasy after the Apostles' death to the point that the authority of the Church was lost?

Huge difference here.

In each of your examples Adam/Noah the "apostasy" as you call it, doesn't include those who follow God.

Joseph's unsubstantiated claim is that for 1700 years the whole Church was in apostasy.

It appears to me that his claim leads to the idea that God did something that he'd never done before, let the world run without any connection to himself. This appears as a lack of faith in God's power to me.

[Nathair/|\]

Huge difference here.

In each of your examples Adam/Noah the "apostasy" as you call it, doesn't include those who follow God.

Joseph's unsubstantiated claim is that for 1700 years the whole Church was in apostasy.

It appears to me that his claim leads to the idea that God did something that he'd never done before, let the world run without any connection to himself. This appears as a lack of faith in God's power to me.

Except that you can ask the Person who told Brother Joseph that He allowed His church to go into apostasy all about it.

[Jeff K.]

It appears to me that his claim leads to the idea that God did something that he'd never done before, let the world run without any connection to himself. This appears as a lack of faith in God's power to me.

You mean like a flood? Or like driving Adam and Eve out of Eden? or an exodus out of Egypt? Or the many many other things he did for "the first time"?

We don't know specifically how many might have remained faithful in Noah's time, or not.

The loss of the temple, now why would God do that? It is His house and there must have still been faithful Hebrews who worshipped there. And yet he allowed the destruction of His temple, knowing the importance of the temple in worship, for ordinances of repentance and sacrifice, seems to me you have a fairly good analogy there.

[Xander]

Ok, may I please have a link to the stated page you are referring to. Thanks =).

Just go to the profiles for the countries with the largest LDS populations. They go in this order, and their activity rates are as follows:

USA 40%

Mexico 24%

Brazil 25%

Chile 20%

Phillipines 25%

Peru 25%

Argentina 25%

UK 30%

Guatemala 25%

[Hughes]

Except that you can ask the Person who told Brother Joseph that He allowed His church to go into apostasy all about it.

Interesting... I have done that and I don't get the answer you get, nor do the scriptures bear out JS's claims.

You mean like a flood? Or like driving Adam and Eve out of Eden? or an exodus out of Egypt? Or the many many other things he did for "the first time"?

We don't know specifically how many might have remained faithful in Noah's time, or not.

The loss of the temple, now why would God do that? It is His house and there must have still been faithful Hebrews who worshipped there. And yet he allowed the destruction of His temple, knowing the importance of the temple in worship, for ordinances of repentance and sacrifice, seems to me you have a fairly good analogy there.

There are many instances of judgement on the followers of God, from Adam to Babylon. There are no instances of complete apostasy, such that God had to "restore" the doctrines as JS supposedly did. In fact, many of the books of the OT describe how God protected his own, those who didn't bow to Baal for example.

For example, in each example, God still communicated directly and worked through his people.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Hughes

[Jeff K.]

My point is that you offer fallacious logic, that somehow something cannot happen for a "first time" unless it happened as a "first time" somewhere else. This assertion is without value and yet it seems to be your main point.

I would also suggest you review the meaning of temples anciently to the Hebrew culture. Allowing its destruction was akin to an apostasy in that no religious ordinance could be performed. If you wish, you may call that a precursor to an even greater apostasy, in which no ordinance of salvation could be performed.

[Hestia]

Just go to the profiles for the countries with the largest LDS populations. They go in this order, and their activity rates are as follows:

If you are going to provide such statistics please provide the source.

[LeSellers]

There are many instances of judgement on the followers of God, from Adam to Babylon. There are no instances of complete apostasy, such that God had to "restore" the doctrines as JS supposedly did. In fact, many of the books of the OT describe how God protected his own, those who didn't bow to Baal for example.

For example, in each example, God still communicated directly and worked through his people.

You seem to have ignored both Abraham and Moses.

Even more importantly, you did not mention Jesus Christ Who did come in the face of such total apostasy that the entire system of the Gospel the people lived under was changed—back, btw, to what it had been before the apostasy at the foot of Sinai, where Israel had covenanted to live the Gospel, then broke that covenant within a few weeks so thoroughly that God had to instore a new and "lesser" version of His word.

Lehi

[Hughes]

My point is that you offer fallacious logic, that somehow something cannot happen for a "first time" unless it happened as a "first time" somewhere else. This assertion is without value and yet it seems to be your main point.

I would also suggest you review the meaning of temples anciently to the Hebrew culture. Allowing its destruction was akin to an apostasy in that no religious ordinance could be performed. If you wish, you may call that a precursor to an even greater apostasy, in which no ordinance of salvation could be performed.

My logic is based on God's consistency.

It is your opinion, that the destruction of the temple was equal to apostasy. The level of apostasy JS seems to refer to is one where God had to use him and him alone to restore the gospel. In essence, in his view there wasn't any gospel message before he restored it.

You seem to have ignored both Abraham and Moses.

Even more importantly, you did not mention Jesus Christ Who did come in the face of such total apostasy that the entire system of the Gospel the people lived under was changed—back, btw, to what it had been before the apostasy at the foot of Sinai, where Israel had covenanted to live the Gospel, then broke that covenant within a few weeks so thoroughly that God had to instore a new and "lesser" version of His word.

Lehi

Sorry. Jesus didn't "restore" the jewish religion or covenant, rather he fulfilled the law so that we are no longer under the law but under grace.

[LeSellers]

Jesus didn't "restore" the jewish religion or covenant, rather he fulfilled the law so that we are no longer under the law but under grace.

You are not addressing the point I raised about the reason there was a Mosiac Law in the first place.

While it is true that the Law of Moses was being observed (although, from my vantage point, the Jews were in apostasy even from that lesser Law), in the i~I, Jeus came to restore the Gospel He had revealed to Moses before He "retreated" to the Law of Moses. I don't have time (and won't make it) to explain in detail, but there is a sudden change of attitude when the Ten Commandments were given, accepted, and received as a covenantial basis in Ex 20. Israel rejected the Gospel and was given the law a child must have (they not being able to observe one of priciples).

Jesus was a Great Restorer, just as Joseph Smith and Abraham were great restorers, and as Moses and Enoch and Noah were. (Except Noah's converts had to be taken to the City of Enoch rather than on board the Ark.)

Lehi

Edited July 11, 2011 by LeSellers