Mormon Missions = Anti-Mormon Ministries?

[Hughes]

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

So your argument is that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Joseph Smith are all great restorers.

Let's look at them briefly.

Noah - Didn't restore, but preached repent or be judged.

Abraham - Restored what exactly? He established a new religion, based on faith in one God.

Moses - Restored what exactly? He was used to establish the law.

Jesus - Fulfilled the law and died in our place. Instituted grace.

[urroner]

So your argument is that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Joseph Smith are all great restorers.

Let's look at them briefly.

Noah - Didn't restore, but preached repent or be judged.

Abraham - Restored what exactly? He established a new religion, based on faith in one God.

Moses - Restored what exactly? He was used to establish the law.

Jesus - Fulfilled the law and died in our place. Instituted grace.

About Christ being a great restorer:

Temple Theology: An Introduction

In the past two decades, Margaret Barker has managed a miracle: in a prodigious output of a dozen scholarly books and book chapters, as well as numerous articles and conference addresses, Barker, a Cambridge-educated independent scholar, Methodist lay preacher, and former president of the Society for Old Testament Study, has successfully shaken the very foundations of Old Testament and early Christian scholarship. Is it not obvious that the Christianity of Jesus’ day and shortly thereafter was heavily influenced by Greek culture? Is it not clear that Jesus’ teachings were a product of the Jewish culture, especially the synagogue culture, of his day? “No,” says Barker to these claims; it is neither obvious nor clear that Christianity had its origin in these influences. A careful reading of noncanonical sources such as the Enoch literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that Jesus was influenced by something much more ancient than Hellenistic or synagogue culture. He seemed to have in mind the theology and ordinances of the first Jewish temple, the temple as it had existed before the accretions of paganism and the “reforms” of King Josiah in the seventh century bce. Indeed, if Barker’s thesis holds up to scholarly scrutiny, everyone will be forced to redefine Jesus as a restorer of a religion that had been lost rather than as an inventor of something new.

[urroner]

So your argument is that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Joseph Smith are all great restorers.

....

Abraham - Restored what exactly? He established a new religion, based on faith in one God.

So Hughes, are you saying that the true religion, based of faith in one God, had never been upon the Earth before Abraham? Could you please expound a little bit more on that?

[Storm Rider]

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.

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.

That is a complete distortion of what Joseph Smith taught. God was not forced to use JS, rather God designed it that way. Are you saying that when Jesus entered the world the state of the Jewish religion was great and Jesus just came to fulfill the law? You choke on gnats to swallow a camel. The Jewish faith was in a total state of apostasy. It was not the Jews who sought out the newborn Jesus.

What was the first law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai prior to the Jews worshipping the golden calf? Why did God take it back? What was the gospel that Jesus, the Son of God, brought tot he earth?

[LeSellers]

So your argument is that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Joseph Smith are all great restorers.

Let's look at them briefly.

You looked so briefly you missed them.

All restored what had been lost through apostasy.

Adam was the only prophet (whether you like it or not) who did not restore anything because there had not been anything lost. The people of Noah's time were so wicked that if you do not believe he restored anything it can only be because his audience appears to have rejected him wholly. (Luckily, we Saints have more information on that subject.)

Everyone else who brought the Gospel to the people, whether Hebrews, Israelites, Jews or Gentiles, who had rejected it, even partially, had to be restoring it.

Lehi

Edited July 11, 2011 by LeSellers

[Calm]

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.

And how is God communicating to Joseph not him communicating directly and working through his people as Joseph was a follower of God at the time, a Christian.

If authority had not been lost, then why did God have to call Moses the way he did?

[Hughes]

About Christ being a great restorer:

Temple Theology: An Introduction

Indeed, "if Barker’s thesis holds up to scholarly scrutiny"

Accepting any theory will lead you down many paths. I don't think her theory holds any water.

So Hughes, are you saying that the true religion, based of faith in one God, had never been upon the Earth before Abraham? Could you please expound a little bit more on that?

So is it your contention that Abraham restored "true religion"?

IF that's the case, it doesn't compare to Joseph Smith, because he claim was all the churches were in apostasy, yet he uses the same scriptures to attempt to argue for his "restored" religion. Abraham stepped out on faith, completely, without reference to previous scriptures, that I know of.

That is a complete distortion of what Joseph Smith taught. God was not forced to use JS, rather God designed it that way. Are you saying that when Jesus entered the world the state of the Jewish religion was great and Jesus just came to fulfill the law? You choke on gnats to swallow a camel. The Jewish faith was in a total state of apostasy. It was not the Jews who sought out the newborn Jesus.

What was the first law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai prior to the Jews worshipping the golden calf? Why did God take it back? What was the gospel that Jesus, the Son of God, brought tot he earth?

Of course not all Jews were hypocritical at the time Jesus appeared. Who do you think were his first followers?

In answer to your question, yes. Jesus came to fulfill the law.

The first law? You mean the same ten commandments that Moses had to rewrite because he broke them? I'm not sure I know what you are referring to, God took it back?

The Gospel is the "good news" To all man kind, that Jesus died in our place, so we can be reconciled to the Father.

You looked so briefly you missed them.

All restored what had been lost through apostasy.

Adam was the only prophet (whether you like it or not) who did not restore anything because there had not been anything lost. The people of Noah's time were so wicked that if you do not believe he restored anything it can only be because his audience appears to have rejected him wholly. (Luckily, we Saints have more information on that subject.)

Everyone else who brought the Gospel to the people, whether Hebrews, Israelites, Jews or Gentiles, who had rejected it, even partially, had to be restoring it.

Lehi

In some sense I can see your point, and why you'd say that. However, in light of JS's claims and actions, their "restoring" actions aren't similar at all to his at all. JS claims that the church was in apostasy for 1700 years. Yet no evidence, no persecution, no hypocrisy, nothing evil can be pointed to support that claim. There have always been faithful christians throughout that time, yet JS's claim is that they were all wrong.

And how is God communicating to Joseph not him communicating directly and working through his people as Joseph was a follower of God at the time, a Christian.

If authority had not been lost, then why did God have to call Moses the way he did?

God called Moses because God put him in the right place at the right time to deliver the Israelites. No authority was lost.

I question whether Joseph heard from God or not. When I hear the things he said, I really wonder. Even Christians can promote error when they stray from the truth found in the Biblical text.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Hughes

[alter idem]

Indeed. The LDS believe that God didn't protect his word from the apostasy. I believe in a God who is powerful enough to protect his word.

To LDS, it is not a matter of God not being 'powerful enough' to protect the church from apostasy, it is that God allows the world collectively to exercise agency, even if it meant a major falling away.

I read them, thanks. Indeed, JS seems to disagree with your statement, "Not that we have power to save men. We have not;"

I think if you read his statement in context, as well as the many other statements, he is not disagreeing, only clarifying. It is through the saving ordinances administered by priesthood authority found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that souls are saved.

Of saving souls, Joseph Fielding Smith, in speaking of doing temple work for the dead said; 'By this means we may help to save those who have gone before and in our limited way become saviors to many people.'

[Hughes]

To LDS, it is not a matter of God not being 'powerful enough' to protect the church from apostasy, it is that God allows the world collectively to exercise agency, even if it meant a major falling away.

I think if you read his statement in context, as well as the many other statements, he is not disagreeing, only clarifying. It is through the saving ordinances administered by priesthood authority found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that souls are saved.

Of saving souls, Joseph Fielding Smith, in speaking of doing temple work for the dead said; 'By this means we may help to save those who have gone before and in our limited way become saviors to many people.'

Interesting. Nothing could be further from the truth found in scripture. "No other name given under heaven..."

[altersteve]

Interesting. Nothing could be further from the truth found in scripture. "No other name given under heaven..."

"By this means we may help to save those who have gone before and in our limited way become saviors to many people."

Of course we are not Saviors for people, but we can be, in our limited way, "saviors," if you will, by providing them a chance to hear and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. But obviously, it is He who does the saving.

Please, take the time to read what things actually say, and study our teachings and beliefs in context.

Edited July 12, 2011 by altersteve

[Nathair/|\]

Interesting. Nothing could be further from the truth found in scripture. "No other name given under heaven..."

21And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.

Obadiah 1:21

[alter idem]

Interesting. Nothing could be further from the truth found in scripture. "No other name given under heaven..."

Hughes, I feel like we are not on the same page at all.

You do not understand what is meant by the 'saving ordinances' of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

From the Book of Mormon;

There is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved. 2 Nephi 25:20

Saying that we are the only true church on the earth which has the saving ordinances does not deny this statement Of FACT which is found in the Book of Mormon as well as the New Testament.

I know you don't want to hear this, but we, LDS also know that it is through Jesus Christ that we are saved and it is through the ordinances which were restored by God's Prophet that salvation comes. We believe that when sacred ordinances are performed by the proper priesthood authority, those ordinances are binding and are honored in Heaven. This is why we call them 'saving ordinances' and they only have the power to save because they come through Jesus Christ, our Savior.

[Lightbearer]

What do you think?

I think Anti-Christs can justify anything... yes I called them Anti-Christs, because anyone who attacks the fullness of the restored Gospel which was restored by Christ is by definition an Anti-Christ!

[Hughes]

21And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.

Obadiah 1:21

Nothing you quoted changes the statement I quoted from the New Testament.

Hughes, I feel like we are not on the same page at all.

You do not understand what is meant by the 'saving ordinances' of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

From the Book of Mormon;

Saying that we are the only true church on the earth which has the saving ordinances does not deny this statement Of FACT which is found in the Book of Mormon as well as the New Testament.

I know you don't want to hear this, but we, LDS also know that it is through Jesus Christ that we are saved and it is through the ordinances which were restored by God's Prophet that salvation comes. We believe that when sacred ordinances are performed by the proper priesthood authority, those ordinances are binding and are honored in Heaven. This is why we call them 'saving ordinances' and they only have the power to save because they come through Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Sorry, but the "saving ordinances" aren't given by God to the LDS church. Rather, the truth is that salvation is offered freely to everyone through Christ alone.

Facts don't support the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet, nor that he heard from God.

If you have no additional information to add to the discussion please refrain from blanket statements like "I know you don't want to hear that, but it's true." -Ares

Edited July 12, 2011 by Hughes

[Okrahomer]

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%

I am wondering how David Stewart and the editors of the Cumorah.com actually “derived” their activity rate for the U.S. LDS Church?

The question arises from a simple comparison of the Cumorah.com figures with results of the Pew Forum’s 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey My link. As I understand it, Cumorah.com is using officially-reported LDS Church membership numbers as of 31 December 2005. My link

For the United States, Cumorah.com reports:

LDS Members: 5,690,672

Approx. Active Members: 2,276,268

Percentage of Members “Attending Church Weekly”: 40%

2 ½ years later however, the Pew Forum survey of more than 35,000 people in the U.S. over the age of 18 indicated (with a margin of error of ± 0.6%) that 1.6% of all U.S. adults self-identify as LDS and 75% of these “self-reported” that they attend church services at least once a week My link. Extrapolation of the Pew data using U.S. population estimates for 2007 My link yields the following numbers:

LDS Adult Members: 3,415,000 – 3,872,000

Approx. active Adult members: 2,561,000 – 2,904,000

Percentage of Active Adult Members Attending Church Weekly: 75%

Extrapolating further with the addition of data from the 2004 University of North Carolina survey of U.S. teenagers showing that 2.5% of U.S. teens self-identify as LDS My link yields the following number:

Approx. total U.S. Members in 2007: 5,4165,000 – 5,922,000

This corresponds to the officially-reported LDS membership in the U.S. at the end of 2007: 5,873,000 (as reported in the 2009 Church Almanac.)

These data can also be checked against NSRI/ARIS survey results. The 2001 survey included a question described as the difference between denominational “identification” vs. actual “affiliation,” which seems roughly analogous to “activity.” Significantly, the 2001 NSRI/ARIS percentage for “affiliated” adult LDS members: 75%. My link

The following observation from Adherents.com My link also seems relevant:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized in 1830. Their reported U.S. membership as of December 31, 2003 was 5,503,192, which is 1.93% of the total U.S. population. The figures provided by this church have been confirmed to be accurate by the Kosmin NSRI poll, which surveyed 113,000 people nationwide. In 50% of U.S. states, survey results indicated slightly more Latter-day Saints in the population than official Church figures reported. In the other 50% of U.S. states, survey figures were slightly below official Church figures. Correlation between the two sets of data (official and independent survey) was higher than for any other denomination, indicating a high level of correlation between the number of Americans who self-identify as Latter-day Saints, and the number counted on membership roles.”

Adherents.com also notes the following:

“Some groups (e.g., Episcopal, Congregational, Judaism) have fewer children proportionate to their total population, and some groups (e.g., Catholic, Pentecostal, Latter-day Saints) have higher proportionate numbers of children, in which case the un-modified extrapolation to the total population would yield an undercount. For example, in 2004, 2.5% of American teenagers said they were Latter-day Saints (National Study of Youth and Religion, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; sample size: 3,370 nationwide), a figure higher than the 1.3% of American adults who identified themselves as Latter-day Saints in 2001. If this 2.5% figure were extrapolated to the total population, it would yield a figure of 7,334,574 total Latter-day Saints (children, teens and adults) in the U.S. for 2004 - a number nearly 2 million higher than counted in official membership records. This difference in survey results between adult and teen populations indicates that this group's U.S. membership skews young.”

While I do not believe the actual percentage of “active” members in the U.S. is 75%, these data do seem to point toward a figure somewhat higher then the 40% used by Cumorah.com.

[Calm]

I am wondering how David Stewart and the editors of the Cumorah.com actually “derived” their activity rate for the U.S. LDS Church?

My memory says they compare church reported numbers of total membership to the country's census of self-reported membership....but I could be wrong as it's been awhile.

[Okrahomer]

My memory says they compare church reported numbers of total membership to the country's census of self-reported membership....but I could be wrong as it's been awhile.

Thanks, Cal. I see now that Cumorah.com has actually utilized a method to estimate activity rates that is quite different from the “Church-Reported vs. Self-reported” approach you mention. My link

The Cumorah method is interesting and probably as valid as any other; however, the U.S. Census Bureau actually utilizes an approach much closer to your “church-reported vs. self-reported” method. Since it is illegal for U.S. Census takers to ask questions about religion, the U.S. Statistical Abstract is derived directly from the very surveys and analyses I cited in the previous post (i.e., Pew, NSRI/ARIS, and Adherents.com.) My link

Not to put too fine of a point on it, the Pew/NSRI/ARIS and Adherents.com data indicate a rate of activity in the U.S. that is significantly higher than the Cumorah.com estimate. I do not want to derail the thread, but since the Cumorah.com estimates had been referenced in more than one post, I thought this potential discrepancy should be mentioned.

[Calm]

I would be concerned about taking a 1992 number for temple marriages at least due to the increased availability of temples all over the world. There can be a huge variation within a country (not just referring to the Utah/rest of the US difference) in my experience as well so if they lack numbers for part of a county, that might contribute to a significant discrepancy as well.