My Letter To Mormon Research Ministry

[Vance]

How this might be so in your mind is beyond my comprehension.

Limited comprehension?

When you make "tearing down" etc, the primary phrase in a sentence rather then the secondary phrase you add emphasis to it that was NOT there in the original sentence.

Simple really.

More to the point, the plural pronouns are implicit in the verbs themselves.

So? See above.

English uses pronouns where Greek often uses inflections in the verbs, and the ancient Greek authors often used participles in long, complex sentences where English normally uses shorter sentences with more indicative verbs in less complex clausal structures.

What you are saying is that the version you quoted is not an accurate representation of the Greek.

Thanks.

These differences in grammatical expression are unavoidable in any readable English translation of the biblical Greek texts, a fact known to everyone who has made it through first semester of Greek.

You mean like the KJV translators?

And the International Standard Version translators?

And the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English" translators?

And the American KJV translators?

And the Douay-Rheims translators?

And the Webster's Bible Translation translators?

And the Young's Literal Translation translators?

And the New Jerusalem Bible translators?

And the New Revised Standard Version translators?

[HeatherAnn]

... They lost me because they wanted to push the idea that their religion was right and mine was wrong in a very non-Christian way.

Did you notice that Hinduism is not mentioned once in the Bible? And Hinduism is far older in terms of existing actively on the planet. Why not? Why is there not a section on how Hinduism is wrong? That is because God had faith in His own message. He didn't need to bash on certain religions to get His word out. He felt it did well standing on its own.

So I ask again. What about Mormonism is so frightening to you that you have to smash it before you can present what you believe is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is a simple question.

JMS

I was wondering what the thoughts here are? Is my position sound?

JMS

I agree that when running for office, along with competitors, it's more admirable for a contendor to present what they have to offer, than to put the other down. Put-downs tell me that they have nothing better to offer, so they have to put another down.

The part I think you might reconsider is how you presented Hinduism - as if it's not God's doing at all. How do you know that? How would you feel if a Hindu said, "The Gods allow for ridiculous Monotheistic religions because God has faith in Hinduism's own message through 5 Vedas." Wouldn't it seem somewhat condescending?

Also, I think when defending something, like the church, it's important to be up front about issues.

Yes, there are some practices in the LDS church that are cult-like... as Mormons, we are considered different from many (considering the crazy ways of many societies today, this may be a good thing).

Consider some questions associated with cults...

Is there "mind control" in our church? Are we allowed to question freely? What happens if one speaks negatively about leaders?

Do most mormons mingle mostly among themselves - isolated from others - or do they befriend others no matter what religious belief?

Do mormons get their identity from their religion?

Is the love & sense of belonging conditional upon certain behaviors dictated by the leaders of the group?

What happens if someone wants out of the church? Would they receive harm, socially, career etc?

[Vookman]

Rob wrote:

Bob

You appear to have conceded my point that the apostle Paul sometimes did offend people, not because he set out to offend them but because they took offense at the truth. Now you are focusing merely on strategy or the methods used in proclaiming the truth.

Proclaiming something other than Christ and the Gospel is not a "strategy" in the context of MRM. They are so far removed from proclaiming a message consistent with bearing a witness of Christ or the Gospel, it is not to your credit to lump them with Paul. Hauling around plates, calling their leaders liars is not found in Paul's public teachings.

But in fact Paul's preaching led to some behaviors analogous to the activities of "anti-Mormons" that offend you and other Mormons. Many new believers in Ephesus publicly spoke about the practices of their pagan religion that previously as pagans they had regarded as sacred (Acts 19:18). The context makes it clear that this included disclosures about the practices that took place in the pagan temple of the goddess Artemis (19:27). Many of the new believers in Christ conducted a public burning in the city of Ephesus of their occult books (19:19). Those who had a vested interest in the Ephesian temple complained that Paul's teaching was leading people to despise the temple (19:27).

I am sorry but you seem to be trying to make this chapter say the exact opposite of what Luke is teaching. There is ZERO insulting or blasphemous action towards the pagans. NONE. How do we know? Because Luke quotes the explicit words of the Town clerk:

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

How can you conclude from this passage

I believe that that the teaching and example of Paul are more supportive of what Bill and others are doing, at least in terms of broad principles, than you had claimed.

Since blasphemy is defined as:

something that is considered offensive to God or someone’s religious beliefs

it is therefore impossible to conclude that Paul or his followers were blasphemous towards the pagans, or more important to our discussion, that MRM and Bill is consistent with the specific example of teaching you have cited. Bill intentionally offends and blasphemes the closely held beliefs of the LDS faith with the hope of sparking a discussion in hopes of dissuading LDS believers or investigators. If this passage is your support, it is entirely lacking. It proves MRM is in error.

[Jesterss]

No, that isn't what it says. It says that "the testimony of Jesus" "is" "the spirit of prophecy"

So what does that mean Vance? I like how you stick to just saying exactly what it says without even trying to comprehend it's meaning yet fully rebuking anyone else's interpretation. So we have it saying the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Clearly no argument over exactly how it is worded.

How does one receive the testimony?

Do you have to be a prophet to proclaim Jesus' testimony?

Can one receive the Spirit of God and not have a testimony of Jesus?

If one does receive the Spirit of God, does such person have to become a prophet?

Have prophets told us about Jesus or did we just come to know it by our own minds without the help of God and the Spirit?

This sentence is telling us that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. In other words, the spirit of prophecy has given us a testimony of Jesus. This sentence does not say one has to be a prophet in order to receive the testimony of Jesus. Of course, I don't think any of us would expect anyone who believes 3 consonants necessitates bad english to be anyone who might be able to understand simple english literature.

Well, one REASONABLE understanding is that those that have (a true and abiding) "the testimony of Jesus" are prophets.

So by your definition, everyone in your church should therefore be a prophet. Or are you limiting the testimony of Jesus to only prophets? And admitting you do not have a testimony of Jesus?

Notice that you have it backwards. It is "the testimony of Jesus" that "is the spirit of prophesy"

Or do you have your understanding backwards?

I still don't see how you can claim that this verse supports the notion that Bowman put forth. NOT without presupposing it.

How can you believe the BOM is true without presupposing it is?

[Jesterss]

I agree that when running for office, along with competitors, it's more admirable for a contendor to present what they have to offer, than to put the other down. Put-downs tell me that they have nothing better to offer, so they have to put another down.

The part I think you might reconsider is how you presented Hinduism - as if it's not God's doing at all. How do you know that? How would you feel if a Hindu said, "The Gods allow for ridiculous Monotheistic religions because God has faith in Hinduism's own message through 5 Vedas." Wouldn't it seem somewhat condescending?

Also, I think when defending something, like the church, it's important to be up front about issues.

Yes, there are some practices in the LDS church that are cult-like... as Mormons, we are considered different from many (considering the crazy ways of many societies today, this may be a good thing).

Consider some questions associated with cults...

Is there "mind control" in our church? Are we allowed to question freely? What happens if one speaks negatively about leaders?

Do most mormons mingle mostly among themselves - isolated from others - or do they befriend others no matter what religious belief?

Do mormons get their identity from their religion?

Is the love & sense of belonging conditional upon certain behaviors dictated by the leaders of the group?

What happens if someone wants out of the church? Would they receive harm, socially, career etc?

Well said statements and questions. I think it's hard for some people to really evaluate their own ideals and religious institutes like you have. Kudos to you.

[CQUIRK]

Also, I think when defending something, like the church, it's important to be up front about issues.

Agreed.

Yes, there are some practices in the LDS church that are cult-like... as Mormons, we are considered different from many

Compared to the many different rituals and rites in the Catholic Church, and also to some of the behavior in many EV & Pentecostal churches- like the speaking of tongues and the wild manner of worship during services -how are we any more 'cult-like' in behavior then other churches are?

We might be different, but we're still Christian and of normal, rational thought.

Consider some questions associated with cults...

Is there "mind control" in our church?

Nope.

Are we allowed to question freely? What happens if one speaks negatively about leaders?

Yes we are, but if you take your criticism way too far, then you can forget about being in good standing with the church. However that's quite a normal standard to have in churches and other religious faith as long as it conforms with D&C 134:9-10.

Yet compared to many other churches out there, we're not that strict on the subject.

Do most mormons mingle mostly among themselves - isolated from others - or do they befriend others no matter what religious belief?

You should already know the answer to that; look at our missionary work and how we play such an active part in society, especially in the media.

Do mormons get their identity from their religion?

That's up to the individual, him or herself.

Is the love & sense of belonging conditional upon certain behaviors dictated by the leaders of the group?

Almost every church and religious faith has a standard one must meet in order to be a member and/or remain a member. Our standards are in conformity with the bible, yet we're not as strict or exclusive as some other churches and faiths out there are.

What happens if someone wants out of the church? Would they receive harm, socially, career etc?

Nope. Rather its the other way around; it seems that many former members would rather seek to harm the church and its members out of vain spite. Ed Decker, being a good example.

[CQUIRK]

Well said statements and questions. I think it's hard for some people to really evaluate their own ideals and religious institutes like you have. Kudos to you.

Funny, it was a piece of cake for me.

I love history and doing research, and did a ton of it before converting to the LDS Church, which is why I didn't have any problems standing up for my new-found beliefs and answering the tough questions about my faith whenever confronted.