My Letter To Mormon Research Ministry

[altersteve]

Regarding claims of being Christian or not Christian. Would you all consider Catholicism as being a Christian religion? Would you consider Jehovah Witness as a Christian religion?

Yes and yes.

So by the logic a couple have applied. If we (those outside the LDS faith) are christian, and you are christian, does it really matter then whose church is the true church? Isn't following christ the ultimate goal?

Yes. But The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the fullness of the gospel and the ordinances necessary for salvation (note: I said that these ordinances are necessary for our salvation, not that we are saved by them; there is a difference), as well as the priesthood authority to administer those ordinances. Other churches do not. But that doesn't mean that those churches do not follow Christ.

[ERayR]

So I'm just gonna generalize my response since 3 people said the same thing basically.

Regarding claims of being Christian or not Christian. Would you all consider Catholicism as being a Christian religion? Would you consider Jehovah Witness as a Christian religion?

Yes and Yes

Now lets hypothetically (remove hypothetically for your belief) say your religion is right. If a JW or Catholic, when dead, refused the proxy baptism would they still reach heaven (and or do they even need the proxy baptism since they were partially right?)? Since they would obviously have been wrong about their understanding. Or do you believe that it's ok that they were only partially right in some areas? I know LeSellers said he believes God gives partial credit, so what is considered partial credit? Because after all, both these religions have converted millions of people to their theology, so wouldn't they be guilty of leading people astray? They are teaching false doctrines, according to your belief.

I know it is not good form to answer a question with a question but ... If you were to refuse/deny Christs atonement would you then be a Christian? As for reaching heaven, that answer from a LDS requires an understanding of the LDS concept of heaven that you do not seem to have. At least the form of your question indicates a lack of understanding to me. The short answer would be yes they have a place somewhere in heaven.

Edit --- to add an actual response.

So by the logic a couple have applied. If we (those outside the LDS faith) are christian, and you are christian, does it really matter then whose church is the true church? Isn't following christ the ultimate goal?

Again to answer this question adequatly would require you to have an understanding of LDS theology that your question indicates is lacking but the short answer to your question is yes because your ultimate standing in the hierarchy of the heavens will depend on which ordinances you have accepted.

Edited November 2, 2011 by ERayR

[Vookman]

Bill really cares about Mormons, and if you listened to him without prejudging him, you'd know that.

As the Mormon version of a street preacher (without the hate speech, protest signs or targeted literature...OK, I am nothing like them but I do walk in the streets and talk to them), I can tell you that Bill yells unkind, unChristian slogans at me simply because I pointedly refute his baseless attacks on the LDS Church, specifically his false Strawman attack on the historicity of the Gold Plates. He specifically yells at me "Liar" and "Deceiver", and refuses to speak with me when he is pitching his trash to groups and I show up and start asking him pointed questions he omits, such as why does he not quote those who claimed to actually handle the plates?

Tell me what audience he is speaking to, and can tell you how much he will say he cares. Ask him about me, and why he can attack my character simply because I am informed on the issues he claims to be trying to teach us lost souls about. We clearly don't agree on religious issues. It doesn't make me a liar or a deceiver to challenge his assertions with documentation. But I do know it is the nature of people to paint others with their own motives when they are trying to divine their motives.

[Jesterss]

I know it is not good form to answer a question with a question but ... If you were to refuse/deny Christs atonement would you then be a Christian?

See, that's exactly my point. Of course not. You can't be a Christian without believing in Christ and what he stood for. So no. Now, if you believe in everything he stood for (regardless of what "physical" church you are part of), can you, according to your levels of heaven, reach the celestial kingdom? Can someone be just as good of a follower outside of the LDS church as inside of it?

[altersteve]

See, that's exactly my point. Of course not. You can't be a Christian without believing in Christ and what he stood for. So no. Now, if you believe in everything he stood for (regardless of what "physical" church you are part of), can you, according to your levels of heaven, reach the celestial kingdom? Can someone be just as good of a follower outside of the LDS church as inside of it?

Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of LDS doctrine. You cannot reach the celestial kingdom without the ordinances of the gospel (faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end, along with receiving your endowments and temple marriage if you desire the highest blessings of the celestial kingdom), and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church through which all of these are available. That doesn't mean, however, that some of them (faith, repentance, and enduring to the end, specifically) are not found in other churches. We believe they are.

Edited November 2, 2011 by altersteve

[ERayR]

See, that's exactly my point. Of course not. You can't be a Christian without believing in Christ and what he stood for. So no. Now, if you believe in everything he stood for (regardless of what "physical" church you are part of), can you, according to your levels of heaven, reach the celestial kingdom? Can someone be just as good of a follower outside of the LDS church as inside of it?

Yes because if you believe in everything he stood for you will accept the ordinances.

A good follower yes. I know several. And yes they are Christians.

Edited November 2, 2011 by ERayR

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

Thanks very much. Her recovery is going well so far.

I hope your daughter has a quick and safe recovery.

[Jesterss]

Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of LDS doctrine. You cannot reach the celestial kingdom without the ordinances of the gospel (faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end, along with receiving your endowments and temple marriage if you desire the highest blessings of the celestial kingdom), and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church through which all of these are available. That doesn't mean, however, that some of them (faith, repentance, and enduring to the end, specifically) are not found in other churches. We believe they are.

So then you believe that only your church, has the true christian doctrine, and that the others, cannot fully reach the highest kingdom (level) of heaven, therefore, just like all other religions, you believe you must be an adherent to your faith or believe in your faith or accept your ordinances after death, in order to be a true christian... thank you...

so obviously I didn't miss anything, I was just trying to get you to answer the questions and assert that my assessment that the LDS church believes their church is the only true church and you must adhere to their doctrines in order to be a true christian (receiving the highest, celestial kingdom of heaven)...

Edited November 2, 2011 by Jesterss

[ERayR]

So then you believe that only your church, has the true christian doctrine, and that the others, cannot fully reach the highest kingdom (level) of heaven, therefore, just like all other religions, you believe you must be an adherent to your faith or believe in your faith or accept your ordinances after death, in order to be a true christian... thank you...

Again your lack of understanding of LDS theology and penchant for oversimplification leads you to incorrect assumptions.

[altersteve]

So then you believe that only your church, has the true christian doctrine, and that the others, cannot fully reach the highest kingdom (level) of heaven, therefore, just like all other religions, you believe you must be an adherent to your faith or believe in your faith or accept your ordinances after death, in order to be a true christian... thank you...

No. You don't need to accept any of the ordinances (except faith in Jesus Christ) in order to be a Christian, but you do need to accept all of them in order to receive all the blessings that God desires to give you. I don't know how many times we need to tell you this.

And please don't tell me what I believe.

[Jesterss]

Again your lack of understanding of LDS theology and penchant for oversimplification leads you to incorrect assumptions.

What assertion is incorrect? You don't believe your faith is the right one? You don't believe that the LDS church has the complete and full doctrine and only way to reach the celestial kingdom?

[altersteve]

Steve,

Thanks very much. Her recovery is going well so far.

Good to hear.

[Jesterss]

No. You don't need to accept any of the ordinances (except faith in Jesus Christ) in order to be a Christian, but you do need to accept all of them in order to receive all the blessings that God desires to give you. I don't know how many times we need to tell you this.

And please don't tell me what I believe.

But see, you break heaven down into 3 levels. Why would a christian call himself a christian if they are only going to the terrestrial or telestial? Wouldn't a Christian be someone who believes they are following the correct path in order to reach heaven (levels aside here, because only your religion believes in that)? You're inability to overlook your own doctrine is clouding your understanding of heaven to others.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I only have Bridget Jack Jeffries's side of the story, but by her own account she was sixteen years old when she acted in the quite immature and unpleasant manner that you quoted from her story. It was not evangelical anti-Mormonism that made her act like an immature teenager; she was an immature teenager. I don't know Matt Slick's side of the story regarding her removal as a moderator at CARM, so I cannot comment on that part. I will say that my experience on CARM is consistent with her complaint that the non-Mormons are given latitude to say anything they like about Mormonism with impunity, though in fairness I have also been on the receiving end there of nasty responses from various anti-orthodox posters (not exclusively or even primarily on the Mormon forum). I have tried to participate there from time to time but find the general tenor of the debates too lacking in civility for me to take it for any length of time. Then again, I have been personally attacked on this forum from the beginning of my participation, especially by you, so I have a rather different perspective on this than you do!

In any case, it isn't evangelical anti-Mormonism that is at fault for the bad manners of people on such forums as CARM, any more than Mormonism is to blame for your bad behavior or that of other people here who have been very unkind toward me. The real problem is the anonymity of the internet that allows anyone with access to a computer the opportunity to hide behind pseudonyms while blasting away at others with impunity. Civil-minded individuals generally don't have the patience or motivation to continue in such forums, while the immature and angry people, who are attracted to such forums in droves, are relentless and feed off each other. This is true regardless of the religion of the offenders; I know this because I have spent a lot of time on numerous online forums and the pattern is almost pervasive. And such behavior is not at all the sort of behavior encouraged by or modeled by someone like Bill McKeever. I personally saw him engage Mormon missionaries in discussion in Salt Lake City, and he was always fair-minded, polite, and civil. You are free to disagree, of course.

[CQUIRK]

That's the issue here, you all chime in on other peoples posts and expect doubters of your faith to respond to every single come back, when they don't you claim you have won the argument or presented the most logical conclusion because someone didn't take the time to repeat themselves to someone else's (who wasn't addressed) trivial points..

Funny, that's a sin that's been committed even more so by the anti-Mormon flock, then us.

Orion88 isn't being bombarded here, and my arguments are quite simple, so I'm still waiting.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

How much of the teachings of Jesus can you reject and still go to Heaven?

[Jesterss]

Jesterss:

How much of the teachings of Jesus can you reject and still go to Heaven?

Notice my name, Jesterss, not Jesus...

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

You wrote:

As the Mormon version of a street preacher (without the hate speech, protest signs or targeted literature...OK, I am nothing like them but I do walk in the streets and talk to them), I can tell you that Bill yells unkind, unChristian slogans at me simply because I pointedly refute his baseless attacks on the LDS Church, specifically his false Strawman attack on the historicity of the Gold Plates. He specifically yells at me "Liar" and "Deceiver", and refuses to speak with me when he is pitching his trash to groups and I show up and start asking him pointed questions he omits, such as why does he not quote those who claimed to actually handle the plates?

Tell me what audience he is speaking to, and can tell you how much he will say he cares. Ask him about me, and why he can attack my character simply because I am informed on the issues he claims to be trying to teach us lost souls about. We clearly don't agree on religious issues. It doesn't make me a liar or a deceiver to challenge his assertions with documentation. But I do know it is the nature of people to paint others with their own motives when they are trying to divine their motives.

Since I have not been present during these encounters you had with Bill, I obviously cannot comment definitively on your story. Your description of Bill yelling "liar" and "deceiver" at you sounds uncharacteristic of him based on my experience.

I will say this: the substance of your objection to Bill's argument seems very weak to me. Bill does talk about what the witnesses said who claimed to handle the gold plates. Their testimony actually confirms one of Bill's key claims, which is that whatever Joseph Smith had, they were not actual gold plates. If they had been, none of the witnesses would have been able to "heft" them as some of them had reported.

[altersteve]

But see, you break heaven down into 3 levels.

That's a caricature.

Why would a christian call himself a christian if they are only going to the terrestrial or telestial? Wouldn't a Christian be someone who believes they are following the correct path in order to reach heaven (levels aside here, because only your religion believes in that)?

A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ, period. We believe that all disciples of Jesus Christ will ultimately go to heaven, even if they don't receive the fullness of heaven's blessings. How many more times will we need to explain this?

You're inability to overlook your own doctrine is clouding your understanding of heaven to others.

My ability to understand heaven (and to understand what other people understand about heaven) is just fine, thank you very much.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

The plates weighed no more than about 40 LBS. Easily within the capacity of men used to the hard physical labor of early 19th Century farming.

[Jesterss]

That's a caricature.

So are any of your claims.

A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ, period. We believe that all disciples of Jesus Christ will ultimately go to heaven, even if they don't receive the fullness of heaven's blessings. How many more times will we need to explain this?

You already admitted to what I have been saying. Nothing more.

My ability to understand heaven (and to understand what other people understand about heaven) is just fine, thank you very much.

So your ability to state how others believe should not be questioned, but what I understand you to believe should be, because obviously I lack the ability to understand anything outside the realms of what little I currently understand.. sounds good..

[TAO]

So I'm just gonna generalize my response since 3 people said the same thing basically.

Regarding claims of being Christian or not Christian. Would you all consider Catholicism as being a Christian religion? Would you consider Jehovah Witness as a Christian religion?

Okey dokey.

Mmmm... I'm not gonna point fingers at which religions are Chritisan and non-Christian. It is a line that doesn't really matter imho. You can be saved regardless of whether you are or aren't Christian while you are here on this Earth.

Now lets hypothetically (remove hypothetically for your belief) say your religion is right. If a JW or Catholic, when dead, refused the proxy baptism would they still reach heaven (and or do they even need the proxy baptism since they were partially right?)? Since they would obviously have been wrong about their understanding. Or do you believe that it's ok that they were only partially right in some areas? I know LeSellers said he believes God gives partial credit, so what is considered partial credit? Because after all, both these religions have converted millions of people to their theology, so wouldn't they be guilty of leading people astray? They are teaching false doctrines, according to your belief.

They would reach the terrestrial, or maybe telestial kingdom, I believe. You must remember, we look at things in a more complex way then heaven and hell.

They would only receive that though for their willing refusal with knowledge. You can't sin if you don't have knowledge, without it, it is is a transgression, not exacty a sin.

So by the logic a couple have applied. If we (those outside the LDS faith) are christian, and you are christian, does it really matter then whose church is the true church? Isn't following christ the ultimate goal?

Does it matter? Well, we as human beings tend to want to know the truth about things; we are curious, so it matters in that sense. It also matters because without enough people to do the proxy baptisms, things would take eons to get done for the massive number of people here on Earth.

And yeah, following Christ is the ultimately goal... it is why we have proxy baptisms and ordinances... to give people, who didn't have the chance, the chance to follow Christ, and to receive the same ordinances we did, even though they weren't alive at the time period we were =). It is a great blessing and justice which I love a lot about the church =D.

[altersteve]

So are any of your claims.

My claims about what?

You already admitted to what I have been saying. Nothing more.

So have you been saying that we believe that Christians, LDS and otherwise, will go to heaven, but not all of them will receive all that God desires for His children? Because that's what I'm saying.

So your ability to state how others believe should not be questioned, but what I understand you to believe should be, because obviously I lack the ability to understand anything outside the realms of what little I currently understand.. sounds good..

I never said any of that. I said that I have the ability to understand things just fine, and I don't need you insulting my intelligence by suggesting otherwise. I also said that you don't understand LDS doctrine, not that you don't have the ability to do so. I'm sure you do have that ability, if only you would open your mind a little and actually pay attention to what people are telling you.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

The plates weighed no more than about 40 LBS. Easily within the capacity of men used to the hard physical labor of early 19th Century farming.

If we accept Emma's testimony, they were even light enough for "the little woman" to move from place to place while she did her housework. That would suggest 40 pounds as an upper limit, and perhaps even lighter, though I am not sure we should accept this testimony at face value. Most of the men who said they lifted the plates estimated their weight between 40 and 60 pounds, with the latter appearing to be the dominant estimate, though Joseph's father thought they weighed only about 30 pounds.

There are several difficulties here, one of which of course is the material composition of the plates. If they were really made of gold then they would have weighed over a hundred pounds, even assuming that the plates were so uneven that they occupied only half of the space reported. This has led many LDS apologists to argue that the plates only appeared gold in color; we are often told that the plates were probably composed of tumbaga. This theory still makes the plates weigh over 50 pounds, according to Putnam's calculation (repeated, for example, by LDS apologist Michael Ash). The tumbaga theory requires a limited Mesoamerican context for the Book of Mormon, which also is problematic from my understanding. In any case, picking up a stack of metal plates weighing over 50 pounds off a table, for example, is a lot harder than, say, picking up a 50-pound sack of potatoes, which may explain the greatly varying estimates of their weight (and may suggest that the weight was far less than 50 or 60 pounds after all). And the more "air space" one posits between the metal pages, the less writing space there is for the text of the Book of Mormon.

The bottom line is that there are real difficulties here that, as best I can see, LDS apologists struggle to answer adequately.

[altersteve]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

If we accept Emma's testimony, they were even light enough for "the little woman" to move from place to place while she did her housework. That would suggest 40 pounds as an upper limit, and perhaps even lighter, though I am not sure we should accept this testimony at face value. Most of the men who said they lifted the plates estimated their weight between 40 and 60 pounds, with the latter appearing to be the dominant estimate, though Joseph's father thought they weighed only about 30 pounds.

There are several difficulties here, one of which of course is the material composition of the plates. If they were really made of gold then they would have weighed over a hundred pounds, even assuming that the plates were so uneven that they occupied only half of the space reported. This has led many LDS apologists to argue that the plates only appeared gold in color; we are often told that the plates were probably composed of tumbaga. This theory still makes the plates weigh over 50 pounds, according to Putnam's calculation (repeated, for example, by LDS apologist Michael Ash). The tumbaga theory requires a limited Mesoamerican context for the Book of Mormon, which also is problematic from my understanding. In any case, picking up a stack of metal plates weighing over 50 pounds off a table, for example, is a lot harder than, say, picking up a 50-pound sack of potatoes, which may explain the greatly varying estimates of their weight (and may suggest that the weight was far less than 50 or 60 pounds after all). And the more "air space" one posits between the metal pages, the less writing space there is for the text of the Book of Mormon.

The bottom line is that there are real difficulties here that, as best I can see, LDS apologists struggle to answer adequately.

The fact is that Joseph had some kind of metal plates in his possession that were between 40 and 60 pounds. This is consistent with the proposed Mesoamerican model of the Book of Mormon's setting, as you said yourself.

How is a limited Mesoamerican context problematic for you?