The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[halconero]

Many Mormons love Bart Ehrman, LDS spokesman. I may be wrong, but I was thinking he despises St. Paul (and all religion). I forget, is he a seventy? or an apostle?

 

He's a biblical scholar and an agnostic/former Christian.

[WysteriaBlue]

Just to ask...were there Bishops at the time that Paul was writing?  I thought the church was fairly dispersed and fighting persecution, and much of Paul's frustration was the perversion of the gospel by some churches with gnostic, polytheistic, etc types of teachings.  He was traveling widely and also hiding at times himself as he tried to keep the Saviour's teachings uncorrupted as the apostles/believers/new churches became so scattered. 

Thus eventually leading to the need 400 years later to meet in Nicea and the build up of the Catholic church and the Nicean Creed to reaffirm the beliefs of the church.

 

This is what I understood, and am probably very wrong...I had read WhyMe's responses and defense of Paul and his priesthood and faith.  Can someone better respond or cite some references to better understand?

 

Also, my understanding is that the universal apostasy started with the death of Jesus and his apostles...is there a year attributed to the begining of the Apostasy as a related question?

 

wb

[mfbukowski]

I find it ironic that the biggest LDS boosters are quoting Paul, who would be considered an "apostate" in our current church. Just so we recall, Paul wasn't born of "goodly parents" and into the covenant, so to speak. Paul was a virulent anti-Christian who had a conversion experience and ASSUMED the mantle of apostle.

To my knowledge, Paul didn't rise through the ranks as bishop, SP, MP, MIB, ASPCA, etc. There is certainly no record that he was ever called or set apart by the other apostles. He simply went out and started preaching the Gospel and establishing churches.

And, by no means, did Paul assume that church leaders could not lead the Church astray. Half of his letters were basically saying, "They're doing it wrong. Let ME show you how it's done."

In short, in making your arguments from Team Infallibility, you might want to stay out of the 2/3 of the NT written by MY man, Paulie-Paul.

You really live in a totally different reality than mine.  I don't know where you get this stuff.

[mfbukowski]

Many Mormons love Bart Ehrman, LDS spokesman. I may be wrong, but I was thinking he despises St. Paul (and all religion). I forget, is he a seventy? or an apostle?

I presume you are kidding?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

[Pahoran]

He's a biblical scholar and an agnostic/former Christian.

 

I'm more than confident that Rory's comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[teddyaware]

I presume you are kidding?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

It's called Chronic Obsessive Contrarian Syndrome, Mark.

[halconero]

I'm more than confident that Rory's comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I thought as much. Can never be too sure though.

[mfbukowski]

In any case, I'm pleased that you recognize that there is room for people to seek and receive personal revelation independent of the church, even if it doesn't fit within the cultural norms of the church's teachings.

Baloney.

If non-members could not receive personal revelation there would be no way a non-member could "verify" that "the church is true" by personal revelation.

 

Pretty obvious.

[Calm]

It's called Chronic Obsessive Contrarian Syndrome, Mark.

Not Rory.

[Silhouette]

Baloney.

If non-members could not receive personal revelation there would be no way a non-member could "verify" that "the church is true" by personal revelation.

Pretty obvious.

When I was a non-member, I was praying one night to ask which church to join, much like Joseph Smith did, though I didn't know his story at the time.

During my prayer, I received a very strong personal revelation to "Call the Mormon Church." I did so the next day, and I had a testimony that the Church is true before I ever had the first discussion. It was an amazing event in my life.

[3DOP]

Hey all,

 

Anyways, I was just making a wisecrack aimed at the onward march in our churches to the throne of infidels who practice "biblical scholarship". I don't know what Ehrman thinks about St. Paul's relations with the Church, but I know what has to be true if either of our churches have any credibility. I would also suggest that the same "scholarship" that would divide Peter from Paul probably wouldn't be very kind to the Book of Mormon if they ever turned their eyes in that direction.

Edited October 13, 2014 by 3DOP

[halconero]

Hey all,

 

Anyways, I was just making a wisecrack aimed at the onward march in our churches to the throne of infidels who practice "biblical scholarship". I don't know what Ehrman thinks about St. Paul's relations with the Church, but I know what has to be true if either of our churches have any credibility. I would also suggest that the same "scholarship" that would divide Peter from Paul probably wouldn't be very kind to the Book of Mormon if they ever turned their eyes in that direction.

 

Speaking from the viewpoint of one who majors in biblical scholarship (along with my other focus on pre-med), we're not all infidels.

 

Besides, there's differing view points within that scholarship on Paul and Peter's relationship. Some take the divided church belief that Paul and Peter never really got along and that they parted ways completely. There are a substantial number, including myself, who see Paul and Peter striving to maintain and create communion among the gentile and jewish Christians, while hitting some bumps and clashing along the way. Paul asserts his fellowship with the Jerusalem apostles in the same epistle where elaborates on an episode in which he rebuked Peter.

[mfbukowski]

When I was a non-member, I was praying one night to ask which church to join, much like Joseph Smith did, though I didn't know his story at the time.

During my prayer, I received a very strong personal revelation to "Call the Mormon Church." I did so the next day, and I had a testimony that the Church is true before I ever had the first discussion. It was an amazing event in my life.

Wonderful story!

 

I had studied philosophy in college, and knew that Mormonism cohered somewhat with the philosophy I had studied, but thought the whole golden plates and polygamy stuff was totally ridiculous.  I was an atheist.

 

Someone gave me a Book of Mormon, and showed me Moroni 10:4-5, and that is all I had read of the BOM.  I couldn't get that challenge out of my head.  It just wouldn't go away and I could not forget it.  Of course I was not going to read that silly book, but that challenge just would not go away.  I went for a drive and without thinking about it, ended up "randomly" in a location where I had had a "spiritual experience" as a kid, which I had later rationalized away as "all in my mind".

 

I prayed about the BOM and had a major conversion right on the spot.  I surrendered my atheism and got baptized a few weeks later.

[3DOP]

I

 

Speaking from the viewpoint of one who majors in biblical scholarship (along with my other focus on pre-med), we're not all infidels.

 

Besides, there's differing view points within that scholarship on Paul and Peter's relationship. Some take the divided church belief that Paul and Peter never really got along and that they parted ways completely. There are a substantial number, including myself, who see Paul and Peter striving to maintain and create communion among the gentile and jewish Christians, while hitting some bumps and clashing along the way. Paul asserts his fellowship with the Jerusalem apostles in the same epistle where elaborates on an episode in which he rebuked Peter.

 

halconero...hey...

 

My intention was not to suggest that biblical scholarship is only done by infidels. Assuredly we all have our faithful heroes in that department?

 

If the scholarship goes so far as to dismiss St. Paul's writings, it attacks the credibility of every church that has accepted Paul in their Bibles. If the Christians have been fooled about this for nearly two thousand years, including those like you who have living Apostles, who have accepted the Pauline canon, I would lose my faith in such a Christianity. Such a belief is incompatible with Christianity as it developed if my church is true as well as if your church is true (and for everyone who has a 27 Book New Testament!).

 

What LDS scholar has taught this? What LDS Apostle has taught this? Mormons are already complaining that you don't get enough revelation. Now it turns out that the scholars prove that your apostles never knew that practically half the New Testament is unworthy? How could the Apostles be wrong about something that important? I understand the position of one who denies inerrancy. I never attack LDS about that. It works in your paradigm for me. I understand, though I disagree, with diminishing the authority of the sections of I Cor. where Paul says he speaks "as a man". But dismissing everything that Paul says because of some feud that the scholars have learned about that escaped the detection of 20 centuries of Christianity, including two centuries with living Apostles? Now instead of more revelation you lose a bunch, including stuff many have used to prove an apostasy. LDS have to keep Paul in the canon.

 

I was prompted by a post above where it was implied that someone's biblical argument could be ignored because they used too many quotes from Paul's writings. I don't think any of our churches can be credible if we need such a drastic diminution of the authority of St. Paul.    

 

Rory

Edited October 13, 2014 by 3DOP

[Guest]

When I was a non-member, I was praying one night to ask which church to join, much like Joseph Smith did, though I didn't know his story at the time.

During my prayer, I received a very strong personal revelation to "Call the Mormon Church." I did so the next day, and I had a testimony that the Church is true before I ever had the first discussion. It was an amazing event in my life.

The marvel is, is that God is so personal, so aware, so loving and so involved. Everyone who is truly asks receives the one of the first of a lifelong revelation as did all the Prophets from the beginning of time, coming to know that God is indeed "no respecter of persons". That be we male of female, rich or poor, black or white...we are as the Bible and BoM state; "all are alike unto God". That even I who gained a testimony the first time I read, it the first time in Jan 1979, beginning with the Testimony of Joseph Smith through to Mosiah on the same night, that is was the "Word of God". Even I who esteem myself the least of God's creation among men, am entitled too and should respect revelation. This is why, I love him, because he first loved...even me! Thank you for sharing such a wonderful story. Even in my youth and mine beginnings in the Baptist pulpit, I knew there was more. Edited October 13, 2014 by Pa Pa

[wenglund]

So then what are the right reasons to be critical of Mormonism?

 

The right reason to be critical of Mormonism is if you are in an appropriate position to do so, and your criticism is constructive and balanced.

 

In other words a "right" reason to be critical is if you are God, and thus know the mind and will of God for his Church  and were you to see the Church veering from your divine intended course, and you are in communication with your chosen leaders, you may rightly reveal your corrective criticism to them, and this couched within the wealth of complimentary comments you have made about your earthly kingdom over the years. Such is the nature of scripture.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2014 by wenglund

[3DOP]

The right reason to be critical of Mormonism is if you are in an appropriate position to do so, and your criticism is constructive and balanced.

 

In other words a "right" reason to be critical is if you are God, and thus know the mind and will of God for his Church  and were you to see the Church veering from your divine intended course, and you are in communication with your chosen leaders, you may rightly reveal your corrective criticism to them, and this couched within the wealth of complimentary comments you have made about your earthly kingdom. Such is the nature of scripture.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Hey Wade,

 

I was a little disappointed that omni didn't seem to notice my reply to the same question in post #63.

 

It has become more and more apparent to me that what we have in both of our churches (LDS and Catholic) are people who are attached to either one, for reasons that exclude agreement with teachings on faith and morals. They have completely different concerns as opposed to those of us who see the need to retain a credible claim to being the one true church. Those of us who have sought to identify the one true church have upon thinking we have found it, tried to be docile and to have our minds and hearts formed according to what has been taught.

 

It isn't because I am so desperately attached to thinking homosexuality is icky, or that divorce and remarriage is adultery, or that Sts. Peter and Paul's teachings are reconcilable. If the one true church had taught otherwise, I would have already believed what these cultural Catholics and Mormons (for want of a better term) are trying to change in our churches! Clearly, docility to the one true church has required a rejection of these proposed changes.

 

I am not going to be docile to any institution that has made mistakes of the magnitude that the culturals propose we are making for the length of time they have been made. I don't understand it really, but the culturals like to go to church, and don't care much about whether its claims are true or not. That is what is under attack from my point of view. Even if they are not conscious of it, what they propose is a direct attack against claims to being the one true church. The one true church, and not any personal attachment to the teachings and morals which I insist upon maintaining, are what is at stake here. Of course people who go to church for cultural reasons would continue to attend. In that sense it would survive. But as for having any claim to my submission to its teachings because of its authority, that would be at an end, and so would my attendance.  

[wenglund]

Hey Wade,

 

I was a little disappointed that omni didn't seem to notice my reply to the same question in post #63.

 

It has become more and more apparent to me that what we have in both of our churches (LDS and Catholic) are people who are attached to either one, for reasons that exclude agreement with teachings on faith and morals. They have completely different concerns as opposed to those of us who see the need to retain a credible claim to being the one true church. Those of us who have sought to identify the one true church have upon thinking we have found it, tried to be docile and to have our minds and hearts formed according to what has been taught.

 

It isn't because I am so desperately attached to thinking homosexuality is icky, or that divorce and remarriage is adultery, or that Sts. Peter and Paul's teachings are reconcilable. If the one true church had taught otherwise, I would have already believed what these cultural Catholics and Mormons (for want of a better term) are trying to change in our churches! Clearly, docility to the one true church has required a rejection of these proposed changes.

 

I am not going to be docile to any institution that has made mistakes of the magnitude that the culturals propose we are making for the length of time they have been made. I don't understand it really, but the culturals like to go to church, and don't care much about whether its claims are true or not. That is what is under attack from my point of view. Even if they are not conscious of it, what they propose is a direct attack against claims to being the one true church. The one true church, and not any personal attachment to the teachings and morals which I insist upon maintaining, are what is at stake here. Of course people who go to church for cultural reasons would continue to attend. In that sense it would survive. But as for having any claim to my submission to its teachings because of its authority, that would be at an end, and so would my attendance.  

 

I, too, am a bit mystified by what you aptly described, though I am convinced that some people aren't happy unless they continually have cause and opportunity to gripe and complain, and so in at least one odd respect they may remain with the object of their gripes and complaints in order to be happy.

 

In another odd respect, some people are full of themselves, but their fullness may be unsatisfying unless it is publicly manifest. And, to their minds, what better way to satisfyingly display their presumed superior fullness than through open condescension in suffering long within an organization they deem worthy of immense and sustained criticism and thus in such great need of their supreme help.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2014 by wenglund

[mormonnewb]

Really?

 

Call for references, please.

 

Numerous apostles and prophets, from Joseph Smith on down, have cited, quoted and otherwise referenced and discussed Paul.  Which of them considered him an apostate?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Paul had a vision in which he proclaimed that the Savior personally commanded him to go forth and preach the Gospel.  Are you honestly telling me that someone in our Church could approach the leadership with their vision and be given over, say, the equivalent of the Roman Empire as its chief apostle?  No way in heck!

 

In fact, I'll prove it to you with two words -- DENVER SNUFFER.

 

In last conference, didn't Elder Nelson try to explain to us why we have no need to fear if one of the apostles is incapacitated?  Isn't it because we have a deep "bullpen" of GAs, who have been groomed through three and four decades of experience?

 

"The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.17 Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils."

 

To me, this does not seem to show some great willingness to turn the reigns over to some new convert who had a vision.  Which senior leader of the church "tutored" Paul?

 

In our current church, we wouldn't let Paul lead a primary class, nevertheless assume the role of apostle.  No way.  No how.  And if you claim CFR, then perhaps you can prove me wrong by showing me ONE example in the last half century of an LDS apostle who had served less than 20 YEARS in the Church before being called as apostle.

 

Bueller?  Anyone?  Bueller?

[Calm]

You seem to be neglecting the possibility that revelation received in the case of Paul (who was directed in his vision to go to someone in authority who then baptised him) might have confirmed his vision to the leaders while revelation in the case of Snuffer confirmed he was in apostasy.

Paul's vision was in the early years of the NT Church. No one had served 20 years or more. His case would be better compared to someone coming to the Twelve not long after Joseph died. There were not a few new converts that were sent out on missions at the time.

Edited October 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

I, too, am a bit mystified by what you aptly described, though I am convinced that some people aren't happy unless they continually have cause and opportunity to gripe and complain, and so in at least one odd respect they may remain with the object of their gripes and complaints so in order to be happy.

 

In another odd respect, some people are full of themselves, but their fullness may be unsatisfying unless it is publicly manifest. And, to their minds, what better way to satisfyingly display their presumed superior fullness than through open condescension in suffering long within an organization they deem worthy of immense and sustained criticism and thus in such great need of their help.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Or perhaps, there are some people who simply see things like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who eloquently said:

 

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

 

For those who think that their church/government/group is right, they should follow it wholeheartedly.  But those who believe that their beloved institution is wrong have a solemn duty to NOT be silent.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Lord long ago commanded His people to "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with thy God" not to "ignore injustice, love comity and walk humbly with thy Church."

 

And while I understand that some of you see no distinction between God and His Church, the long arc of history seems to argue otherwise.

[mormonnewb]

You seem to be neglecting the possibility that revelation received in the case of Paul (who was directed in his vision to go to someone in authority) might have confirmed his vision to the leaders while revelation in the case of Snuffer confirmed he was in apostasy.

 

Can you really say that our modern-day leaders would EVER receive such confirming revelation?  Has it happened in the last century of the Church?  Or is HF now only working through "established channels"?

 

And let's be clear, I'm not claiming that Denver Snuffer is the Lord's anointed.  I'm simply saying that our current structure precludes HF from calling him or anyone else as an apostle.  Now, perhaps HF has decided that Peter Drucker was right after all and that He has now adopted 20th century business practices in running His Church.   Or perhaps, His HUMAN servants have began to take on the ways of the (business) world.

 

I wonder who has changed not ...

[Hamba Tuhan]

Paul had a vision in which he proclaimed that the Savior personally commanded him to go forth and preach the Gospel.  Are you honestly telling me that someone in our Church could approach the leadership with their vision and be given over, say, the equivalent of the Roman Empire as its chief apostle?  No way in heck!

 

On many, many occasions I have been given to know ahead of time by God that I needed to prepare myself for a particular calling, including the one I currently occupy. Personal revelation and revelation from God to His chosen leaders support one another.

[wenglund]

Or perhaps, there are some people who simply see things like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who eloquently said:

 

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

 

But, good people in the church aren't silent. They are very vocal in proclaiming the good. It is the "bad" who are bad-mouthing to no real good. So, aside form the incongruous political/religious distinction between your quote and the Church, your quote doesn't fit on principle.

 

Besides, there is a vast distance between the extremes of silence and chronic complaining. Hopefully some day you will recognize it, and find it in your heart to move towards the higher middle ground.

 

 

 

For those who think that their church/government/group is right, they should follow it wholeheartedly.  But those who believe that their beloved institution is wrong have a solemn duty to NOT be silent.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Lord long ago commanded His people to "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with thy God" not to "ignore injustice, love comity and walk humbly with thy Church."

 

And while I understand that some of you see no distinction between God and His Church, the long arc of history seems to argue otherwise.

 

While I appreciate the Obama-speak ("arc of history"), you are not mistaken in what the Lord commanded, though you are mistaken in confusing "do justice..." with "chronically complaining." Hopefully some day you will grasp the difference.

 

Now, if you can cite a canonical passage that reads something along the lines of, "the Lord commands his sheep to cease not their murmurings against his chosen shepherds, while yet remaining in the flock," then you may have a point. Good luck with that..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2014 by wenglund

[Avatar4321]

I find it ironic that the biggest LDS boosters are quoting Paul, who would be considered an "apostate" in our current church. Just so we recall, Paul wasn't born of "goodly parents" and into the covenant, so to speak. Paul was a virulent anti-Christian who had a conversion experience and ASSUMED the mantle of apostle.

To my knowledge, Paul didn't rise through the ranks as bishop, SP, MP, MIB, ASPCA, etc. There is certainly no record that he was ever called or set apart by the other apostles. He simply went out and started preaching the Gospel and establishing churches.

And, by no means, did Paul assume that church leaders could not lead the Church astray. Half of his letters were basically saying, "They're doing it wrong. Let ME show you how it's done."

In short, in making your arguments from Team Infallibility, you might want to stay out of the 2/3 of the NT written by MY man, Paulie-Paul.

where do you get this nonsense?