Airbrushing The Past
Today my wife and I went to view the feature film “Joseph Smith, Prophet of The Restoration” located in the LDS Legacy Theatre. The experience was exactly what I anticipated. As with all Mormon produced movies retelling the history of the church , one can be sure to experience a tale that is absent of facts and filled with emotions which was confirmed by the abundance a tissue paper that was offered by the sister missionaries who greeted us upon our entrance.
It is clear that the LDS church is unable to produce a film about the history of their church that would be anywhere in the realm of faith promoting. The film seems to deliberately leave out facts concerning the characteristics of Smith. It was also clear that the film is geared towards two groups of people.
The first being the faithful and devout LDS member. I call this FUBU (For Us By US). The way I see it is many LDS need a refueling of their testimonies, seeing that this religion thrives on emotions that are not connected to any kind of historical facts. Upon leaving the film Mormons can be filled with the familiar spirit that once again entices them to believe in the restored gospel.
The second group is the common person who has come to visit the LDS church’s many grandiose sites among Temple Square. These people are not familiar with what the Mormon church really teaches (Commonly known as the meat by LDS missionaries) and sees the church as yet just another denomination of Christianity.
Then you have me. The ravel rouser who is educated enough to be considered an anti-Mormon purely because of my extreme investigation and skepticism. Being an individual who has some what of a knowledge of the true Joseph Smith can see that this film was missing some key aspects in order to airbrush a more prettier and attractive Joseph Smith.
For instance, the film depicts Smith with only one wife (Emma) totally ignoring the fact that Joseph has a well documented list of over thirty wives. I also noticed that upon Smith’s retrieval of the golden plates that he was simply able to reach in and pick them up with great ease. Seeing that Smith recorded the actual size of the plates creates a problem being that the plates would have weighed over 180 lbs. Joseph Smith is also depicted reading the plates in plain view with no special magical spectacles which seems to be an important part concerning the account of Smith’s great translation. Then we have the African Americans who are told by Smith that the Lord’s blessings are equal to all of God’s children. This makes little sense considering that the LDS church granted the African Americans the priesthood only 29 years ago.
So my question to LDS is this……Why would you want to belong to a religion that must make great strides to cover up the actual events of their history. Why does Joseph Smith require so much airbrushing?
So to all my readers who are LDS, I would like you to know that this is one aspect of why I continue to minister to Mormons and non Mormons alike. The Church only tells half the story in order to keep current members and convert the uneducated into this church which is not Christian.
We here at One Living Truth Ministry will continue to pray that Mormons will come to a saving knowledge of the real Jesus Christ found in the Bible.
God Bless…..
Romans 10:9
posted by Eric Hoffman @ 10:53 PM
34 comments
34 Comments:
Hi Eric,
I am a more frequent visitor of Samuel the Utahnite as I agree more with his point than with yours...
But putting that aside, I liked this blog you wrote. I live very close to Temple Square and have not yet been to see this film. There really is no need as it has been designed to be a tear jerker. The church has been lying about its past for years, so why change now?
Yea, funny how they conveniently don't mention his 30+ wives.
Bet they didn't mention anything about his Kirtland banking fiasco either.
And they definitely can't show him with his face stuck in a hat!
The Joseph Smith that the Mormons believe in is a fictional character, a bunch of lies built around a few truths. Why is/was Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith in trouble with the law? BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH CRIMINALS! Read the signs people!
Hey Ray....
Thanks for the comment. Yes the film was indeed geared to be yet another emotional testimony enhancer. Notice there has not been much commenting about this post, as compared to other posts I have made. I know whats coming though....
"The bible is full of just as many problems that you christians try to cover up! Eric you are jus t as guilty about your faith!!"
This is the typical liberal way to argue. They wont try to defend or clear up whats been said but rather demonize the person that presented the information. The goal here is to make the person look as if his information is not creditable due to the many flaws of character in the presenter. The church did this very thing to Grant Palmer. Rather than addressing his work in his book they attacked him personally.
Anyway...thanks for commenting Ray!
My beef with Samuel is all on that side. I still pray for him and think he's a pretty nice guy.
God Bless ya....
-Eric
Hi again Eric,
I'm not in the business of finding fault with people (unless they are suits pretending to be prophets). You probably know from reading Samuel's blog that I am exmo and in discovering the LDS lie I also came to disbelieve in Christianity.
I know this blog is geared more for those who leave Mormonism and resort to another form of Christianity so I will attempt to be careful what I say here. I am sincerely not trying to offend anyone.
Eric, you are obviously set in your beliefs and I think that's great. You have found something that gives meaning to your life and you pursue it with all your soul. That is very commendable. Even in my TBM days, I was never as dedicated as you are.
I don't know enough about Biblical history to make a comment either way. There are definitely some things in the Bible that are too far fetched for me to believe that it is 100% the pure word of God. For example, the talking donkey. Also, Jesus feeding 5,000 people with five loaves of bread? It's just too absurd to literally be true.
But I'm not here to tear down your faith and tell you how wrong you are. We all have our freedom of religion and I will never try to take that away from you.
Call me a doubting Thomas because that's exactly what I am. If I can't see it, or see real evidence for it, then I don't buy into it. I've never seen a miracle and I've never seen any evidence for the divinity of Christ. I am taking several science classes and the evidence of the evolution theory is very overwhelming.
I personally believe that as mankind evolved, so did his religion, gods, and superstitions. The story of the forbidden fruit and the serpent is much older than Judahism or Christianity. I'm just an amateur when it comes to mythology and I'm not professing to be anything else.
What are the odds that some man in a robe will come flying out of space? Scientifically speaking, that is impossible. So I am forced to believe that it will never happen. Resurrection? Sorry, but it's a fact that dead people don't come back to life! So I can't believe in that either.
Anyway, I got on a little tangent. I didn't say these things to tear down your faith but just to hopefully give you a small idea of where I am coming from and how I think. I know people like me are looked down upon because we have no faith. But why should I have faith in something that is scientifically impossible?
Thanks for your reply, Eric and I'll be on tomorrow to see your reply. Gotta go for now.
Hey Ray,
I used to be in the exact boat you are in. I could not believe in God’s Word because too many things were just so unreal to me. But when I started to study both sides I found that too many facts were something I could deny. To tell you the truth evolution requires more faith than believing in God. I am glad you are looking into it though. Unlike Mormonism you can actually study the Bible and critically look into what God says.
Ray feel free to skype me if you ever wanted to dialogue on this subject. Good talkin’ to you bro.
Oh by the way…
You said:
”I know people like me are looked down upon because we have no faith.
I don’t look down on you at all Ray. God loves you just the same. He wants you to believe in Him and because you don’t does not mean he does not love you. I try to look to Christ in all things. So if he thinks with love why should I think any different.
God is good…
-Eric
Matthew 4:4
Hi Eric,
I'm glad for you that you found your faith. Thank you for understanding. You said a few things that confused me a little...
"evolution requires more faith than believing in God." What do you mean? As I see it, evolution does not require any faith. It is just looking at the evidence and making an educated "guess". I've never see the South Pole but I have faith that it is really there because there is sufficient evidence to prove it. Is that what you meant?
"I found that too many facts were something I could deny". Is this a typo or something? because I have no idea what you mean by it. How did you discover your faith inspite of those things?
Again, going back to Jesus feeding 5,000 people. While I believe this is literally impossible, I could accept an explanation where he didn't feed them literally, but fed them spiritually. Isn't that why the people were gathered in the first place anyway? The simplicity of the meal (fish and bread) represents the simplicity of the gospel (Ironic that a fish is used. Wasn't Jesus a fisher of men?). Also, doesn't Jesus refer many times to "eating" and "drinking" in a spiritual sense? You see, looking at that story, I see a ton of symbolism, which is how Jesus liked to preach.
Now doesn't that make a lot more sense than an actual feast? It does to me anyway. At first, I doubted whether Jesus was even a real person but after doing some research, I am convinced that he was. Man? Yes. Great teacher? Yes. God (divine)? No. Just like Mormon stories, the story of Christ has evolved until he becomes a "superhero". This is what I personally believe has happened.
Well, Eric, it has been a pleasure to finally chat with you. I've heard a lot about you (from Samuel) and I don't think you're as awful as he makes you out to be. Frankly, I agree with him on his "blanket condemnation" argument. I believe that anyone, no matter what their religion, will be fine in the next life if they are just a good person. There is no one true religion. In fact, arguing over religion is a path to the "dark side" if you know what I mean (I'm a Starwars fan). We all need to overlook our differences and appreciate the good in each other. I appreciate your dedication to your convictions.
I expected your comments to be condescending and holier-than-thou but they are not at all. I appreciate you and thank you sincerely for letting me post here. I hope we can continue as I have enjoyed it very much thus far.
Also, thank you for taking the time to reply to me personally. You must be busy with all the blogs, podcasts, websites, newsletters, etc. that you are doing.
I'm not really into the Skype thing but we can email if you'd like. It doesn't matter to me. We can discuss things here, publically, or take it to email, whichever you prefer.
You have a good one, my friend.
Hey Ray....
Yes!! Star Wars is very good!!!
In my last post...yes it was a typo.
It was suppose to read "facts I could "not" deny.
As for Jesus feeding the five thousand, this is supposed to be taken literally. There are many scriptures where Jesus talked about feeding spiritually, but when you take the Greek context you can see where things were literal and symbolic or where he was speaking in parables.
Let me ask you this... Where can you show me that you have studied where Jesus is no more than a good teacher and not God? Where can you show me where evolution does not take some leap of faith as well? From what I have researched about evolution is that there is not just one missing link but hundreds.
You also stated that people that are inherently good will take some type of seat in the afterlife that is positive. If “good” people are worthy of this, what is the standard for “good?” Are you the standard? Am I the standard? I hope that not….because if I was the standard, the standard would be pretty low, for I am sinner. I break the commandments and am not worthy of anything. But that is where God’s grace comes in. Heaven is not for good people but for bad people that have turned their life over to Christ and have been forgiven.
As for Samuel’s view on me…..I do lay some blanket condemnations that are biblical.
For example:
”I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to Father except through me.” -John 14:6
” And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved,” –Acts 4:12
”He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” -1 John 5:12
”All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” –Matthew 28:18
"For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" -John 8:24
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -1 Timothy 2:5
You see, Samuel and others want the Jesus who fed the five thousand, and who performed miracles and said love your neighbor, but don’t want the Jesus who said follow me or parish.
So you can see that it was Jesus who claimed this exclusivity, not me. I believe every word Jesus said. There are many things that Samuel deliberately leaves out about me. But that is between me and him. I have asked him to debate me on many things, but he refuses and says I am waste of time. But yet has over 5 posts dedicated entirely to me. Anyway, enough about him. You seem like a cool Ray. Let’s keep the dialogue going.
The skype offer was to see if you wanted to talk with audible voices rather than these posts. If you want I can email you my cell.
God Bless ya’ Ray...
-Eric
Romans 3:23
Eric,
Like I said before, I'm not much of a scholar on Biblical studies. If the original text was written to be literal, then I'll have to take your word for it since I don't speak Greek and have no idea where to even research something like that.
Your question is a good one and frankly I don't have the answer to it. If by "good" I mean someone who doesn't lie, cheat, murder, steal, fornicate, etc. then I would consider both you and myself to be "good" people. Of course, we all make mistakes. It's human nature. I'm not going to look at you, an overall pretty good person, and say "That Eric Hoffman. He made a typo in the last comment he made to me and so is therefore an evil person." We all make mistakes but that does not automatically make us awful, evil beings.
I have a child. He does naughty things sometimes. But I don't throw him out of my house when he makes a mistake. Now if he gets older and endangers the lives or health of the rest of my family, it becomes necessary to remove him from the house, like foster care, jail, mental hospital, etc. This is when it goes from a slip-up to a pretty serious thing. In the case of simple slip-ups, it is not necessary to take drastic measures to cure the problem. I believe it is the same with God. You might have yelled at your wife and said something you didn't mean, but you are still a "good" person, because I am sure you apologized and made it up to her. Now if you yell at your wife and then murder her, that's something entirely different. That's the best way I can answer your question.
"Where can you show me that you have studied where Jesus is no more than a good teacher and not God?" To be perfectly honest, I can't. I haven't done nearly enough research for one thing. My conclusion is based on pure common sense and the fact that stories evolve over time. So yea, I'm making a claim with not much to back it up; however, the claim is one of supernatural factors, which science does not explore at all. And of course, any reading you or I will do is biased because the author(s) also have their opinions on things.
"Where can you show me where evolution does not take some leap of faith as well?" Sorry but I still don't understand what you mean by "evolution by faith". How about the fact that a pre-human skull has been found which is 7 million years old? What about the fact that all living things on this planet share a universal genetic code? (Because of this, DNA for human insulin can be placed inside bacteria, and the bacteria produces insulin that diabetics can actually use) Darwin's research on the Virgin Islands very clearly established the connections between many different species of finches found there.
Here's my question that has really defined my current position. If God loves me and all people as you claim he does, where is he? Why doesn't he make himself known? The only way we can learn about God is in the Bible and that is just confusing because everyone reads it and gets something different out of it.
When I was TBM and had the "priesthood" it was kind of like a Jedi Knight having the "force". The difference, is that a Jedi Knight can use his power in a very real way... he can read peoples thoughts, he can shove enemies back with unseen but very real power. With the priesthood, you just say a prayer and wait for something to happen. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Whatever happens is ultimately "God's will" so what is the point of having the priesthood in the first place? It's like we all kinda know deep within ourselves that the power really isn't there but we keep on pretending it is. I see a belief in God as something very similar to this. If I am going to devote my life to God, I want to know for a fact that he is really there and not just a superstition.
Please don't misinterpret what I am saying. I am not denying that there is a God; I'm am just saying that if God wants us to understand him, he should have given us a little better instruction than some old book which has been changed over hundreds of years and no one understands anyway. Just like the actual power of a Jedi Knight, where is God's power actually doing anything for us? If anything, God's power is destructive and causes harm and death. I've never heard of a hurricane that made a skyscraper out of a pile of bricks.
If God visits me personally and tells me what to do, then I will devote my life to him. But if God is silent, why should I worry about it?
Wow Ray your honesty truly humbles me. I am really enjoying this dialogue with you. I am glad you are willing to admit you don’t know certain things, as I do not know a lot about the DNA situation you have presented. I would love to look into that. Anyway Ray….let me know if I am mistaken but, what I hear you saying is that you truly would like to know God but just have not been presented with enough evidence. This excites me because I said this very same thing before I came to know the Lord. So I studied my way into belief and after believing was even enlightened to more truth about God’s word. Do you live in the area? Can I get your email address? I would love to give you my cell # and we could talk. But if you prefer not to that’s totally ok seeing that you are very constructive in your dialogue.
Ray, let me run you down the law of God….
Have you ever stolen something? Even if it’s small like a company pen.
Have you ever told a lie?
Have you ever taken the Lord’s name in vein?
Have you ever looked upon a woman as to have lust after her?
Have you ever hated someone?
I can clearly answer yes to all these questions….what about you?
I will await your answer and then continue my point.
Grace and Peace be with you Ray
-Eric
Job 42:5
Thank you Eric, I am enjoying this as well. Yes, I would like to know God. Now that doesn't necessarially mean the Christian God, mind you. Our human nature, as imperfect as it is, is to pursue truth. We crave truth. Whether it is through religion or science, our goal is the same: truth. Whatever that truth happens to be is the truth I want to believe in. Most people want THEIR truth to be true. They are not willing to admit that they could be wrong. Leaving Mormonism is very difficult on many levels. The social aspect. The honesty with yourself (admitting that you were wrong).
Now on to your questions...
I would be lying if I said no to any of them. I am looking forward to see where you're going with this.
Hello Ray,
> Our human nature, as imperfect as
> it is, is to pursue truth. We
> crave truth. Whether it is through
> religion or science, our goal is
> the same: truth. Whatever that
> truth happens to be is the truth I
> want to believe in. Most people
> want THEIR truth to be true. They
> are not willing to admit that they
> could be wrong.
I would agree to this. However, I have an important methodological question: if you want to search for truth, how can you do it?
Would you just take someone's word for truth? Or would you want to obtain truth by direct experience?
Taking the bible as a basis for one's pursuit of truth is taking some other person's word.
We were not present when all the stories of the bible happened.
We cannot verify if there was
- a creation in seven days.
- the ten plagues as depicted in the bible (they might have a natural cause)
- the parting of the sea by Moses
- millions of Israelites wandering through the desert
- Jesus walking on water
- Jesus literally feeding thousands of people
- etc.
All these things we can only blindly trust, or we don't.
But is this a way to obtain truth?
Do you want to blindly believe, or do you want to know the truth?
I think this is an important distinction. As far as I see it,
Christianity is only based on the bible, on blind trust that these old records are true. And you know from the book of Mormon that it is easy to fake history.
If a simple farmer boy can make up such a hilarios story all by himself, how much more convincing can over 60 authors create a nice story, basing on half-truths, taking literal history and mingling it with legends.
The Buddha gave a nice simile when talking about the "scripture" of his time, the Vedas.
I paraphrase:
"It is like a chain of blind people, clinging to the shoulders of the person before them, thus walking along. Noone sees the way, they only blindly follow the person before them."
As we do not live in biblical times, we like those blind people have no direct insight, no knowledge. Instead of seeing, we have to trust the people who lived before and gave us this scripture. However, if the first person was blind too, we live in a very dangerous situation, for we will all inevitably fall into a pit, as the first person does not see the way.
On the contrary, the Buddha started with direct experience. Through meditation, he could experience the nature of his own being.
If you meditate yourself, you will find that many statements the Buddha stated are true.
One example:
When you start meditating, you will recognize an amazing fact:
While "you" want to concentrate on the breath, your mind constantly wanders off, thinking about past and future.
This insight into the nature of our mind, gained by direct experience, is a direct proof that we are not the owner of our mind, for if we were, it would follow our will.
This is just an example of how to gain direct knowledge about ourselves.
So you see, different religions put different emphasis in the means of gaining wisdom.
Monotheistic religions base their faith on the tradition of a book, which you have to put your faith in.
Buddhism and several other Indian traditions which base on meditation base themselves on direct experience. You only trust what you can know by yourselves.
Now the simple question is:
Whom do you want to trust?
Your own experience, or some guys who lived before you and composed some holy writ?
Isn't Joseph Smith a proof that scripture can be faked?
Just my thoughts on the topic,
sorry Eric for spoiling your "biblical christianity" blog with Buddhist thoughts.
Metta(loving kindness),
Jane Winsley.
Dear Jane Winsley,
Your question is an excellent one and I have thought about it many times, especially recently. What is the source of truth?
As I have pondered this much lately, the only answer I have come up with is ourselves.
As we study the world around us, the more we learn about it. If we don't study, we don't learn. There are many amazing things about this world that would always be hidden from us unless we make the effort to discover them. There is no source of truth that is just handing out information. We have to find it for ourselves.
Unfortunately, this type of approach can not be applied to supernatural forces as they can not be seen or studied. The complexity and organization of life, even at the cellular level, is mind blowing, which suggests, at least to me, that there is some type of higher power. What it is I don't know. Eric calls it God. I guess I would call it nature.
Even a complex cell is just a pile of elements arranged in certain ways. What makes it alive? God is the source of life and that is the best way I can explain or even understand it.
Some people have no problem with blind faith. Personally, I do. As a Mormon I acceped everything on blind faith, only to find out later that it was all a lie. My trust in organized religion has been forever shattered.
I really liked how you shared Buddah's example of blind following the blind. Eric, how do you know that this is not the case for you? I know for a fact it was for me. My Mormon heritage goes back many generations. Only with all the information now available on the internet have we begun to break that cycle.
I have been interested in taking up a serious study of Buddhism. I am drawn to it because they do not tell you what you are going to see... they show you the path and you experience whatever you experience. It allows you to find your own truth, by your own experience. It is beautiful. Thank you very much, Jane, for sharing those thoughts.
Eric, you always share scriptures saying something to the effect of, "Only through me can you be saved." etc. Those are just words in a book. Anyone could have said them. Anyone could have written them. Anyone could write words and claim they are from Jesus, which is exactly what Joseph Smith did. The fact that Jesus can so easily be imitated is proof to me that Christianity in general is just as false as Mormonism.
Mormon theology works like this: "It's true because we said it is. We said it is because Jesus said it is." Religion boils down to nothing more than blind faith, just like Buddah said, and that is something that I am not prepared to do.
Ray,
Ok...Jane here is trying to show you that biblical Christianity is full of holes. But when I asked her to challenge me on the Septuagint she declined saying she was no expert in the situation. But I guess she is still willing to come here and try to proclaim her knowledge without any reference to back her theory up. I could show you a million and one problems within Buddhism. If you look into the writings of Gautama Buddha you will see all of the writings exclude themselves. But enough with Jane.
Ok so to finish off where we left off.
Jesus said that if a man was to even look at another woman as to lust after her was an adulterous at heart.
Jesus said that if we hated someone we were a murderer at heart.
In the bible it says that everyone will have their part in the lake of fire.
So Ray, by our own admission we are liars, thieves, murderers and adulterers at heart and blasphemers because we have taken the Lord’s name in vein.
I know it sounds harsh but according to what we have just admitted to it’s true. Another thing here is that almost all people do all these things.
So if we were to die right now and God were to judge us I don’t think we deserve to go to heaven because God is just and does not look over sin. We deserve hell. It would be like if you went to court and appeared before a judge and you pleaded guilty of your crimes. The judge is going to make you pay the penalty/fine. God said the wages of sin was death. So that is why Jesus came and died, went to hell, and rose from the dead three days later. He did this to pay for our sins. We are no longer under the law and Jesus paid the price in full. It was free. All he asked was to believe in Him. And believing in Him will produce good fruits and works that will testify of our faith. This is where LDS have it wrong. They are trying to earn their salvation and prove worthy. Anyway, this is why it is important to understand that nobody is good (Romans 3:23) and the statement seems to leave out any kind of standard.
Ray,
I would sincerely encourage you to look into Buddhism and Christianity. You will find many more facts back up Christianity than Buddhism. Gautama was a spoiled little rich kid who went out and sat under a tree and received enlightenment through his soul searching...no witnesses, no people to testify of his vision. Sound familiar? Also the American Buddhism is not the traditional Buddhism that originated from Hinduism. These people are radicals who killed over 60,000 Christians last year. Now Jane will tell you that Christians do the same thing. Well people call themselves Christians and do a lot of radical things that are not Christian all the time. For instance the KKK claims to be Christian. But fundamental Buddhists do teach total intolerance. Jane would not agree with this.
So going to the idea of truth...If there is no absolute truth, this statement must exclude itself or else it falls into nonsense. “No absolute truth” Is that the absolute truth?
Ok...Jane here is trying to show you that biblical Christianity is full of holes. But when I asked her to challenge me on the Septuagint she declined saying she was no expert in the situation.
The problem is not about the tradition of any version of the bible. The problem is whether the stories people put into the bible are historical or not.
Let's do a simple mind game:
Suppose I take a regular history book of American history.
Then I write a story about the infamous spagetti-monster and add it into the book.
Would you then believe in the spagetti-monster, Eric?
The problem is, even if parts of the book are actual history, this does not prove that other parts of the book are historical as well.
Many scholars agree that parts of the bible are historically accurate.
For example, Kings and Chronicles are for their times historically quite accurate. But, like in my mind game, the historicity of one part does not prove the accuracy of other parts.
Moreover, all these parts were written by different people.
So the precision, competency and good intention of one author does not tell us anything about the competency and intention of another author. In my mind game: While the author of the history part of the book might be a well-known historian with a sincere heart to pin down reliable history, me in my wicked intention to deceive people into a spagetti-monster cult make all of my stories up.
In the same way, the integrity of Kings and Chronicles, the mentioning of some historical figures like King David, Herod, etc. does not prove that the rest of the text is historically accurate.
There is no means to determine if any of the theologically relevant stories is true.
We have no proof outside the bible that any of those stories took place.
No wonders were recorded at Jesus' lifetime outside the bible. Jesus really became known only after his death, when early Christianity formed itself.
Therefore, I don't have to disprove your Septuagint or any other version of the bible, because I mainly doubt that they reflect historical events in the first place.
Jesus said that if a man was to even look at another woman as to lust after her was an adulterous at heart.
Jesus said that if we hated someone we were a murderer at heart.
In the bible it says that everyone will have their part in the lake of fire.
I know it sounds harsh but according to what we have just admitted to it’s true. Another thing here is that almost all people do all these things.
So if we were to die right now and God were to judge us I don’t think we deserve to go to heaven because God is just and does not look over sin. We deserve hell.
Is this really so? Even old testament laws were based on the lex talionis. This law was introduced by Hammurabi into his famous legal code
and later copied by God into his famous Mosaic law.
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
According to this law, the punishment cannot succeed the degree of the crime.
Now, lets judge God's judgement:
Looking at a woman => death.
Being angry at someone => death.
etc. => death.
Thus, God does not stick to his own law of retaliation.
In Buddhism, a similar law exists, the law of karma. In general, it is identical this law, however, it is not a judgemental law but some kind of natural law:
"If you do bad deeds, bad results will come forth. If you do good deeds, good results will come forth."
However, there is no grave exaggeration of your negative deeds over your positive deeds.
If you are friendly and helpful to other people, care for those in need, help in society, etc, yet, you look at a woman with lust, then this unwholesome deed is regarded as being of no gravity.
On the other hand, in evangelical Christianity which Eric proclaims, this single small deed weighs more than a thousand people you helped.
Therefore, God has to react in such a harsh way that he needs blood atonement.
(Anti-LDS people are so negative about blood atonement. However, God himself, according to Christianity, promoted blood atonement with the crucification of Jesus.)
Ray,
I would sincerely encourage you to look into Buddhism and Christianity. You will find many more facts back up Christianity than Buddhism.
Buddhism can be backed up by:
- modern science: ask in any field of modern physics, biology, astronomy and translate their scientific language back into the old indian language of 2500 BC, and you will find that they are identical. Buddha talked about the big bang, Buddha talked about relativity theory, Buddha talked about genetic determination of our bodily characteristics...
- your own experience:
As I described in a previos post, meditation can bring you first hand experiences of most of Buddha's teachings. You don't have to trust anything you don't experience for yourself. While there are things we cannot experience in our current state (e.g. rebirth), most of his teachings are accessible to our experience.
- your commonsense:
Many things you read in the Buddhist sutras just make sense. On the other hand, Jesus walking on water or awakening a little girl rather make me suspicious.
Gautama was a spoiled little rich kid who went out and sat under a tree and received enlightenment through his soul searching...no witnesses, no people to testify of his vision. Sound familiar?
That is actually an interesting point. First of all, if you had read any of the Buddhist writings, you would know that the Buddha created an elaborated system of how to recognize that the Buddha really is an enlightened teacher.
I will refer you to the sutra of the elephant's footprint.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html
Once, I discussed with a Christadelphian (unitarian Christians) who claimed that Jesus' resurrection was proven.
"The bible says that there are over 500 witnesses of his resurrection. If you have a trial with 500 witnesses, every judge will accept this to be truth."
"Ok", I replied.
"But the book of Mormon states that there are 2000 witnesses for Jesus visiting the Americas, so it is four times as likely that Jesus went to America than that he was resurrected."
All of Christianity is based on the historicity of the whole bible. Proving that parts of it are historical won't do. The existence of Jerusalem does not prove that Jesus went over water, or that he came back from the dead.
Also the American Buddhism is not the traditional Buddhism that originated from Hinduism. These people are radicals who killed over 60,000 Christians last year.
Those quotations are only used to put Buddhism in a bad light. There is no rational argument in these lines, only emotional suggestions.
As a matter of fact, Christianity is derived from Judaism. And every year, Jews kill thousands of Palestines, being one of the most violent people history has known.
Both the Buddha and Jesus were against violence. This does not hinder Hindus and Jews to kill...
Now Jane will tell you that Christians do the same thing. Well people call themselves Christians and do a lot of radical things that are not Christian all the time.
In the same way, many people call themselves Hindus and are not good Hindus. Where is the point?
But fundamental Buddhists do teach total intolerance. Jane would not agree with this.
I have not met any fundamental Buddhist who is as intolerant as you are. I have never heard a Buddhist condemning a Christian to hell for their beliefs, yet, on the other hand, you have constantly condemned people who do not share your belief.
So Eric, can you argue for Christianity if you don't base your argument on the bible?
If we don't accept the literal truth of all those stories which are written in the bible, how is there a way to get to know your God and Jesus?
I don't see either of them.
On the other hand, the Dharma described by the Buddha is visible in all aspects of nature.
Have a nice day,
Metta,
Jane.
Eric,
I don't know enough about Buddhism to make an informed decision at this point. And I am sure that Western Buddhism is different than Eastern. Mexican food you get at Taco Bell is not at all like the Mexican food you get in Mexico.
Yes being a former Christian (although you don't believe that Mormons are Christian) I understand the concept of sin and where Jesus steps in to cover for us. I understand that Mormons believe you have to earn it and traditional Christians believe it is a free gift. I honestly don't care to debate it since I don't believe either one.
I have had to take a new look at what I believe sin is. God created my body and my body has a desire to reproduce. If I am a sinner for my sexual desires, then I blame God for it since he made me. If God made me imperfect, then God is also imperfect. The only true sexual sin(s) would be incest or rape. God made me and he is perfect, so therefore I am perfect.
In fact, I believe that the only true sin is breaking the Golden Rule. That is, harming another of Gods perfect creations for no reason. All living things, no matter how small and insignificant have the right to live a happy life.
Let me tell you honestly that ever since I discovered these things, I feel better about myself. I no longer wallow in self loathing because I am so "unworthy" and "wicked". I have improved my self esteem ever since I realized that I am OK. I don't have to believe that I am inherintly evil. I am evil just because I am alive? Nope. I don't think so. I am a good person and I can no longer believe in any system that teaches me I am bad. I can't believe in a vengeful God who is so eager to condemn me for just being alive.
That's the problem with Christianity. You are taught to rely on an outside source for your happiness and fulfilment. How can I have an intimate relationship with someone I have never met? It's impossible! You and I could email each other for years but I will never truly know you until we meet and spend a lot of time together. So how can I know that Jesus is really there if I have never seen or heard him? Sure, I've got the Bible, but that's just like email.
Again, just because the Bible says so, doesn't automatically make it a fact. The Bible has been around for at least 2000 years and parts of it even much longer. How do we know it hasn't been tampered with? Even if it is pure, how do we know it isn't just fiction, especially since it has so many far-fetched stories? The simple answer is that we do not. Just like Jane said, it is blind faith, and experience has taught me that blind faith is foolish, no offense.
"I know it sounds harsh but according to what we have just admitted to it’s true." It is true according to the Bible. The Book of Mormon says basically the same thing. But that doesn't make the Book of Mormon true, does it?
You see, all the points you are making are true IF the Bible is true. But since no one can prove it's true, we must accept it on faith. And as I've already stated, I just can't do that.
Jane,
The fact that you keep returning shows me you have a motive and I can't quite figure that out. So why dont we call it good. I have already stated to you that I would be willing to debate you in a podcast on the septuagint (which is not a type of bible) but you declined. But the rational of your comments indicates that you want to debate. But you know as well as I that there is so much that is limited by doing these posts rather than talking in person.
Why dont you sign on to my message board. Thats the whole reason I created it, was to discuss and debate.
All right Eric,
I will do that next week.
Quite busy for the next three days.
Then, let's continue our discussion on the basics of what to trust more, our experience or some blind chain gang.
Of course, you are invited as well, Ray.
Till then,
metta for both of your and those whom you love.
Jane
Eric,
In the very last paragraph of this blog you said:
"We here at One Living Truth Ministry will continue to pray that Mormons will come to a saving knowledge of the real Jesus Christ found in the Bible."
Do you see how this is no different than what I was talking about with the priesthood and Jedi Knights? You can pray all day but we all know that few, if any Mormons will suddenly listen to you and believe what you believe.
You believe that the true God hears your prayers and wants Mormons to convert since he loves them and doesn't want them to go to hell. Since God wants it, it is Gods will. But if it doesn't happen, and God's will always happens, then we have a problem, don't we?
Ultimately, the outcome of your prayer was Gods will, so since the Mormons didn't flock to you, it must mean that God didn't want them to, right? Since it is not God's will but you prayed for it anyway, you are an enemy to God since you want what he does not. If you are an enemy to God, your message of salvation is really a deception. Your need for Mormons to convert is really your own selfishness and insecurity.
The logic here just ties your mind in knots, doesn't it? Your prayers are genuine and sincere and yet I have shown how they make you evil (I don't really think you're evil, it's just an example using Christian logic). Unfortunately, Christian logic makes no sense if you sit down and really think about it.
Just like the "priesthood" is an imaginary power, your prayer to save Mormons is wishful thinking and nothing more.
Why? Because there is no Christian god. There is no priesthood power. Prayer does nothing to change the normal course of nature. You know the old saying: "Sometimes God says yes, sometimes God says no." What does that really mean? It means that whatever happens, happens. It is Cog Dis of the Christian mind explaining why sometimes prayers come true and sometimes they don't. Either way, they can still justify the existance and power of their god, even though nature just took it's normal course. Mormons are experts at doing this, as I imagine most people who desperately want their truth to be true are.
My new way of thinking is logical and simple. Whatever happens, happens. The only thing that will change the course of nature is my own actions. Wishful thinking (prayer) will never make a difference.
If Mormonism is so evil, why did God allow it to happen? Because nature took its course. God had absolutely nothing to do with it. Just like God tore down the city of Jericho because it was so evil, why doesn't God tear down the evil temples of the Mormons? If he never changes, why doesn't he destroy evil like he did with the flood? If God is no different now then he was 2000, or 4000, or 6000 years ago, WHERE IS HE?
I can tell you. Nowhere. God didn't send a flood. God didn't tear down the walls of Jericho. Moses didn't part the Red Sea. Those are myths. They are made up stories built around a little bit of historical truth.
My friend, you are caught up in modern mythology. Let go of the Cog Dis and you will see it. Quit making excuses for God. Let God deal with his own problems.
I did. And I feel more alive and more sure of myself than ever before.
Ray,
My friend there is no Cog dis here. I have logically thought out prophecy in the bible as well as translation and things that have happened in the Bible.
You wrote:
”Your need for Mormons to convert is really your own selfishness and insecurity.”
hoooo…lets keep this cool Ray. Our conversation has been really good here. That statement there is taking a low blow, don’t you think?
Ray, I have deep empathy for people like you. Exmormons have a lot to recover from. You have been down a religious roller coaster and I do not blame you for your view on God. It’s gonna take some time to recover.
I hate it when LDS tell me that people like you left the church because they could not live the gospel. That’s ridiculous in the sense that you wanted to go be this heathen sinner. I agree you left for logical reasons and yes…the gospel is not good news. How can you live a gospel that teaches things like 2 Nephi 25:23 ”For it is by grace that we are saved AFTER ALL we can do.” How the heck does a Mormon know when he has done all he can do??
Or how about Moroni 10:32 ”Deny yourselves of ALL ungodliness; and IF ye shall deny yourselves of ALL ungodliness THEN is grace sufficient for you.” Ray have you ever met a Mormon that denied themselves of ALL ungodliness?
It’s an impossible gospel! So I believe when exmormons say that they feel great freedom when exiting Mormonism. Who wouldn’t! But I also know XLDS who left, chilled for a while, then came to know the real Jesus Christ and can swear that the freedom is even greater.
You said:
”Unfortunately, Christian logic makes no sense if you sit down and really think about it.
I would encourage you to do more than just sit and ponder it. Grab a book that starts with some basics. Have you ever read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis?
It’s a good starter that will maybe at least see some interesting points of view that maybe you have never considered. It does not get into historical or prophetic aspects of theology but more psychological aspects of the faith (not religion).
Now…back to the idea of “good” Ray are you married? If that is too personal, I can understand. But again I have a point to make.
God Bless
-E
PS..."Mexican food you get at Taco Bell is not at all like the Mexican food you get in Mexico."
You're right!! Some times Taco Bell is better.
Hi Eric,
”Your need for Mormons to convert is really your own selfishness and insecurity.”
I sincerely apologize. That comment was not meant as a personal attack on you. I should have stated that. It was just part of my hypothetical example. Sometimes I say something and it comes across totally wrong. No hard feelings?
My last post was pretty strong but please understand that it's never personal.
“Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis
Never even heard of it, but I'll check the library to see if I can find a copy. It sounds like it could be insiteful. C.S. Lewis' Narnia Series is chock full of Christian ideas. I could tell he was Christian just by watching the new "Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe" movie.
Mormons go through a ton of psychological crap. Yes, as a Mormon you are never good enough. There is always more to do. There is constant pressure to do your home teaching, pay your tithing, go to the temple, never refuse a calling, go to all your meetings, obey everything the bretheren tell you, etc. The list goes on and on. So yea, it's no wonder that I have this overwhelming feeling of... freedom.
My exit story involves several issues and I'll share them with you sometime.
I can tell you honestly that I highly doubt that I'll ever "recover", as you put it. In fact, I do not feel that recovery is necessary. Why would I want to get into another Christian religion when it is so clearly false to me?
I could be totally wrong. Now that I am free of the "I am right and everyone else is wrong" mentality, it is okay for me to admit that, even though I feel strongly about something, I could be wrong. If you can show me where I am wrong about anything, and back it up with good evidence, then I will humbly admit that I was wrong. But a quote or two from the Bible is not adequate evidence (unless you can prove that the Bible is true, which no one can).
Yes, I am married and no, it's not too personal.
Again, Eric, I apologize. The last thing I want is to insult you. I am enjoying this discussion and I would feel awful if it ended with hard feelings.
Ray,
Apology excepted. Ray the same goes for me as well. If I ever say anything that seems like a personal attack, you just go ahead a give me a good heads up. I am guilty of acting like a jerk sometimes...well a lot of the time. So I totally want to be in check. Cool!! With that being said...My new site is going to be up soon. You will be able to reference tons of historical facts and prophecy that has clearly come to pass in the Bible. Ya the Mormon RELIGION is a tough one. It's funny....The largest sect of LDS led by Hinckly claims all other splinter groups to be a break off from Gordon B's church. Yet if you think about it, they're the ones who broke off. Warren Jeffs was the most true to the faith Mormon I know of these days. Why pick on the guy just because he's a true Mormon? Anyway, when did you leave the church?
ok...as to my question "are you married?"
The reason I ask this is because I dont know you wife but I doubt she would dig if you were checking out other women. Of if you were hittin up the strip clubs. Would she?
This is in reference to your statement:
"In fact, I believe that the only true sin is breaking the Golden Rule. That is, harming another of Gods perfect creations for no reason. All living things, no matter how small and insignificant have the right to live a happy life.
If to lust after another woman hurts your wife then it violates your "golden rule." Correct?
Now even if your wife is one of the rare cases that does not care or even encourages your lust, then you are outside of the norm.
But I think my point is apparent.
Eric,
You are absolutely correct. It would be hurting her if I did those things and that is why I do not do them. I may have more liberal views on sexuality than most people but I have integrity and I honor my marriage commitments.
This is obviously a sensitive subject and I'm not really comfortable going into detail here in public. I'll be happy to discuss it in more detail through email if you would like. Or we can just forget about it.
Cool, I am looking forward to seeing your site. I want to do more research but don't really have time to find sources, read all of them, etc. Let me know when it's ready. :)
I never thought about it that way. The Hickley group is actually the break off. That never would have occured to me but it is true.
Funny thing. While there were a few things in the Joseph Smith movie to promote a narrative experience without being overly dry, specifically the girl and her dad coming from England, virtually everything else in the movie was historically accurate, down to the color of Joseph Smith's hair. The problem is grumpy critics will never be happy unless they were to make up scenes like Joseph confessing he was a fraud, or orchestrating some highly offensive sex with a 14 year old (which never happened, by the way). They filmed over 2 hours of footage, and had to make a movie to introduce the man, his history and his impact. The movie does that. Buy Bushman's book if you are looking for a complete, thorough biography. And then for perspective, figure out how to put 800 pages into 70 minutes. Most anti's seem to know everything already, so they probably know how to do that. But for the rest of the world, we have to put the most important things first. At the end of the day, polygamy and bank failures were simply trials of faith for everyone involved. It was not what any of those who knew Joseph well primarily remembered him for.
By the way, Grant Palmer's invention of history was attacked not because of the personal distortions by Palmer, but because he made huge errors in scholarship. FARMS alone published 5 articles covering over 200 pages by 5 authors including 3 holding PhD's in history. Palmer's position is equally poisonous to Christianity at large, if the logic of his secular reasoning were applied to Christ and the resurrection. But since "the enemy of my enemy is my fried", anti's refuse to examine the actual evidence in context. Pick up the two issues of FARMS Reviews (15-2 and 16-1). Then read Bushman, watch the movie, and get real.
Bob... We have hashed it out over and over dude. You are deceived and need Jesus.
This movie was not accurate to Smith at all and you know it. Like I said before Bob; You are one of the few Mormons I know that has some degree of looking outside the Mormon box and yet you still believe.
Grace and Peace Bob....
-Eric
Eric,
I take your comments as high praise. Yes, I do look beyond the LDS box.
For example, I have had the chance to read some of the source material, journals, etc, used for the Joseph Smith movie. Eyewitness accounts, for example, from people's journals. The movie was never intended as the definitive biography. That would take dozens of hours to present, and even then it would still just be snap shots of a life, and not the life itself. It is, however, a factual narrative of several real events in the life of Joseph Smith. Rather than me trying to anticipate what you found false, maybe you could tell me which events were misrepresented? Tell me too what you will accept as reasonable evidence. I will hold you to it, and I will apply that same standard to your explanations of your Biblical positions. Since there were no walls at Jerico, for example, does that make the entire Bible false?
I know you mentioned the weight of the gold plates being around 180 pounds. Anti's like that story, and it has been around a while. But it ignores real world facts. The plates were hammered and engraved with images. So there was space between the plates. Next, the plates had the appearance of gold, not that they were actually made of gold. There is a meso-american metal called tumbaga which looked like gold, but was a sort of tin-gold mixture. Those who hefted the plates estimated their weight at 40-60 pounds, which is consistent with tumbaga. Still a load to carry, but nowhere near the 180 pound figure. Lastly, when Oliver Cowdery was asked if Joseph could not have just made the plates out of metal, he responded with the obvious: Joseph was too poor to afford the raw material, let alone have it smithed into the plates. And what happened to those plates Smith showed everyone?
I can give you one detail that is not accurate. When the mob dragged Joseph out of his home to tar and feather him, then beat him viciously, then finally tried to pour poison down his mouth, which killed the vegetation in the yard where it spilled, and they broke the front tooth of Joseph Smith. The remainder of his life, he had a distinctive whistle sound when he spoke. They left that out of that event, as well as the excessive bleeding from the removal of the tar. Everything else was accurate there, though.
You should maybe think through the logic of how I could be an informed LDS person, and still a believer. I really don't like this blogging environment, because it lacks mutual respect and agreement. For example, we can thoroughly discuss an issue, provide sources, but either of us can ignore it. It's not really a conversation. I like the personal interaction. So call me.
Bob
Jane Winsley, I would like to exchange a few thoughts about your comment. My email is shredding(at)gamil.com Would you email me your contact info?
Thanks!
Xi Chen
oops, it should be shredding(at)gmail.com
wrong spelling. sorry.
Bob,
I assume that you've read this entire comment page so I'll also assume that you know I am exlds.
Mormons want their church to be true so badly that they will make any excuse, and defend any point, no matter how ridiculous.
Neither you or I was there when certain questionable events took place in early church history. The actual truth might never be known. Those who want the church to be true will only look at the evidence supporting their desires. And the same is true of the churches critics as well.
So let's ignore those things and turn our discussion to pure common sense. Let's take a look at what early church leaders said. But before we do, I have one comment.
If the gold of the Book of Mormon had been etched away for writing, then I agree with you that the plates would be lighter. But how much lighter? Maybe a few pounds. And what's this? You are changing what the plates were made of? You can't do that. Joseph Smith claimed they were gold. JS-H 1: 34, 64. If you have to change the story to make the facts fit, then something is wrong. If Joseph Smith said they were gold (remember his reference as to how much they could be worth when he first saw them?) and you say they were made of something else to make everything fit it, then Joseph Smith was a liar.
I've run out of time but I'll be back later and we'll think this through with pure common sense. We'll look at quotes from inspired prophets. But something down deep inside tells me I'm wasting my time. When someone wants something to be true badly enough, no amount of evidence or common sense will ever change their mind. You let me know if you want me to continue.
Hi Ray.
I appreciate the thought on the common sense. So let me take that approach with the Gold Plates.
The most obvious piece of common sense are the multiple statements by those who handled the plates. William Smith and Williard Chase said 60 pounds. Martin Harris said 40-50 pounds.
Common sense says those who handled them are more capable of telling us their weight than people with a calculator and an elements table.
The composition of the plates is never disclosed. Gold looks gold in virtually all mixtures. An 8 carat gold ring looks as gold as a 24 carat ring. While Joseph Smith calls them Gold Plates, the witnesses say they had "the appearance of gold". The two statements are in perfect harmony, since gold is a color as well as an element. Lastly, common sense says that if the weight described by those who handled them is consistent with a known, gold color metal alloy, Auchem's Razor concludes that is the probable explanation.
For me, that is common sense. I will defend that position because it is more likely than an unrealistic approach motivated solely to get the worst possible outcome. I am not saying that of you, I am saying that of anyone who quotes a 120-230 pound weight for the plates, when we have eye witness accounts by people who actually lifted them.
Hey Ray,
Let me warn you of Bob.(Bob no offense to you as I find you a nice guy we just HIGHLY disagree theologically)
Ray,
anything you find in FARMS you will find in Bob. All of his arguments mirror FARMS. The fog is too thick to reason. It's fruitless and personally a waste of time. I have just resorted to letting the spirit do the work. If God has called Bob and he wont listen and instead chooses to listen to his heart then so be it.
Ray, you and I both know that no one ever saw the plates. All the accounts of eyewitnesses either saw them in a type of vision or lifted them while covered. Or some of the witnesses have recanted their testimony. In fact Oliver Cowdery joined another type of cult that required him to come up with fancy testimonies based on nonsense.
In Christ....
-Eric
Ray, you and I both know that no one ever saw the plates. All the accounts of eyewitnesses either saw them in a type of vision or lifted them while covered. Or some of the witnesses have recanted their testimony.
The same holds true for stories of people who said they saw the resurrected Christ, or for Paul's vision of him. All were visions, all were based on the imaginative power of some people who stayed outside in the sun for too long.
Probably many have recanted their testimony, yet, this is not recorded in the new testament.
The more you compare LDS to Christianity in general, the more similarities in their argumentation you will find. They are both based on the same kind of circular reasoning:
"If the book of Mormon is true, then XY."
vs. "if the bible is true, then YZ."
Both start from a false premise, leading to false conclusion.
Both are based on visions, imaginations, stories which can never be proven.
Of course, you can ignore 50% of those nonsense-stories (LDS) yet accept the other 50% of those nonsense-stories (bible stories).
But a consequent act would be to accept them all (if you believe in nonsense, why not comprise it all?) or reject them all (if you don't believe in nonsense, why not reject all nonsense?)
Of course, eric will object:
"But my Jesus wears red sandals, and the Mormon Jesus wears blue sandals, that's why the Mormon Jesus is totally wrong and an illusion and a fairy tale, while my Jesus, because of his red sandals, is totally different."
The color of sandals don't change Jesus, in the same way, the difference between the LDS faith and traditional Christianity don't change the basic reliance on visions, belief in stories and "burning in the bosom"like feelings after praying to some God(s).
"Have a close relationship to Christ" can only be realized by creating warm feelings once one has prayed to a guy who died 2000 years ago. Close relationships don't come by by reading 2000 year old books, so one has to imagine those feelings to get along and feel close to some kind of Savior-figure like Jesus.
These feelings are reinforced in Mass, worship services or whatever.
Nice "spiritual music" which arouses feelings, long prayers about Jesus who helped in situation in which natural causes led to healing, the aversion of a flood or similar "miracles". Good feelings when converting from one type of Christianity to another.
"Since I came to the LDS church, I finally feel the spirit working in me."
(replace "LDS church" in the sentence above by your own favorite church, baptist, catholic, JW, Calvary Chapel, Scientology, whatever).
So, instead of just pulling one bar out of your eyes, continue the operation till both eyes are healed.
Good luck in this task,
Lesley.
Amen, Lesley. Perfectly stated.
Eric,
I find the characterization of me as a FARMS-droid both puzzling and a compliment. I mean, FARMS had 17 guys with PhD's from real universities (not like most anti's) and a half-dozen others with Master's Degrees writing on the most relevant topics in LDS apologetics. Crud, the head of NIST's forensic genetics initiative identifying people for the Federal Government responded, along with more than a half-dozen other scholars to the schlock being purveyed by the likes of Living Hope Ministries and others on the DNA subject. If your assertion is that I am too informed, in contrast to the typical anti-Mormons trying to pass of false scholarship on the subject of priesthood transmission or the origins of Hebrew monotheism, then I happily plead guilty.
I would be happy to walk through the anti-Mormons on the subject of the trinity, the origins of Biblical theology, or the textual tradition of the Bible and the obvious and documented errors both in translation and transmission. And the cool thing about all of that is I will never need to quote anyone except for non-LDS, mostly believing Christian scholars. No home cooking here.
Shoot, I responded with historically factual statements to Ray about the weight of the gold plates as hefted by witnesses who handled them, and suddenly I am charaterized as being in a "fog". Give me a break. Your anti-Mormon books you read tell lies. I actually check their sources whenever I get a new one. That is what convinced me Walter Martin and Ed Decker are/were just liars, I actually read their footnotes. Martin lost a lawsuit when it was shown he actually lied about a source. So forgive me for not bowing down to the obvious truths of Bill McKeever or the Tanner's. I own their books. Shoot, I corresponded with Sandra and presented a paper on one of her false assertions found in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. Hard as it may be to believe, she actually acknowledged not caring about distorting her published presentation because she felt the false nature of the LDS Church's history justified taking liberties. I think you can find the article at FAIR, including her actual emails on the subject. So again, forgive me if I don't bow down to the gods of anti-Mormonism, I know too well the facts whereof they speak.
In the mean time, maybe you would finally care to respond to the erroneous statements about the meaning of "aparabatos" (permanent, unchangeable) which you initially challenged me on at Temple Square, and which you had a podcast promoting the error? Since it does not mean "untransferable", I have not seen you retract any of your comments based on your incorrect understanding.
My point is, don't write me off because I have done my homework and don't accept your limited perspective of things LDS. As a 30 year convert to the LDS faith I have worked very hard to study and read every resource presented to me, and there are answers, many of which are extremely faith promoting, all of which are reasonable. That cannot be said of your view of the inerrancy of the Bible as received by Christianity today.
When do you want to do a podcast on the Trinity, or the inerrancy of the Bible? I will be happy to discuss Biblical polytheism with you. Now is a good time during the Christmas break. You have been saying since October you wanted to get together, so let's do it.
Peace.
Quoting liberals does not state your case that Mormonism is true. You seem to limit your scope as to anyone who speaks out against Mormonism is indeed anti Mormon. I guess anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh is anti mormon. No...there are just some who have reacted to the claims!There are people that speak out against Mormonism and some that do not. Those who speak out are just dealing with the heretical teachings of some churches. The Church has dealt with these groups systematically since the Galatians. We will continue to do so. Podcast?? You're on Bob! I will gladly deal with textual critism dealing with both Mormonism and Biblical Christianity. Might be hard for you to show me any textual witness for the BOM, considering there is NONE. And yes, I did deal with you on the greek text for "aparabatos." We talked great length. But you rejected it. Sighting liberals does not help....its what the text says that makes the difference.
Podcast will be great...let me know when you want to do this.
oh....Bob! Merry Christmas my friend. I truly mean that. I like you Bob...just not your theology.
In Christ,
-Eric
Merry Christmas to you.
1. Let me know a time to meet on the podcast. This week would be great.
2. From a scriptural geneaolgy, the Book of Mormon and the Bible are equally close to source documents, with the BofM probably being a little closer. Remember, there are no Bible autographs, and the earliest copies date at least decades after the originals (with maybe one exception just a few years). BofM has a chunk of the original manuscript, and the entire printers manuscript. So this would be a great topic.
3. There is literally not a scholar ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD which would consider BDAG's "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament" liberal in its scholarship. None. Beyond that, Liddell-Scott, which also supports what I wrote, is considered the most scholarly Lexicon on Classical Greek in the world. I am unaware of you having previously responded to me on aparabatos, and even Toothless conceded the scholarship was accurate, so I am unclear on what you mean you dealt with it. If you mean with lexicons from the early 20th century or older, then we need to discuss your criteria for scholarship, and see what passes muster for you. Sounds like a good sub-topic on the podcast.
While I am at it, let me name some of the "radical, liberal scholars" (to be read with tongue firmly in cheek) I prefer quoting: Aside from BDAG and Liddell& Scott, which are considered the two giants in the field, I have a couple of decidedly liberal lexicons published by the well know atheists at Zondervan, William Mounce's "The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek NT" (1993); Sakae Kubo's "A Reader's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT" (1975); and Kohlenberger, Goodrick and Swanson's "The Greek English Concordance of the NT", part of the "Zondervan Greek Reference Series", (1997). Laying aside the born-again heretics at Zondervan, I have "The New Analytical Greek Lexicon", Wesley J. Pershcbacher, Editor, published by Hendrickson (1990) as an update to Wigram's 1852 Lexicon. Lastly, I have the obviously liberal "Vine's Concise Dictionary", published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. (1999) as part of a dual volume with Strong's Concordance. It was a synthesis of Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words with Nelson's Old Testament Dictionary.
Typically, the lexicons which render 'aparabatos' as 'untransferable' are older or less vigorous word studies, even with newer publication dates. They rely upon older work when you examine their sources. See Roger's and Roger's "The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key of the Greek NT" as an example. Though published in 1999 by Zondervan, the support cited dates back to the 1970's, and has therefore missed the latest work on the subject. Pre-1970's works, such as Strong's or Young's or Thayer's, all are based on assumptions due to a historic lack of extra-Biblical documents containing the word, and therefore make a guess at the meaning based primarily on an assumed etymology they assigned to this word, which is only found in Hebrews 7:24. In the early to mid-20th century, a couple of dozen new documents were apparently recovered and demonstrate the actual meaning of the word. BDAG lists about 20 sources in support of its translation, hardly just a liberal bias, many used by early Christian writers.
Email me with a time. Tuesay would be good.
Peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home