Mockers Can't Target Jews any more so they Target Mormons?

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
This site isn't click bait.. Mormon Claims Answered Chapter Three

The Mormons were actually the ones to throw the first punch by mocking that our bible had been corrupted.

Wait. Don't Mormons use the same King James Bible that the majority of Christianity uses? What is it with the "our bible"? It is theirs as well, right? So if they were mocking "your" bible, they were mocking their own as well. But as an impartial observer, I hardly find the Mormon stance on the bible to be one of mockery. Quote from lds.org. "We believe the bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly;"

I guess the rub for anti-mormons is the "translated correctly" bit? Considering the myriad of academically proven discrepancies, mistranslations and questionable origins of the thousands of "bible" manuscripts cherry picked, sorted, discarded and altered during the political drama that was the canonization of the bible, I find the Mormon stance to at least be the more intellectually honest, albeit equally irrational. In the simplest sense, I see one belief statement that reveres the bible, but acknowledges the human errors that have accumulated over the centuries, versus another that says the bible is perfect, fool proof and unquestionably accurate, despite many different revisions, translations and adaptations absolutely demonstrating otherwise. I find a bit of disingenuity in the latter's apoplectic response to the first's audacity to declare the tiniest of limits to blind adherence.
 
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wait. Don't Mormons use the same King James Bible that the majority of Christianity uses? What is it with the "our bible"? It is theirs as well, right? So if they were mocking "your" bible, they were mocking their own as well. But as an impartial observer, I hardly find the Mormon stance on the bible to be one of mockery. Quote from lds.org. "We believe the bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly;"

I guess the rub for anti-mormons is the "translated correctly" bit? Considering the myriad of academically proven discrepancies, mistranslations and questionable origins of the thousands of "bible" manuscripts cherry picked, sorted, discarded and altered during the political drama that was the canonization of the bible, I find the Mormon stance to at least be the more intellectually honest, albeit equally irrational. In the simplest sense, I see one belief statement that reveres the bible, but acknowledges the human errors that have accumulated over the centuries, versus another that says the bible is perfect, fool proof and unquestionably accurate, despite many different revisions, translations and adaptations absolutely demonstrating otherwise. I find a bit of disingenuity in the latter's apoplectic response to the first's audacity to declare the tiniest of limits to blind adherence.
The Mormon stance is the same as Islam's except they come up with different conclusions...that our Scriptures have been corrupted. And no, the King James is not 'our bible'. Our bible is assembled from hundreds of manuscripts and fragments all attesting to each other in such a way as there could be no corrupting the text by any one group, despite the conspiracy nuts.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Wait. Don't Mormons use the same King James Bible that the majority of Christianity uses?
Correct. It is honored, studied, and loved as God's words. It is not mocked by any stretch.
But as an impartial observer, I hardly find the Mormon stance on the bible to be one of mockery. Quote from lds.org. "We believe the bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly;"
Yep!
I guess the rub for anti-mormons is the "translated correctly" bit? Considering the myriad of academically proven discrepancies, mistranslations and questionable origins of the thousands of "bible" manuscripts cherry picked, sorted, discarded and altered during the political drama that was the canonization of the bible, I find the Mormon stance to at least be the more intellectually honest, albeit equally irrational. In the simplest sense, I see one belief statement that reveres the bible, but acknowledges the human errors that have accumulated over the centuries, versus another that says the bible is perfect, fool proof and unquestionably accurate, despite many different revisions, translations and adaptations absolutely demonstrating otherwise. I find a bit of disingenuity in the latter's apoplectic response to the first's audacity to declare the tiniest of limits to blind adherence.
LDS aren't sola Biblia. Rather we believe that unchanging God continues to speak and guide us through revelation, as He did in Biblical times. If there is any concern about interoperation of scripture or anything else, we simply ask God for what is True.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
The Mormon stance is the same as Islam's except they come up with different conclusions...that our Scriptures have been corrupted.
Personally I find mainstream Christianity and Islam to be closer in their approach to scripture: that it is closed and there are no more prophets. This is very different than LDS continuing prophetic revelation.
 
Upvote 0

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
The Mormon stance is the same as Islam's except they come up with different conclusions...that our Scriptures have been corrupted. And no, the King James is not 'our bible'. Our bible is assembled from hundreds of manuscripts and fragments all attesting to each other in such a way as there could be no corrupting the text by any one group, despite the conspiracy nuts.

Thanks for your response. Having studied both Mormonism and Islam in depth from an academic perspective, I find your assertion on the equivalency of the Mormon and Islam stance to be prima facie absurd.

While I understand why you must take comfort in the thousands (not hundreds) of manuscripts and fragments all confirming your bible, from an academic perspective it is a lot less solid than you have been lead to believe. 99.5% of the manuscripts "supporting" a perfect bible date well after the 4th century and were intentionally created by the church to artificially support the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sanaiticus or Latin Vulgate, all of which are post Catholic filterings of earlier manuscripts meant to consolidate Catholic authority and therefore power. (And to craft a religion acceptable to both pagans and 3rd century Christians thoroughly conditioned to accept any wind of doctrine.)

The earlier the manuscript fragments pre-3rd century, the more heretical and significant the discrepancies become. Even the fragments purporting to be the earliest manuscripts are not exactly extant originals, rather they are copies from originals with the originals being burned at the order of Rome--out of "reverence" being the official excuse. Damned inconvenient for anybody bold enough to question the accuracy of the Catholic approved manuscripts and damned convenient for anybody wanting to use a 99.5% agreement statistic. You can imagine how that plays to the academic skeptic... Virtually every post 3rd century fragment must be treated as tainted evidence and proclamations of 99.5% manuscript agreements as academically useless catechisms endlessly reverberating in the echo chambers of the faithfully blind.

Now let us address the actual Mormon position that so offends you.

Paul warned the Saints at Corinth that they were too easily accepting "another Jesus" than what he was teaching. (2 Corinthians) He later chastises the Galatians for quickly turning to a "different gospel" being preached by those who intentionally wished to "pervert the gospel of Christ." (Galatians 2) Meanwhile Peter, fighting for his very life, was frantically warning his flock of sheep that "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies… and many will follow their destructive ways… they will exploit you with deceptive words." (2 Peter) Who exactly were these apostles addressing? Some 2000 year distant Mormons... or were Peter and Paul specifically warning those people at that period in time of a dire, more imminent threat that they and their close generations needed to heed?

Compare and contrast this with Paul speaking in 2 Timothy specifically concerning the "last days." "In the last days perilous times will come… men will… be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power… from such people turn away." The Mormon's claim that a "great apostasy" occurred sometime after the Apostle's warning and the council of Nicaea circa 3rd century. If, in fact, this apostasy forewarned by the 1st century apostles did occur in that time period, then all of your precious thousand manuscripts are suspect.

To the academic mind, the 99.5% consistency of post 3rd century manuscripts makes it suspect. Combined with the church's frenzied 3rd and 4th century acquisitions of any and all 1st and 2nd century sources they could find and the deliberate burning of the original sources suggests a much more intentional bastardized religion being created--not for the salvation of men, but for political power and profit. Supposing for a moment that the Apostles' warnings and the Mormon's claim are both correct... well that would make YOU the one who has swallowed, accepted and perpetuated "another Jesus" and "another gospel" -- exactly according to Paul's last days prophecy.

Naturally, if no such apostasy occurred, then the whole Mormon position is nothing more than a pile of shiite and the Catholic church is the correct authority on all things Christian; ergo all sects must continue to kiss the holy Roman ring, no matter how tokenized of gesture it has become willing to accept.

Let's look again at Paul's last days prophecy, specifically the phrase "having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof." Paul was declaring that in the last days (some 2000 years distant?) a vast false Christianity would arise based on a man made creed paradoxically proclaiming an all powerful God that used to perform miracles, used to reveal himself to apostles in post-mortem, re-incarnate form, who used to be same yesterday, today and forever -- but in the last days declares that the age of miracles is over, revelations are done and that the same all powerful God can no longer appear in post-mortem, re-incarnate form to anybody.

The self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Smith declared that he was restoring the original 1st century church, one with apostles to whom the all powerful God could once again appear post-mortem, re-incarnate just as he did in the Bible. Your Christianity says your God can't do that. Smith's Christianity declared that the heavens were open and not silent. Your Christianity locked and silenced them long ago declaring an end to all revelation. Smith's Christianity claimed the power of spiritual gifts was restored such as those needed to perform miracles in Jesus' name. Your Christianity long ago declared the age of miracles over, that "once God's message to mankind under the gospel of His Son was complete, the need for spiritual gifts ceased. And, after the last apostle died, so did the ability the apostles had to lay hands on someone and give the ability to perform miracles (e.g., Acts 19:6). Therefore, spiritual gifts ended at that time."

From an impartial, skeptical viewpoint, one vast, accept-all diversities/perversities of Christianity (except Mormon's) is the one that matches Paul's warning of "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." Believing one is "saved by grace alone" with no need to obey the 10 commandments or walk the walk seems like a perfect match for those condemned by Jesus for saying "Lord Lord" and expecting salvation--or as Paul puts it, "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." Yet another tiny, peculiar, ridiculously audacious, post 3rd century heretical Christianity unapologetic-ally declares the veracity and inheritance of the 1st century power. Interestingly enough, it is that one near irrelevant, relatively minuscule religion--more than any other--that receives the scorn, derision, mockery, attacks and persecution of today's "true Christians."

In light of my rational arguments based on logic instead of zealous belief, I find the Mormon's cautious acceptance of YOUR bible to be rather enlightened and generous, albeit just as guilty in interpreting and abusing the bible for their own nuanced needs and creeds as any of your other rubber stamped flavor of Christianity.

Of course, to believe any of your creeds requires a person to be half-crazy, no one more so than the other. (Said with genuine affection, fully realizing the predicament and ex-nilho problems of not believing.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Correct. It is honored, studied, and loved as God's words. It is not mocked by any stretch.

Yep!

LDS aren't sola Biblia. Rather we believe that unchanging God continues to speak and guide us through revelation, as He did in Biblical times. If there is any concern about interoperation of scripture or anything else, we simply ask God for what is True.
 
Upvote 0

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
To each his own. I think you're nuts. ;)

But in your defense, in my many observations and interactions over the years debating and discussing Christianity and anything religious, a disturbing reality has proven itself to me. Despite Mormons professing a profound affinity for the bible, even with its flaws, despite believing that Jesus is the redeemer of mankind through his atonement for personal and universal sin, despite unwavering profession that Jesus is the Son of God who died for man in a vicarious sacrifice and rose again in a miraculous resurrection, Mormon's--more than any other religion or creed--will trigger Pavlovian vitriol in traditional Christians. A Jew steps into a Christian forum, excellent. A Jehovah's witness walks in, no problem. An atheist chimes a challenge, challenge accepted. A Methodist, abortion loving, feminazi, hey we can live with it, she's in the fold. Even as a sometimes scathing skeptic, I am treated better than Mormons. When anything Mormon comes up, the knives come out. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
To each his own. I think you're nuts. ;)

But in your defense, in my many observations and interactions over the years debating and discussing Christianity and anything religious, a disturbing reality has proven itself to me. Despite Mormons professing a profound affinity for the bible, even with its flaws, despite believing that Jesus is the redeemer of mankind through his atonement for personal and universal sin, despite unwavering profession that Jesus is the Son of God who died for man in a vicarious sacrifice and rose again in a miraculous resurrection, Mormon's--more than any other religion or creed--will trigger Pavlovian vitriol in traditional Christians. A Jew steps into a Christian forum, excellent. A Jehovah's witness walks in, no problem. An atheist chimes a challenge, challenge accepted. Even as a sometimes scathing skeptic, I am treated better than Mormons. When anything Mormon comes up, the knives come out. Why is that?
Haha. I like your style, albeit we obviously reach different conclusions. As to your last question: I have observed that trend and many reasons why... however, I don't think that CF is the best venue to discuss them.
 
Upvote 0

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Haha. I like your style, albeit we obviously reach different conclusions. As to your last question: I have observed that trend and many reasons why... however, I don't think that CF is the best venue to discuss them.

Well, I am somewhat new to CF as I've spent the last decade mainly trolling YouTube and other media sites skewering anybody willing to play along. But I've spent all day lurking on CF and Mormons are particularly abused here. I'm surprised any of you remain. You are made of thick stuff, and I don't just mean your skulls. ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jane_Doe
Upvote 0

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psa 2:4)
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
(Pro 1:26)

And when it comes to false cults such as Mormonism, Elijah sets a good example...
And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
(1Ki 18:27)

But where are your Christian miracles now? Oh, right. The age of miracles ended. Where is your God now? Last I checked, nobody in the Christian World has heard from him in about 2000 years. Maybe he is on a long journey? Maybe he is asleep? I guess your God gave you a book to keep yourselves company while he's away. How nice of him. Perhaps, you might hold up your constantly debunked faith healers for your God's miracles? Oh, wait. They are too busy preying/praying? on the gullible. Perhaps you will show me one of the many successful attempts of your Christian ministers who have held public displays of walking on water or calling down fire from heaven? Oh wait, they've all been publicly humiliated just like the priests of Baal and went home with wet feet. How are any of your so called Christian ministers driving around in their outrageous sports cars and living the good life in their $40 million dollar mansions any better than the priests of Baal as they preach for filthy lucre? Will you call them a false cult? What is your justification for calling Mormons a cult, when your precious Christianity was called the same for the first 250 years of its existence?

How does it feel to have your sincere faith mocked, crossnote? Does it taste good? Do you burn with righteous anger and feel the need to strike back at me? How does that jive with turning the other cheek?

The story of Elijah is not about mocking the priests of Baal so Elijah could have a good laugh. He knew the priests of Baal were preying on the people using parlor tricks and had no faith in their god themselves. Elijah was commanded by God to mock them. Have you been so commanded? There were plenty of other false religions around at the time, but Elijah didn't mock them, why not? Do you think God was giving Elijah a blanket pass to mock anybody at any time for believing differently? If so, do you have the right to assume the directive given to Elijah and arbitrarily apply that to anybody that believes different than you? Or are you the equal of the Almighty himself to sit in your heaven, laughing and holding in derision any you so chose? Why are the Mormons so much more deserving of your mockery than the modern priests of Baal in your own house? Last I checked, any stipends Mormon clergy got were pretty darn modest. Last time I check, Mormon clergy were just as devout in believing their B.S. as you are in yours.

When you take a bible verse out of context as you have here and use it to justify your carnal thirst to insult and tear down another's honest (even if misguided) faith, you are not following Elijah or Christ. You are serving yourself and satisfying your own lusts and abusing those who should be your mission field-- causing them to harden their hearts against you and your "true gospel" message and you just might find the damnation and hellfire you are fond of pronouncing upon them is the stick by which you yourself are measured. Is this not the doctrine you profess?

"41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

"25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psa 2:4)
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
(Pro 1:26)

And when it comes to false cults such as Mormonism, Elijah sets a good example...
And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
(1Ki 18:27)

Have you ever been in an honest discussion, perhaps with a gay person lets say, and they end the conversation by slapping you with a label of homophobe or rascist? As you well know, that is a slur designed to shame the conversation to an end so that the other person can claim some sort of moral high ground or victory. It is of course dishonest, a cop out and a quasi-admission of intellectual inferiority on the part of the one using such epithets. I've noticed that many Christians are fond of doing the same to Mormons, with the word "cult" in order to embarrass them into silence. The irony is that Christianity itself was called the same for its first 250 years. The term was used again by the Catholic church against the reformers as a shaming pejorative.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Last I checked, any stipends Mormon clergy got were pretty darn modest.
Pretty darn modest = nonexistent.

Nobody at your local LDS church gets paid a dime for their service. Not the Bishop, not the Sunday School teachers, not the nursery people, not the instrument players. Everyone has a day job and serves in that position for a few volunteer years and then someone else has a turn.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Well, I am somewhat new to CF as I've spent the last decade mainly trolling YouTube and other media sites skewering anybody willing to play along. But I've spent all day lurking on CF and Mormons are particularly abused here. I'm surprised any of you remain. You are made of thick stuff, and I don't just mean your skulls. ;)
Piece of advice: read the rules of each sub-forum you post in VERY thoroughly. The mods are very particular about the rules (which do someone what vary on each sub-forum), but almost all of them including "no mocking Christian people or Christian beliefs". Of course they specifically don't consider LDS to be "Christian" anymore (they used to). Granted, there's also rules about not mocking or flaming anyone.
 
Upvote 0

TruthTroll

Member
Aug 8, 2017
8
2
49
Salt Lake City
✟7,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Pretty darn modest = nonexistent.

Nobody at your local LDS church gets paid a dime for their service. Not the Bishop, not the Sunday School teachers, not the nursery people, not the instrument players. Everyone has a day job and serves in that position for a few volunteer years and then someone else has a turn.

I wasn't referring to your local clergy. But everybody above a stake president is given a living wage, correct? It seems to me that many LDS don't know this, despite the leadership having repeatedly admitted such. I see ignorant comments by LDS all the time attacking Christians for their paid clergy, not knowing their present situation, nor their past history when all leaders down to the level of the local bishop were paid out of tithing receipts. If my memory serves, this practice discontinued during the early 1900s when the church could no longer afford to pay bishops and stake presidents and they were relegated to unpaid, voluntary status. This caused quite a commotion in the bishops and stake presidents at the time. As the Mormon church matured and grew in wealth, portions of the tithes were invested into businesses and other monetary ventures and the stipends paid to the upper clergy began being taken from the investment and business profits instead of from the backs of the members.

From LDS.org:

"General authorities leave their careers when they are called into full-time church service. When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the church and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all general authorities [including First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First and Second Quorums of the Seventy and Presiding Bishopric]."

I have no issue with this practice. But it is disingenuous or outright ignorant (often both) when Mormons bash other clergy who dedicate their lives full time to their ministries and live on a modest salary from the tithes of their members. I believe the latest known figures for LDS "living allowance" is $120K a year. Not exorbitant, but not exactly a pious existence either. I do take issue with the mega churches raking in millions of dollars with the preachers preaching for popularity and accumulating vast sums of personal wealth used for extravagant and quite worldly living. There are quite a few examples. I do not see that in the Mormon leaders which is laudable--considering the vast sums the LDS church commands. The several top LDS leaders of substantial wealth apparently earned their fortunes outside of the church service.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
I wasn't referring to your local clergy.
Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding. When people typically say "clergy" they are referring to the priest you see when you walk into a church.
But everybody above a stake president is given a living wage, correct?
No. Living stipends are only for a few hundred people in a 15+ million church. Those people are those which are getting zipped across 6 continents and hence could not hold a regular day job. For example, the 12 Apostles, 3 members of the First Presidency, and the first two Quorums of the Seventy. Mission Presidents receive a living wage while they are serving as Mission President (~2 years) and move to a different part of the world.

Examples of people beyond stake presidents that don't receive a living wage are the other Quorums of the Seventy.
I see ignorant comments by LDS all the time attacking Christians for their paid clergy, not knowing their present situation
Comparing LDS clergy vs mainstream Christian clergy is very much apples and oranges.

You average local Baptist priest (for example) is literally hired by the church he works, including an extensive audition process. He is a paid professional, having decided that he wants to do this for a living, and received a professional degree. If the congregation doesn't like him, he can get fired. If the congregation shrinks, that can threaten his personal wallet. Conversely, a growing congregation grows, that can increase his personal wallet. This does create financial incentive to cater to people and temptation to tailor the message for personal gain. This is not to say that vast majority of priests ever yield to this temptation, but it is there.

Your local LDS Bishop has zero finical incentive to do anything- he doesn't get paid for anything. He didn't auction for his job (he was instead asked to feel this role), and he'll just serve a few years. Even at the global scale, a Apostle didn't ask for the role, didn't choose this as a profession, and with a global church his personal wallet isn't threatened by low tithing incomes that year.

nor their past history when all leaders down to the level of the local bishop were paid out of tithing receipts. If my memory serves, this practice discontinued during the early 1900s when the church could no longer afford to pay bishops and stake presidents and they were relegated to unpaid, voluntary status.
LDS policies have indeed changed a lot over time. A really big driver of this has been moving to a cash-based tithing system (as opposed to tithing in crops, livestock, etc), smaller wards, and spreading out from a few LDS predominate towns to a global church. It's quite interesting. I can get you some resources on it if you'd like.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Personally I find mainstream Christianity and Islam to be closer in their approach to scripture: that it is closed and there are no more prophets. This is very different than LDS continuing prophetic revelation.
The main difference there is that Mormon prophecies have turned out to be false whearas the Bible's are truly fulfilled.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thanks for your response. Having studied both Mormonism and Islam in depth from an academic perspective, I find your assertion on the equivalency of the Mormon and Islam stance to be prima facie absurd.

While I understand why you must take comfort in the thousands (not hundreds) of manuscripts and fragments all confirming your bible, from an academic perspective it is a lot less solid than you have been lead to believe. 99.5% of the manuscripts "supporting" a perfect bible date well after the 4th century and were intentionally created by the church to artificially support the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sanaiticus or Latin Vulgate, all of which are post Catholic filterings of earlier manuscripts meant to consolidate Catholic authority and therefore power. (And to craft a religion acceptable to both pagans and 3rd century Christians thoroughly conditioned to accept any wind of doctrine.)

The earlier the manuscript fragments pre-3rd century, the more heretical and significant the discrepancies become. Even the fragments purporting to be the earliest manuscripts are not exactly extant originals, rather they are copies from originals with the originals being burned at the order of Rome--out of "reverence" being the official excuse. Damned inconvenient for anybody bold enough to question the accuracy of the Catholic approved manuscripts and damned convenient for anybody wanting to use a 99.5% agreement statistic. You can imagine how that plays to the academic skeptic... Virtually every post 3rd century fragment must be treated as tainted evidence and proclamations of 99.5% manuscript agreements as academically useless catechisms endlessly reverberating in the echo chambers of the faithfully blind.

Now let us address the actual Mormon position that so offends you.

Paul warned the Saints at Corinth that they were too easily accepting "another Jesus" than what he was teaching. (2 Corinthians) He later chastises the Galatians for quickly turning to a "different gospel" being preached by those who intentionally wished to "pervert the gospel of Christ." (Galatians 2) Meanwhile Peter, fighting for his very life, was frantically warning his flock of sheep that "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies… and many will follow their destructive ways… they will exploit you with deceptive words." (2 Peter) Who exactly were these apostles addressing? Some 2000 year distant Mormons... or were Peter and Paul specifically warning those people at that period in time of a dire, more imminent threat that they and their close generations needed to heed?

Compare and contrast this with Paul speaking in 2 Timothy specifically concerning the "last days." "In the last days perilous times will come… men will… be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power… from such people turn away." The Mormon's claim that a "great apostasy" occurred sometime after the Apostle's warning and the council of Nicaea circa 3rd century. If, in fact, this apostasy forewarned by the 1st century apostles did occur in that time period, then all of your precious thousand manuscripts are suspect.

To the academic mind, the 99.5% consistency of post 3rd century manuscripts makes it suspect. Combined with the church's frenzied 3rd and 4th century acquisitions of any and all 1st and 2nd century sources they could find and the deliberate burning of the original sources suggests a much more intentional bastardized religion being created--not for the salvation of men, but for political power and profit. Supposing for a moment that the Apostles' warnings and the Mormon's claim are both correct... well that would make YOU the one who has swallowed, accepted and perpetuated "another Jesus" and "another gospel" -- exactly according to Paul's last days prophecy.

Naturally, if no such apostasy occurred, then the whole Mormon position is nothing more than a pile of shiite and the Catholic church is the correct authority on all things Christian; ergo all sects must continue to kiss the holy Roman ring, no matter how tokenized of gesture it has become willing to accept.

Let's look again at Paul's last days prophecy, specifically the phrase "having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof." Paul was declaring that in the last days (some 2000 years distant?) a vast false Christianity would arise based on a man made creed paradoxically proclaiming an all powerful God that used to perform miracles, used to reveal himself to apostles in post-mortem, re-incarnate form, who used to be same yesterday, today and forever -- but in the last days declares that the age of miracles is over, revelations are done and that the same all powerful God can no longer appear in post-mortem, re-incarnate form to anybody.

The self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Smith declared that he was restoring the original 1st century church, one with apostles to whom the all powerful God could once again appear post-mortem, re-incarnate just as he did in the Bible. Your Christianity says your God can't do that. Smith's Christianity declared that the heavens were open and not silent. Your Christianity locked and silenced them long ago declaring an end to all revelation. Smith's Christianity claimed the power of spiritual gifts was restored such as those needed to perform miracles in Jesus' name. Your Christianity long ago declared the age of miracles over, that "once God's message to mankind under the gospel of His Son was complete, the need for spiritual gifts ceased. And, after the last apostle died, so did the ability the apostles had to lay hands on someone and give the ability to perform miracles (e.g., Acts 19:6). Therefore, spiritual gifts ended at that time."

From an impartial, skeptical viewpoint, one vast, accept-all diversities/perversities of Christianity (except Mormon's) is the one that matches Paul's warning of "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." Believing one is "saved by grace alone" with no need to obey the 10 commandments or walk the walk seems like a perfect match for those condemned by Jesus for saying "Lord Lord" and expecting salvation--or as Paul puts it, "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." Yet another tiny, peculiar, ridiculously audacious, post 3rd century heretical Christianity unapologetic-ally declares the veracity and inheritance of the 1st century power. Interestingly enough, it is that one near irrelevant, relatively minuscule religion--more than any other--that receives the scorn, derision, mockery, attacks and persecution of today's "true Christians."

In light of my rational arguments based on logic instead of zealous belief, I find the Mormon's cautious acceptance of YOUR bible to be rather enlightened and generous, albeit just as guilty in interpreting and abusing the bible for their own nuanced needs and creeds as any of your other rubber stamped flavor of Christianity.

Of course, to believe any of your creeds requires a person to be half-crazy, no one more so than the other. (Said with genuine affection, fully realizing the predicament and ex-nilho problems of not believing.)
Sorry, I'm not into conspiracy theories.
 
Upvote 0