Mormon Apologists

[Rescued One]

I've noticed a trend among Mormon apologists to cite early church fathers in an effort to make people think that LDS teachings are a restoration of truth. That simply is not so.

There is an excellent article online that addresses this issue:

Deification, Mormonism and the Early Church

 

[Ran77]

I've noticed a trend among Mormon apologists to cite early church fathers in an effort to make people think that LDS teachings are a restoration of truth. That simply is not so.

There is an excellent article online that addresses this issue:

Deification, Mormonism and the Early Church

A trend? Do you have some numbers, or other evidence, to support this observation? Or are you just using the phrase to illustrate a point? Maybe you can point out the actual apologists so we can check on them ourselves.

 

[Ran77]

Oh, excellent. I followed the link and noticed that this is where they put the information:

Short List of "Cults", Aberrational Christian, and Other Controversial Groups


So, obviously we can trust the information that they have provided on these groups to be fair and unbiased. Because calling all of the groups in that category cults and aberrational Christians isn't at all indicative of a hostile mind-set towards their beliefs.

 

[Rescued One]

Oh, excellent. I followed the link and noticed that this is where they put the information:

Short List of "Cults", Aberrational Christian, and Other Controversial Groups


So, obviously we can trust the information that they have provided on these groups to be fair and unbiased. Because calling all of the groups in that category cults and aberrational Christians isn't at all indicative of a hostile mind-set towards their beliefs.

False beliefs are indeed false. Some groups do fall into a category that twists orthodox teachings or departs from orthodox teachings. Yes, the apostle Paul was critical of those who would bring a false gospel; he was hostile towards false beliefs.

Galatians 1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So your criticism of the source of information is merely a deflection of the topic of this thread (Mormon Apologists).

 

[TasteForTruth]

I've noticed a trend among Mormon apologists to cite early church fathers in an effort to make people think that LDS teachings are a restoration of truth. That simply is not so.

There is an excellent article online that addresses this issue:

Deification, Mormonism and the Early Church

I'm a Mormon apologist as much as any person. And my position is that the Restored Gospel is modern revelation. It is not a protest of Catholicism, nor is it a Bible-interpretation spin-off. It needs no ECF to substantiate it.

That said, where the writings of the ECFs reveal that they believed what LDS believe on any point or in any measure, we don't have to "get people to think" that they believed those things, for they certainly did. People today will believe what they want to believe, as always.

 

[Ran77]

False beliefs are indeed false.

They sure are. And modern beliefs are indeed modern beliefs. And personal beliefs and indeed personal beliefs. etc. etc. etc.

Some groups do fall into a category that twists orthodox teachings or departs from orthodox teachings. Yes, the apostle Paul was critical of those who would bring a false gospel; he was hostile towards false beliefs.

Yes, some groups do. Then again "some" is very vague and I don't see how this response effectively addresses the points I made.

So your criticism of the source of information is merely a deflection of the topic of this thread (Mormon Apologists).

I posted two responses, one to the information itself and the second about the source of the information. So this is an ineffective rebuttal. If it was "merely a deflection" I would not have bothered to post the other response.

Not to mention that showing an extreme prejudice in the author of the informaiton you linked to is relevant. I have seen you post threads in relation to LDS and the view of other doctrines being an abomination. Sounds like a double standard is being applied to that kind of posting.

 

[Rescued One]

People today will believe what they want to believe, as always.

People who have the Spirit of Christ are desirous of truth. Others are under the power of Satan; their desire is not to please Christ; they walk in darkness. God is the One Who delivers people from darkness and brings them to the Light.

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:12

 

[TasteForTruth]

People who have the Spirit of Christ are desirous of truth. Others are under the power of Satan; their desire is not to please Christ; they walk in darkness. God is the One Who delivers people from darkness and brings them to the Light.

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:12

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Rescued One]

About as much as this does:

People today will believe what they want to believe, as always.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I've noticed a trend among Mormon apologists to cite early church fathers in an effort to make people think that LDS teachings are a restoration of truth. That simply is not so.

There is an excellent article online that addresses this issue:

Deification, Mormonism and the Early Church

I'm a Mormon apologist as much as any person. And my position is that the Restored Gospel is modern revelation. It is not a protest of Catholicism, nor is it a Bible-interpretation spin-off. It needs no ECF to substantiate it.

That said, where the writings of the ECFs reveal that they believed what LDS believe on any point or in any measure, we don't have to "get people to think" that they believed those things, for they certainly did. People today will believe what they want to believe, as always.

People who have the Spirit of Christ are desirous of truth. Others are under the power of Satan; their desire is not to please Christ; they walk in darkness. God is the One Who delivers people from darkness and brings them to the Light.

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:12

What does this have to do with the OP?

About as much as this does:

People today will believe what they want to believe, as always.

As you can see, mine was not an isolated statement. You stripped it out of a post that was on-topic. You made it off-topic, not me. So, are we done speaking about the topic?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm a Mormon apologist as much as any person. And my position is that the Restored Gospel is modern revelation. It is not a protest of Catholicism, nor is it a Bible-interpretation spin-off. It needs no ECF to substantiate it.

That said, where the writings of the ECFs reveal that they believed what LDS believe on any point or in any measure, we don't have to "get people to think" that they believed those things, for they certainly did. People today will believe what they want to believe, as always.

I always smile when I read or hear the term "Restored Gospel".

By definition "restored" means:

<LI style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal">Brought back; reinstated.2. Returned (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position.

At this point in history there is absolutely no doubt that the gospel proclaimed by Joseph Smith came to him only through revelation and never existed prior to his proclamation of it. If it was actually restored, there would be verifiable historical evidence of it.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I always smile when I read or hear the term "Restored Gospel".

By definition "restored" means:

<LI style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal">Brought back; reinstated.2. Returned (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position.

At this point in history there is absolutely no doubt that the gospel proclaimed by Joseph Smith came to him only through revelation and never existed prior to his proclamation of it. If it was actually restored, there would be verifiable historical evidence of it.

I always smile when any self-proclaimed Christian wants verifiable historical evidence of spiritual things. Makes me wonder how they substantiate their witness of Jesus Christ as their Savior. Or maybe that's different...

 

[bbbbbbb]

I always smile when any self-proclaimed Christian wants verifiable historical evidence of spiritual things. Makes me wonder how they substantiate their witness of Jesus Christ as their Savior. Or maybe that's different...

I like to see people smile. And, BTW, that is different.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I like to see people smile. And, BTW, that is different.

I see. How is it different, so I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Clearly]

The Opening Post said : &#8220;[FONT=&quot]I've noticed a trend among Mormon apologists to cite early church fathers in an effort to make people think that LDS teachings are a restoration of truth. That simply is not so. &#8220;[/FONT]


Perhaps it was inadvertent, but the OP refers to the &#8220;church fathers&#8221; which is an the incorrect period of greatest interest for modern &#8220;mormon apologists&#8221; (perhaps the cut and past link to the anti-mormon site is an old link?)



However, I agree that there IS an amazing and increasing trend for ALL apologists and ALL Christian Historian and ALL Christian Scholars to study and discuss the earliest Judao-christian texts that describe and support specific LDS doctrines, especially the pre-existent time period and creation council histories.

As we've discuss in another thread, Among the many historians, [FONT=&quot]early Judao-Christian religious worldviews continues to be re-contextualized due to the many wonderful sacred textual discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Many of the most talented Historian Scholars are focusing interest on creation council histories include Michael &#919;eiser, Jeffery Tigay, F.M. Cross, T. Mullen, Julian Morgenstern, Cyrus Gordon, W.S. Prinsloo, C. Seitz, L.M. MacDonald, E. Ulrich, Sanders, M. Van Ruiten, Gerald Cook, and others, etc. There is a great deal of discussion regarding the textual discoveries as ancient Judao-Christian beliefs are being re-defined and re-contextualized. (to the point of generating NEW historical terms to accurately reflect the changing models of early beliefs). [/FONT]

As these scholars use early Judao-christian documents (obviously &#8220;early church fathers&#8221; are NOT the documents of main interest contrary to the O.P. claim), to help define and restore knowledge concerning the earliest Judao-christian doctrines; what these doctrines looked like and their correct context, they are now overtly discussing [FONT=&quot]LDS pre-creation theology in neutral and objective terms.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This emerging model has certainly clarified prior discoveries of the major Pre-creation themes and doctrines in early Judao-Christianity and are obviously going to be used by LDS apologists since these discoveries and contexting of early Judao-christian worldviews parallel LDS worldviews to a great extent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What is interesting is that, when you look at the list of Scholars who are discussing &#8220;LDS&#8221; theology in this specific example, NONE of these scholars are LDS.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, the LDS base claim is that spirits of man existed in a cognizant state before they were born into mortality and there was a pre-creation organization of spirits involved in the carrying out of Gods plan to educate man toward the goal of moral competence sufficient to enable man to live in a social heaven in peace and harmony and joy. It is almost impossible for any scholar, LDS or not, to discuss the early Judao-Christian pre-creation theology history or creation council theology and its history in any depth without inadvertently discussing LDS base claims.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If this is true, then the majority of the LDS theology and its integration into the modern historical texts is being done and will continue to be accomplished by non-LDS scholars as they re-discover and elucidate such early Judao-Christian traditions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]clearly
eiacdrro
[/FONT]

 

[Albion]

I've noticed a trend among Mormon apologists to cite early church fathers in an effort to make people think that LDS teachings are a restoration of truth. That simply is not so.

There is an excellent article online that addresses this issue:

Deification, Mormonism and the Early Church

Quite obviously, the LDS are working hard to convince the rest of us that their church is a variety of Christianity. That has always been an objective, but in this day of internet information and with a Mormon running for president in 2012, they are probably smarting even more than before at the accusation that their beliefs are something other than Christian.

One good thing that could come from this is that the church actually might be moved in the direction of conventional Christianity the more that they immerse themselves in Christian documents and history, BUT, even if that doesn't happen, it might cause individual Mormons to re-think some teachings they've absorbed from their church and always considered to be true--the idea that the Bible is full of errors, for instance, or that the church apostacized shortly after its founding.

 

[Albion]

I always smile when any self-proclaimed Christian wants verifiable historical evidence of spiritual things. Makes me wonder how they substantiate their witness of Jesus Christ as their Savior. Or maybe that's different...

I can't speak for everyone, but whenever people ask me for verifiable historical evidence for this belief, I provide them with the verifiable historical evidence.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I can't speak for everyone, but whenever people ask me for verifiable historical evidence for this belief, I provide them with the verifiable historical evidence.

Could you please give me verifiable historical evidence which proves that Jesus is the Son of God?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I see. How is it different, so I understand where you're coming from.

It is different to see people smiling on this forum. We seem to be a rather gloomy and contentious crowd.

 

[Clearly]

[FONT=&quot]Albion in post #16 Quite obviously, the LDS are working hard to convince the rest of us that their church is a variety of Christianity. That has always been an objective, but in this day of internet information and with a Mormon running for president in 2012, they are probably smarting even more than before at the accusation that their beliefs are something other than Christian.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think the first sentence is correct. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will continue to be interested in teaching that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world and in convincing others that they believe in the testimony of Jesus as the redeemer of mankind.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regarding the presidency, I think most of the LDS/Mormons are excited to have a president that is a member, partly because it &#8220;may&#8221; make their belief in Jesus as the redeemer of the world more plain as individuals are curious about him. If Mitt Romney is a bad president, then, I think that would embarrass them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Albion said in post #16 : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]&#8220;&#8230; the church actually might be moved in the direction of conventional Christianity the more that they immerse themselves in Christian documents and history, BUT, even if that doesn't happen, it might cause individual Mormons to re-think some teachings they've absorbed from their church and always considered to be true&#8212;the idea that the Bible is full of errors, for instance, or that the church apostacized shortly after its founding.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe that more early Judao-Christian documents have been discovered in the 19th century than all other centuries combined. (Qumran, N. hamadi, oxhy, Brooklyn, the 4th c.e. uncials, early mishnas, hymns, synagogal prayers, diaries, etc, etc.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think that IF the textual discoveries from the earliest periods were to demonstrate a Christian worldview that was quite different than their base claims, then the LDS would become uncomfortable with those base claims. However, as in my example, if the earliest textual discoveries continue to support LDS base claims, then I think they will become more comfortable with pointing out this fact. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think that if the LDS used the &#8220;Church Fathers&#8221; as the only history, it would NOT forward their theological model much since the later period of the theologian-derived christian theory is characterized by the development of theology different from the LDS and from early judao-christian worldviews.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, the later descriptions of the &#8220;three Gods in one&#8221; type of trinity became more popular during the period of the &#8220;Church Fathers&#8221;, the theory that all things were made of &#8220;nothing&#8221; became popular during this period, etc. I had a discussion of the trinity with a member of the dallas seminary recently and noted their version of the trinity changed the meaning of &#8220;one essence&#8221; to mean the all had the same moral and personality characteristics rather than substance. It was confusing since he used the claim that &#8220;they three are different but having the same essence&#8221;. Given this newer usage of the word &#8220;essence&#8221;, we could agree on their nature. THAT was a new experience for me. However, I do NOT know if that is their new official position or if I just encountered a &#8220;rogue seminarian&#8221; who did not understand their official usage of the word &#8220;essence&#8221;. (i thought he was quite bright)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think the LDS will always believe that biblical manuscripts have errors, just as the biblical textual historians and biblical translators repeatedly remind us.. (Or until a theoretical autograph that turns out to be &#8220;error free&#8221; is discovered.) However, I think the LDS biblical scholars will tend to agree that most of the errors are small and do not affect the base witness that Jesus is the redeemer. Recently the OP author referred to Sinaiticus as an &#8220;unreliable text&#8221; when I quoted it. (although I don&#8217;t think she understood the implication).
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think the LDS and others will be increasingly aware of the many &#8220;small errors&#8221;, some of which are important to specific theological claims. For example, since the placement of periods and division of sentences by stephanus were somewhat arbitrary, there will also always be creators of bibles creating differing theology even by the placement of periods. KJV translators may translate &#8220;&#8230;[/FONT] I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:43 while Rotherham will translate it : [FONT=&quot]...Verily, I say unto thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise. Both of these differing sentence divisions (which are a guess since the source greek doesn&#8217;t have them) create different doctrines concerning time periods when dymas will be in paradise.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The constant reminder from translators who create bibles that their text has errors will keep us in the real world. I DO think that an occasional LDS will exagerate the amount of errors the texts have. As to glosses from original text, I don&#8217;t expect many being glosses being discovered though Qumran changed even some of those assumptions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I do wish we could drop the King James version for a more different version, but that is a personal preference.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Regarding your claim to have verifiable historical evidence that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind, you said in Post # 17 " I can't speak for everyone, but whenever people ask me for verifiable historical evidence for this belief, I provide them with the verifiable historical evidence. [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Like the others, I am quite curious as to what sort of "verifiable historical evidence" you provide others that show that Jesus removed anyone's sins or that they will resurrect into a heaven.



You have made an interesting claim that I've never heard anyone else make. We're on the edge of our seats wondering if it was simply an accidental snide comment (which all of us are guilty of), if it has any legitimacy or if it is going to be a "bait and switch".
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Good luck albion, wherever your spiritual journey takes you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]clearly[/FONT]