LDS II: The Mormons

[Slowvehicle]

Obviously, I believe Paul's words are less important to Christian theology than the words of Jesus. However, for Christians who believe Jesus or some heavenly being appeared to Saul and commissioned him to continue Jesus' work, the words of Paul are much more than the words of preachers/ministers not so commissioned.

"Jesus or some heavenly being"? At what point does the canon allow that "some heavenly being" (other than Jesus) might have been the subject of Tarsi's "visions"? Chapter and verse, please.

In what way, to you, does an a-scriptural musing enhance scriptural authority?

In what way is changing, altering, adding to, and extending into new issues "continuing" "Jesus' work" (particularly if it were, in fact, "some heavenly being other than Jesus" through whom Tarsi claimed his commission)?

I believe the reason halleyscoment is driven to minimize Paul's stature goes straight to Paul's statements about homosexuality. Note:

"For almost the entire 2,000 years of recorded Christian history, the apostle Paul's condemnation of all types of homosexual practice was considered an unquestionable fact of biblical teaching. Not until the sexual revolution of the 1960s did 'gay liberation theologians' emerge to dispute and distort the plain reading of Scripture on this subject. And as Michael L. Brown notes in his book . . . 'Every major dictionary of New Testament Greek or Classical Greek understood Paul's key vocabulary (in particular the word arsenokoites) to refer to men engaging in homosexual acts.' . . . With society's rapid moral decline, rejection of authority and a self-centered approach to life, God's Word has come under an intense, unrelenting assault." www.charismanews.com/opinion/43977-the-apostle-paul-and-homosexuaity-answer

Interesting source. Did you read their take on your particular sect? Did you, instead, as is your wont, cherry-pick an article that said (however inaccurately) what you hoped to hear, embracing a strange bedfellow in order to further one particular agenda?

Do you find the site's attitudes about your sect as authoritative as its pronouncements about the (not honestly, or completely, dealt with) history of "the church's" attitudes toward homosexuality?

Not to mention the elephant in the bedroom.

Follow:

Even if, arguendo, CharismaNews were an accurate, and scholastically dependable, source, and the church were as incorrect to allow sea changes in society and the public consciousness of civil rights issues to "modify" its position on slavery, or miscegenation, or misogyny, (or, say, divorce), as it is to allow those same kinds of sea changes to inform its discrimination against homosexuals;

דַּיֵּנוּ; but:

Even if, arguendo the xian churches had, for all of their history, spoken with one unified voice against the practices Tarsi is said to be said to have addressed with regard to the misbehaviours against which he is said to be said to have railed as practiced by (for instance) the ekklēsía at Corinth;

דַּיֵּנוּ; but:

Even if, arguendo, Tarsi were, in fact, said to be said to be addressing a specific issue against which he was mandated to speak by whatever "spiritual entity" featured in his "visions");

דַּיֵּנוּ; but:

Even if arguendo, Tarsi were, in fact, said to be said to be directly quoting lost words and lost teaching said to be said to be attributed to Jesus himself (or whatever other "spiritual being" could be said to have authored Tarsi's "visions");

דַּיֵּנוּ; but:

Even if, arguendo, Jesus himself could be said to have preached, himself (in direct contravention of the things he is said to have said about justice, and "loving each other as yourselves"), that no homosexuals were welcome in his "heaven" (whenever one's particular set of interpretations leads one to believe such is to come about);

דַּיֵּנוּ; because:

Not one iota of that, not one scintilla, not the most stertorous and draconian application of the most severely-imagined evangelical weaponization, provides the first hint of the suggestion of the beginning of the shadow of the cloud of the possibility of the concept that any of that can, or should, be held to apply against, or to shape the law of the land concerning, anyone not choosing thralldom to a sect so inclined.

I have said before, and will continue to point out, that you are free, in the fastness of your ebenezer, to believe an you so choose; you have never explained how that is supposed to give you leave to support denying basic civil rights to individuals not in thrall to your 'gods'. You are free to maintain that no member of your sect may be at once a member and a homosexual; and members of your sect are free to adhere to that stricture.

No one else need give a tinker's honey badger.

Nor can, or should, the laws governing basic civil rights of human persons be trimmed to your idiosyncratic dogma.

 

[halleyscomet]

The citizens of Paris, France, will be interested to know that. As will the citizens of Rome, Italy; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Montreal, Quebec; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Lisbon, Portugal; Star Valley, WY; Sapporo, Japan; Fort Collins, CO;
Hartford, CT; Indianapolis, IN; Phoenix, AZ; Philadelphia, PA; Cedar City, UT; and Tucson, AZ.

I did say "most" not "all."

Besides, some the ones you listed are existing temples undergoing repair or renovation, not new temples being built. Was this intentional deception on your part or merely a sloppy error?

Even more are merely "planned" temples that haven't gotten past some land being purchased and a few permits applied for.

New temple construction is not really a good measure of how a religion is growing unless you take into account how many temples are being decommissioned without replacement and how migration of the faithful is impacting concentrations of the religious. The Temple being built in Rome for example is the result of a congregation that has grown through IMMIGRATION not through conversion. We already have ample evidence of the overall contraction of the LDS church in the developed world from other sources that have been discussed in this very thread.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . it's ironic to see a Christian here suggesting that truthfulness is secondary to satisfaction.

I have made no such suggestion. What I said was that something doesn't have to be true to be enjoyable or rewarding or satisfying.

Alas, I apparently went to the wrong Sunday school, because my teachers suggested that belief in what is true comes first whether you like it or not.

I agree with your Sunday School teachers, but their position has nothing to do with whether or not a thing can be rewarding even if it isn't true.

Where you draw the line between the desire for faith and the completeness of it may be open to dispute, but not the basic idea that truth is the paramount goal.

Again, I agree. Your point, however, is irrelevant to the fact that something can be rewarding even if it isn't true. As I have noted, professional wrestling isn't "true," but fans of the "sport" love it.

My atheism owes a considerable debt to the wisdom of my Christian teachers. I'm pretty sure my last Sunday school teacher would be happier to know I've given up religion than to think I'd swallowed undigested doctrine like Kool Aid.

Apparently, your last Sunday School teacher—your assertion notwithstanding—was not especially wise inasmuch as he/she was teaching "undigested doctrine" (at least that's what your imply).

 

[halleyscomet]

. . . it's ironic to see a Christian here suggesting that truthfulness is secondary to satisfaction.

I have made no such suggestion. What I said was that something doesn't have to be true to be enjoyable or rewarding or satisfying.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't actually contradict him. He accused you of placing satisfaction ahead of truth, and you responded by saying truth was unnecessary for something to be satisfying.

It's not unlike accusing a man of drinking to hide his pain, and the drunk responding by saying he wasn't feeling any pain because he was drunk.

 

[skyrider44]

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." --George Bernard Shaw

I have not said that those who know a thing not to be true are happier than those who know a thing to be true. What I said was that it's possible to enjoy something even if one knows it isn't true. Shaw's statement is irrelevant to my point.

 

[halleyscomet]

What I said was that it's possible to enjoy something even if one knows it isn't true.

Therein lies the problem.

At some point in one's life, it's necessary to set aside childish things and take up the responsibilities and knowledge of a man.(1 Corinthians 13:11) One cannot sup upon milk your entire life, eventually you need to eat meat. (1 Corinthians 3:2, Doctrine and Covenants 19:22)

I can enjoy a good sci-fi opera even though it's not true, but I KNOW it's not true.

Shouldn't false and inaccurate beliefs be rejected, even if believing the fantasy makes one happier? (1 John 4:1, Ezekiel 13)

Should one persist in belief in Santa Clause into adulthood if it makes you happy? (Jeremiah 10:1-10)

Should one persist in believing climate change is a liberal conspiracy just because that claim is more comforting the truth? (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c021.html)

Should one cling to a literal reading of the Book of Mormon even though its historical claims have been blasted to atoms? (Science and History in the Book of Mormon)

 

[skyrider44]

. . . I find it perplexing that a Mormon would be arguing that Paul was somehow more spiritually authoritative based upon volume of writing and number of converts.

I find that perplexing as well inasmuch as you limit Paul's accomplishments to "volume of writing and number of converts." You conveniently ignore Paul's stature as the second most important figure (after Jesus Christ) in the development of Christianity. You also ignore his three long missionary journeys during which he founded churches and strengthened the faith of early Christians. Finally, you ignore his conversion from devoted enemy of the church to its most devoted advocate. Little wonder that Paul "towers as one of the all-time giants of Christianity." christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/a/Apostle-Paul.htm

Such a metric would declare the Roman Catholic Church or even the Megachurch movement as more theologically "correct" than Mormons by several orders of magnitude.

Only if one's knowledge of the Mormon Church is severely limited.

Are you perhaps going by some sort of supernatural extension of the Protestant work ethic? If so, I have to wonder why this "right by number of converts" theology of yours hasn't prompted you to drop this whole "Mormon" thing and join a Baptist Megachurch. If you think Paul is somehow more theologically important because of popularity then why have you not picked your religion by the same metric?

I haven't said that Paul or anyone else was "right by number of converts." That claim is of your manufacture. Nor have I said Paul or anyone else is more theologically important because of popularity. Again, that claim is of your manufacture.

Do you also decide what music is best by what is most popular? You must be a HUGE "One Direction" fan.

Having created argumentive strawmen, you now find it expedient to suggest that I'm a "One Direction" fan. Rather amusing, actually.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have not said that those who know a thing not to be true are happier than those who know a thing to be true. What I said was that it's possible to enjoy something even if one knows it isn't true. Shaw's statement is irrelevant to my point.

I see.

It seems then, that what should be said is that the fact that (as you put it) some members of your sect "derive enormous satisfaction from being active in the Church whether or not they have reservations about its validity" is no more to the point than the fact that some alcoholics "derive enormous satisfaction" from being drunk whether or not they have reservations about its viability.

It still seems odd to praise such hypocritical participation in a faith, or even to call that "faith"; or to imply that Tarsi would have approved...

 

[skyrider44]

"Jesus or some heavenly being"? At what point does the canon allow that "some heavenly being" (other than Jesus) might have been the subject of Tarsi's "visions"? Chapter and verse, please.

Some on this thread have suggested that it was an angel or some other heavenly being who appeared to Saul.

In what way, to you, does an a-scriptural musing enhance scriptural authority? In what way is changing, altering, adding to, and extending into new issues "continuing" "Jesus' work" (particularly if it were, in fact, "some heavenly being other than Jesus" through whom Tarsi claimed his commission)?

Those questions are best addressed to you, who has chosen to ignore the fact that Paul used the Greek word arsenokoites, which translates as
"homosexual."

Note:

1) ". . . the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God . . . the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners (malakol, practicing homosexuals (arsenokoitai ., thieves . . . will not inherit the kingdom of God." www.charismanews.com/opinion/43977-the-apostle-paul-and-homosexuality-answer/URL]

2) ". . . the law is good if someone uses it legitimately . . . but for the lawless . . . for sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals (arsenokoitai)" [it is not good]. (Same source as 1). Bear in mind that the first quotation is from First Corinthians 6; the second, from First Timothy 1. Yes, they are interesting sources.

. . .

You are free to maintain that no member of your sect may be at once a member and a homosexual; and members of your sect are free to adhere to that stricture.

Wrong. A significant number of homosexuals are LDS.

Nor can, or should, the laws governing basic civil rights of human persons be trimmed to your idiosyncratic dogma.

Which is to say that said laws should be trimmed to your idiosyncratic dogma.

 

[skyrider44]

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't actually contradict him. He accused you of placing satisfaction ahead of truth,

I did no such thing. How on earth did you arrive at that interpretation? I said it's possible for something that is untrue to be a source of satisfaction. His accusation is false.

and you responded by saying truth was unnecessary for something to be satisfying.

That's correct. In fact, truth—in human relationships—can be hurtful, even
devastating.

It's not unlike accusing a man of drinking to hide his pain, and the drunk responding by saying he wasn't feeling any pain because he was drunk.

Your analogy doesn't work because an accusation may or may not be true.

 

[RandFan]

I premised my statement on the assumption that the writer is an atheist or at least an agnostic. If that is the case, then he may be justified in using the term "blackmail." If it isn't the case and he believes the threats of which he speaks are of divine origin (Ten Commandments, for example), "blackmail" is incorrect usage.

I don't have to believe the stories in the Bat Man comics to judge the behavior of the Joker. To torture and kill innocent people is wrong.

The source of divine authority is God.

Is that which is moral loved by god or is morality simply what god says it is? If it is the former then god is irrelevant to morality. If it is the latter then god is arbitrary.

In either case the character of god in the bible (Adoni) is a moral monster. Drowning babies is always immoral. It is immoral for humans to kill babies even in times of war. Even if they die of collateral damage. It is morally good for humans to reduce the death of innocents in times of war. If a moral agent can avoid causing suffering and that agent does not then the agent is immoral.

• Adoni caused the death of David and Bathsheba's child in order to punish David. That is a monstrous thing to do.
• Adoni was angry that Saul allowed the Kenites to live even though the Kenites had done nothing to warrant death. "You have rejected the word of Adoni therefore he has rejected you".
• Adoni drowned babies in the flood.
• Adoni god killed infants and babies in Egypt.
• Adoni said it was okay to beat your slave to the point of death.

There is much, much more but that will suffice to demonstrate that Adoni is arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Some on this thread have suggested that it was an angel or some other heavenly being who appeared to Saul.

And some, on this (and other) thread(s) have insistd that Tarsi "must have" met "Jesus" in "more than" an hallucination, IIRC. However, what Tarsi is said to be said to have said is clear on those points.

You are, of course, free to cling to other claims...

Those questions are best addressed to you, who has chosen to ignore the fact that Paul used the Greek word arsenokoites, which translates as
"homosexual."

Note:

1) ". . . the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God . . . the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners (malakol, practicing homosexuals (arsenokoitai ., thieves . . . will not inherit the kingdom of God." www.charismanews.com/opinion/43977-the-apostle-paul-and-homosexuality-answer/URL]

2) ". . . the law is good if someone uses it legitimately . . . but for the lawless . . . for sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals (arsenokoitai)" [it is not good]. (Same source as 1). Bear in mind that the first quotation is from First Corinthians 6; the second, from First Timothy 1. Yes, they are interesting sources.

I am curious as to what your repetition of a contentious (and outmoded, and acontextual) translation of a word said to be said to be attributed to Tarsi (not Jesus) in the one case, and to an unidentified 1st century author (not Tarsi) in the other; has in any way to do with the fact that the "messages" attributed to Tarsi (and the anonymous author) clearly modify, extend, and add to the κήρυγμα said to be said to be attributable to Jesus, in the canon.

Even if, arguendo (and only arguendo), your preferred translation of the two Koiné were unarguable (do keep in mind that you accept the authenticity of the BoA, including the claims that it is a correct translation of actual autographic texts hidden in standard funerary texts); those words are not anywhere in the canon said to be said to be attributed to Jesus, or said to be said to be part of his canonic κήρυγμα.

Leaving aside the authors and translators who disagree with the facile interpretations you have cherry-picked and quoted. Did you ever go look at what your "source" says about your sect?

Wrong. A significant number of homosexuals are LDS.

And, of course, those sect-members are full citizens in good standing, accepted in the fullness of their sexual orientation--as your sect champions marriage equality, right?

Or do they have to sit at the back of the Sanctuary?

Which is to say that said laws should be trimmed to your idiosyncratic dogma.

Right. Affirming the basic civil rights of consenting adults is "trimming" the law. Make no mistake: if the law is limited by the superstitions to which you are in thrall, the basic civil rights of consenting adults who are not part of your sect are abridged, curtailed, and denied. On the other hand, if the basic civil right of marriage equality among consenting adults is affirmed, your rights are not affected at all, in any way--you are still free to call tunes for your 'god', and make everyone in your heiligentanzgruppe foot your steps--without affecting those not taken by the supposed expectations of your 'god', or, in fact, any 'god' at all.

Not for the first time,I encourage you to consider the situation if the law were to see fit to impose a majority dogma upon your minority sect.

 

[halleyscomet]

Only if one's knowledge of the Mormon Church is severely limited.

What knowledge of the Mormon church am I missing? You are arguing that the scope of Paul's accomplishments are part of why you believe his epistles are more theologically important than that of the other New Testament writers. Such a standard of righteousness through volume is a very difficult one for a church as relatively small as the LDS. What Mormon teachings am I missing here?

While I disagree with many of your stated positions thus far, I am making an honest effort to try and understand your point of view. Offhand comments about how little I know about the Mormon church do nothing to educate me. Of COURSE I don't know much about the Mormon church. I'm not Mormon nor was I ever raised as one.

 

[halleyscomet]

I did no such thing. How on earth did you arrive at that interpretation?

I read your posts, apparently with more attention to the implications of your statements than you put into writing them.

You conveniently ignore Paul's stature as the second most important figure (after Jesus Christ) in the development of Christianity. You also ignore his three long missionary journeys during which he founded churches and strengthened the faith of early Christians.

No, I don't. Why do you keep talking about his career as a missionary when it does not to support your argument? Assuming the Bible and church tradition are even vaguely accurate on his life, no one is denying he was a major, if not THE major missionary force in his lifetime. You however still cling to a theology of works where the scope of his missionary accomplishments somehow elevate his theology above that of the other apostles. You further take the very novel approach that the conversion story meant to elevate him TO the level of the apostles somehow made him BETTER than the other apostles. I'd really like to know if this interpretation of scripture is unique to you or a teaching of the LDS. If it is LDS doctrine I'd like a citation so I can read it for myself.

Finally, you ignore his conversion from devoted enemy of the church to its most devoted advocate.

I've not ignored it, I've addressed it multiple times.

For example, I discussed the nature of Saul's conversion to Paul in post 1327.

Post 1379 in this thread is the most recent time I discussed the theological implications of Paul's conversion. I assume you missed it because of the moderation time lag. It can be a bit annoying.

I'm looking forward to your response, particularly to your answer to my question of WHERE you got the idea that the details of Paul's conversion somehow elevate him above the other apostles.

That's a fascinating and novel interpretation of scripture. Is it a quirk of your own or one you learned from the Mormon church?

I've been putting time and effort into writing thoughtful, researched replies to your queries, but it appears you are not reading them. Frankly, I wonder why you're bothering to engage with anyone in this thread if you're going to ignore the theological meat offered.

 

[halleyscomet]

'Every major dictionary of New Testament Greek or Classical Greek understood Paul's key vocabulary (in particular the word arsenokoites) to refer to men engaging in homosexual acts.'

Nope. Not true.

Here is a pretty even handed discussion of the term:
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Arsenokoites.php

Ironically Sky, you might prefer the RationalWiki article on the term:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites

While arsenokoites is often translated as a direct reference to homosexuality, it's a word Paul appears to have made up. There's no good reason for him to have made up the term, as there was ALREADY a perfectly good Greek word for homosexuality Paul could have used. Ultimately, the term is too vague to really know for certain what Paul meant by it, but it does seem to imply an abuse of power or commercial exchange. Saying it forbids "homosexuality" in the modern sense is, to be kind, excessively simplistic and rather dismissive to biblical scholarship. It would probably be more accurate to say the term forbids the hiring of an underage prostitute or a teacher having a sexual relationship with his student.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>
"For almost the entire 2,000 years of recorded Christian history, the apostle Paul's condemnation of all types of homosexual practice was considered an unquestionable fact of biblical teaching. Not until the sexual revolution of the 1960s did 'gay liberation theologians' emerge to dispute and distort the plain reading of Scripture on this subject. And as Michael L. Brown notes in his book . . . 'Every major dictionary of New Testament Greek or Classical Greek understood Paul's key vocabulary (in particular the word arsenokoites) to refer to men engaging in homosexual acts.' . . . With society's rapid moral decline, rejection of authority and a self-centered approach to life, God's Word has come under an intense, unrelenting assault." www.charismanews.com/opinion/43977-the-apostle-paul-and-homosexuaity-answer

Despite this cherry-picked bit of well-poisoning from a less-than-stellar source (did you read, yet, what they have to say about your own sect?), consider the following:

http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoités-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequences

From the earliest English translations of the Bible, arsenokoités has suffered confusing treatment.

http://emerginganabaptist.com/arsenokoites/

...and so forth.

There is, of course, conservative backlash; however, the practice of basing dogma on a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (or, if one is in the mood to be generous, a δίς λεγόμενον), is a mug's game. The word is not a slam dunk; the condemnation is not clear (consider Tarsi's own words on "clear trumpet calls"), and whatever condemnation one chooses to read into the term was not ever said to be said to be attributable to Jesus, in the xian canon.

Which still does nothing to explain why a word said to be said to be attributable to Tarsi (and the unknown author of I Tim.) should be considered to have any sway on U.S. law; or, in fact, should be considered at all by anyone not in thrall to the "Paulinisitc xianity" Tarsi founded.

Πάλιν λέγω ὑμῖν , you and yours are free to set policy in your own fastnesses; outside them, you should consider treating others as you hope to be treated.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Besides, some of the ones you listed are existing temples undergoing repair or renovation Was this intentional deception on your part or merely a sloppy error?

Your statement reminds me of the worn-out, double-edged query, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" That aside, why do you suppose "existing temples [are] undergoing repair or renovation?" Those that work is being done on temples in developed and underdeveloped countries.

Even more are merely "planned" temples that haven't gotten past some land being purchased and a few permits applied for.

And that is the case only in underdeveloped countries, huh? The truth is, land acquisition is typically a challenge wherever a planned temple is to be built. Ask LDS in Star Valley, WY, about that. You weren't being "intentionally deceptive," were you?

New temple construction is not really a good measure of how a religion is growing unless you take into account how many temples are being decommissioned without replacement. . .

Statistics, please.

and how migration of the faithful is impacting concentrations of the religious. The Temple being built in Rome for example is the result of a congregation that has grown through IMMIGRATION not through conversion. We already have ample evidence of the overall contraction of the LDS church in the developed world from other sources that have been discussed in this very thread.

Hmmm. . . let's see, you say new temples are being built in the poorer countries where the populace is typically not well educated. However, at least some citizens of those countries are migrating to more prosperous countries. Why, then, is the Church building temples in some poorer countries, where the population is dwindling?

 

[halleyscomet]

I am curious as to what your repetition of a contentious (and outmoded, and acontextual) translation of a word said to be said to be attributed to Tarsi (not Jesus) in the one case, and to an unidentified 1st century author (not Tarsi) in the other; has in any way to do with the fact that the "messages" attributed to Tarsi (and the anonymous author) clearly modify, extend, and add to the κήρυγμα said to be said to be attributable to Jesus, in the canon.

I think it's important to mention here that Mormon dogma includes Smith editing the Old and New Testaments in addition to "translating" the book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Mormons, like the "King James Only" crowd, have a built-in escape clause of a particular translation that they deem somehow inspired.

Some questions for all the current and former Mormons in the thread:

• How common is Biblical scholarship of this sort among Mormons?
  
• Are these issues of translation we're discussing something Mormons even consider relevant?
  
• What is the official LDS stance on discussion and debate about the oldest extant versions of holy texts?
  
• Do LDS Mormons consider Smith's editing of the KJV more authoritative than the older Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Shouldn't false and inaccurate beliefs be rejected, even if believing the fantasy makes one happier? (1 John 4:1, Ezekiel 13)

Obviously (why need I say it?), the answer depends on the moral/ethical "weight" of the belief. If one believes murder is acceptable, his/her belief should be rejected. However, individuals can derive satisfaction and happiness from watching a magician perform "miracles," even though they know the magician is tricking them; i.e., that the "miracles" are not true.

Should one persist in belief in Santa Clause into adulthood if it makes you happy?

You posit an unrealistic hypothetical.

Should one persist in believing climate change is a liberal conspiracy just because that claim is more comforting the truth?

Not unless one has extensive peer-reviewed data from science journals that justify, or at least call into question, liberal claims re. climate change.

Should one cling to a literal reading of the Book of Mormon even though its historical claims have been blasted to atoms?

The answer depends on whether or not one believes "its historical claims have been blasted to atoms."

 

[halleyscomet]

And that is the case only in underdeveloped countries, huh?

You are trying to insert absolutes into statements that did not contain them. I was discussing the visible trends, not dogmatically trying to say "only" and "only" that. You are, yet again, arguing with a position I have not taken.

Statistics, please.

Go out and find some. You're the one trying to claim that the Mormon church is growing, despite the extensive evidence of a shrinking, increasingly disinterested parishioner base presented earlier in this thread. You used temple construction as a metric and I pointed out a flaw in your use of that metric. It's not my job to find support for your claim.

Hmmm. . . let's see, you say new temples are being built in the poorer countries where the populace is typically not well educated. However, at least some citizens of those countries are migrating to more prosperous countries. Why, then, is the Church building temples in some poorer countries, where the population is dwindling?

If you aren't going to respond to what I actually wrote, then why bother responding at all?

The bottom line is you didn't provide the necessary data for the temple construction / repair you mentioned to constitute evidence of a church that's experiencing overall growth. This thread however HAS shown that temple involvement is dropping among today's youth, as evidenced by the miniscule percentage of Mormons who go on a mission.