LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

Except, as has been pointed out to you, we do not have "the 'words' of 'Jesus' ". We have the collection of things that are said to be said to be words attributed to Jesus; collections of dubious (at best) provenance.

You don't know if they are of "dubious" provenance or not.

Particularly problematic are your "citations" from Acts, for instance:

You claim that the 9th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles records 'god's' claim that Paul was "called"; oddly enough, whoever wrote the book was not present at the Damascene Road experience, and was not present when 'god' "spoke" to Anaias. It is, in fact, hearsay about hearsay, of no probative value.

By your criterion, then, historical accounts are invalid unless they are written by individuals who were present when they took place. Consequently, events described in David McCullough's superb 1776 and The Course of Human Events are unacceptable because Mr. McCullough was not present to witness them.

Perhaps you would like to post a clarification.

 

[skyrider44]

Not so, skyrider.
It's theologically desperate because it depends on a forged text.

Who was the forger?

 

[bruto]

You don't know if they are of "dubious" provenance or not.



By your criterion, then, historical accounts are invalid unless they are written by individuals who were present when they took place. Consequently, events described in David McCullough's superb 1776 and The Course of Human Events are unacceptable because Mr. McCullough was not present to witness them.

Perhaps you would like to post a clarification.

It should not be too much of a mystery where the difference is to be found.

If Mr. McCullough had no primary or contemporary sources, then his accounts would be unacceptable as history, even if true. Those who wish to double check his historical accuracy can go back to the primary sources.

Biblical accounts for which no known primary sources exist are dubious.

"Dubious" does not mean "wrong." It means open to reasonable doubt.

 

[halleyscomet]

In your statements that follow, you studiously avoid quoting the language that is in the applicable Bible passages—language that indicates Paul's calling was anything but routine or standard.

True, there are no Apostle parallels, but such accounts of being "called" are common among modern pastors, especially among Evangelicals and Charismatics. Paul's "calling" is dramatic, but not that unusual in the larger context of Christendom.

They may claim to have received a "similar calling," but where does it appear in scripture?

I was speaking of modern pastors. I was raised Lutheran and pastors often spoke about when they "felt a calling" or "were called."

An undocumented "call to evangelism" is one thing; a specific, documented directive is another.

So what if Paul was "called?" You have yet to demonstrate that being called to preach means his epistles are of any greater value to Christians than the Talmud is to Jews.

There is nothing "standard" about it, unless you are willing to dismiss Paul's leadership role in taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to the gentiles.

You appear to be drawing a connection between how Paul was called and what the Bible and church tradition claim he eventually accomplished. There is no connection. Some of the apostles joined Christ simply because he told them he would make them fisher of men. Calling the beginning of a journey humble or mundane does not negate the nature of the subsequent journey.

I understand why you actually believe what you write above, but I won't "go there."

But "there" is the core theological issue of this discussion. The "there" you are refusing to approach goes straight to the core of if Paul's opinions about sex are binding upon modern Christians. If they ARE binding, then modern Christians are called upon to remain celibate unless they cannot control their lusts.

You trip over yourself here. Why has Paul's preaching been used as a model for other Christians?

The Bible and church tradition suggest he was a successful preacher, therefore it makes sense to emulate him.

What are you trying to imply by claiming am I tripping over myself?

It's "theologically desperate" only because it poses a cherry-picked challenge to your position.

How so? Please elaborate.

Where did you get the idea that I believe Paul was on the same level of Jesus?

Are you recanting the following comment?

Your conclusion strengthens my position while weakening yours, inasmuch as when "Paul spoke out against homosexuality," the words he used to respond to his accusers were given to him by the Holy Ghost.

If you are recanting, then a good deal of this discussion is rendered moot.

That's fine with me; note, however, that "most scholars" are not the same as all scholars.

So?

You'll never find 100% agreement upon something like that, because everyone has their own options about the value of various pieces of evidence. I highly recommend you take a look at the Concordia Study Bible. The footnotes are exhaustive and fascinating. They delve into cultural context, translation variances and a variety of other topics.

All of the apostles were questionable characters—right?

I don't really see the point you're trying to make.

I haven't made any such claim. Moreover, inasmuch as you are positive that Paul never spoke against homosexuality, why does it matter to you?

I'm just enjoying a pleasant Biblical debate. I'm not really trying to "prove" anything, just exploring the scriptural and scholarly support for your claims.

The explanation is found by considering who issues "a commission to preach" and whether or not it is documented.

What's your point?

As I note at the outset of my response, you omit the passage about which you are commenting. Consequently, your comment is irrelevant on contextual ground.

I did not explicitly quote the text of Paul's calling because we are all already familiar with the story. Are you seriously suggesting that my posts are rendered irrelevant because I didn't quote a specific piece of scripture?

You can say that because you do not believe he was divinely commissioned.

We're not discussing what really happened, but what the texts claim happened and what authority the texts do and do not attribute to Paul.

To know what really happened we'd need additional sources other than the Bible itself.

Of course, but are they able to produce the requisite documentation?

What "documentation" does Paul produce that cannot be produced by any pastor who records the circumstances of their calling?

Not quite. Paul was commissioned by Jesus Christ to advance the cause of Christianity, particularly among the gentiles. Your strawman insistence that I believe Paul's words were "on par with those of Christ" is easy to see through.
...
I have never said (sigh) that his words are equal in authority to those of Christ. I have said--or at least implied--that there is reason to believe Christ was comfortable with them.

Again, are you recanting the following?

Your conclusion strengthens my position while weakening yours, inasmuch as when "Paul spoke out against homosexuality," the words he used to respond to his accusers were given to him by the Holy Ghost.

For the sake of clarifying what, exactly, we are discussing, what do you think is the relevance of Paul's epistles to modern Christians? Do you believe them to be as morally binding as the Gospels?

Why don't you make an educated guess?

You just copied and pasted the list of verses, didn't you?

And your training is, of course, infallible.

I make no such claim. The fact that I disagree with you and have the information and quotes to back up my views does not mean I consider myself infallible.

 

[halleyscomet]

You don't know if they are of "dubious" provenance or not.

I'm uncertain what your criteria is for "know" in that sentence.

Biblical scholarship is a complex web of research and cross-referencing. We have a variety of ancient texts, none of which are originals, many of which have contradictory content. The Apocrypha for example is considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, but was excised from the Protestant bible by Martin Luther during the Reformation. The King James translation of the Bible is translated from what many scholars consider to be a pool of unreliable texts. The RSV, NIV and other recent translations have been an effort to produce modern English translations from more reliable texts. The NEW King James is a modern English translation from the texts used to produce the King James.

The assorted Christian denominations can't even agree on WHAT is canonical!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon

As for the specific content that sparked this discussion, please, read some of the commentary on 2 Peter and the debates about it's authenticity.

https://bible.org/seriespage/second-peter-introduction-argument-and-outline

By your criterion, then, historical accounts are invalid unless they are written by individuals who were present when they took place. Consequently, events described in David McCullough's superb 1776 and The Course of Human Events are unacceptable because Mr. McCullough was not present to witness them.

Perhaps you would like to post a clarification.

Nonsense. When a text shows obvious signs of having been tampered with, it's logical to doubt it's accuracy and authenticity.

 

[halleyscomet]

Who was the forger?

One does not need to prove the identity of the forger to suspect a document has been forged. That said, Silvanus is a contender.

The Wikipedia article on the book is a decent introduction to the evidence. A core issue is that it refers to other epistles that were written AFTER the death of Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter

Challenging authorship
Main article: Authorship of the Petrine epistles
Two sides of the Papyrus Bodmer VIII. This Papyrus today is the oldest source to the Second Epistle of Peter

Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman, among others, state that most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] [4] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[5]

The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is not probable.

Chester & Martin say scholars consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD[6] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris.[7] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between 80–90AD as most probable.[8] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[9] Zahn,[10] Spitta,[11] Bigg,[12] and Green.[13] Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason to favour 80–90 CE."[14]

Wikipedia's article about the authorship of the Petrine epistles has some additional information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[9] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[10] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).

I highly recommend reading both articles and then going on to read the sources listed in the references sections.

Given the content of 2 Peter, there's no way Peter the Apostle could have written it unless Dr. Who showed up with a Tardis to hand him some of Paul's epistles and a copy of Revelations, or at least a few notes from it.

 

[halleyscomet]

I find it interesting that the faithless often attack incidents in the Bible as lacking in plausibility, yet they fully accept the notion that Paul, an arch enemy of the Christian church (who applauded the stoning of Steven), suddenly does a 180-degree turn and becomes a formidable defender of the church--devotes the remainder of his life to it. How plausible is that?

Given the apocalyptic nature of the early church and what the Bible tells us about Saul's life, Christianity was probably VERY attractive to him.

Saul was married at one point. Scholars differ, but the odds are good he was divorced as opposed to widowed. Given the criteria for divorce in first century Palestine, it's likely Paul's wife left him either because he failed to impregnate her, or failed to perform his marital duties in general. A persistent "failure to launch" would explain his general advocacy of chastity.

Imagine Saul, a man whose wife left him because he was impotent. He's a Jew living under Roman rule. He's confronted with an upstart religion that promises the imminent return of a messiah who has transcended death itself. Christianity promised to turn his impotence into a VIRTUE. Literally every major problem in his life is remedied by this religion, or at least excused. Even better, because of his Roman citizenship and religious training, he's in a position to rise to the top of this new religion. His hold on self-preservation is probably shaky at best, so the dangers of being executed, while real, are somewhat attractive as opposed to being a deterrent.

If you take the scant biblical information we get about Saul as accurate, he was probably the perfect candidate to be recruited by a new, rising, apocalyptic cult.

Besides, he wasn't that big an opponent of Christianity in the first place. Guarding cloaks, Really? Riding around reporting a few street preachers to the local religious authorities? He was more of a tattletale than anything else.

You cannot prove that Paul did not have an encounter with the risen Jesus in which he was commissioned an apostle.

I suggest we not let this discussion devolve into arguing about proving negatives. That way lies absurdity. For example:

You can't prove that Thor isn't the God of Thunder, son of Odin the Gallows God.

You can't prove that John Smith wasn't possessed by the Devil and used as a mouthpiece to craft a false religion to lead people into Hell.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You don't know if they are of "dubious" provenance or not.

RHWUD2 has it as:

provenance place or source of origin: The provenance of the ancient manuscript has never been determined.

(that's on p. 1556, so you can find it)

The provenance of the canonic materials is, in fact, dubious. For many of the texts the authorship is contended, the date of writing is (not to mention the processes of editing and redaction are) uncertain; even the content of many of the texts is a matter of which fragment is being examined. Consider the problems of I Timothy, and 2 Peter (not to mention several of the "gospels"): it would be difficult to identify a more clearly dubious provenance.

I suggest some study on your part. A cursory application of textual criticism to the canonical (and the apocryphal, and the extra-canonical) materials demonstrates their macculate provenance and their peccable quality pellucidly.

One good place to start is with the formation of the canon itself.

I also recommend making sure that your studies include both credulous and rational sources: For every Niebuhr on your list, read some Carrier; for every apologist, read a rational scholar. If nothing else, you will see that the naïve " 'god' said it, I believe it, and that settles it*" approach is more honored in the exclusion than the adoption. It will not be an easy, nor a comfortable process, particularly if you are susceptible to such things as the myth that standard Egyptian funerary texts contain Abraham's autographic account of his "time in Egypt" in a "special language".

For all that, it can be a fascinating study, if approached with honest open-mindedness.

By your criterion, then, historical accounts are invalid unless they are written by individuals who were present when they took place. Consequently, events described in David McCullough's superb 1776 and The Course of Human Events are unacceptable because Mr. McCullough was not present to witness them.

Perhaps you would like to post a clarification.

A "clarification" is not needed. Instead, I would encourage you to avoid ascribing a position to me that I do not, in fact, hold. What would Madsen Pirie say about your advancing a non sequitur based upon a person of straw, with a side order of red herring?

As an exercise for the student, what are the critical differences between (for instance) McCullough's account of the events leading up to, and resulting from, the American Revolution; and the account of the uncertain author of the "gospel" attributed to "Mark" of the events leading up to, and resulting form, the crucifiction of Jesus (with its zombi outbreak, its full-moon solar eclipse, and its narrative invention of words attributed to Jesus that, according to the text itself, were not, even could not be, witnessed)?

I would also like to remind you that you have yet to respond to this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10067610#post10067610


*(Or, as it is usually applied in action: "I say the bible 'god' says it; so I say I believe it; so I say that settles it".)

 

[skyrider44]

. . . So what if Paul was "called?" You have yet to demonstrate that being called to preach means his epistles are of any greater value to Christians than the Talmud is to Jews.

As my maternal grandmother would say, "The proof is in the pudding."

You appear to be drawing a connection between how Paul was called and what the Bible and church tradition claim he eventually accomplished. There is no connection.

There is a direct, demonstrable connection. Jesus ended Paul's persecution of the church. The dramatic nature of the calling converted Paul into an indefatigable champion of Christianity.

Some of the apostles joined Christ simply because he told them he would make them fisher of men.

Source?

Calling the beginning of a journey humble or mundane does not negate the nature of the subsequent journey.

Your point being. . .?

But "there" is the core theological issue of this discussion. The "there" you are refusing to approach goes straight to the core of if Paul's opinions about sex are binding upon modern Christians. If they ARE binding, then modern Christians are called upon to remain celibate unless they cannot control their lusts.

You posit a sterling argument for the wisdom of having a living prophet.

The Bible and church tradition suggest he was a successful preacher, therefore it makes sense to emulate him.

As you yourself have said, there were many successful preachers. Why is it that Paul stands above them all? Why is he emulated to a degree the others are not?

I'm out of time. I WILL, however, respond to the balance of your post tomorrow.

 

[Craig4]

Well, we actually can prove that Smith created a fake religion (though in fairness, no one has ever created a true religion). We of course, cannot disprove that the devil made him do it.

 

[pakeha]

Who was the forger?

That's really your reply?
No defense of Petrine authorship for 2Peter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

 

[halleyscomet]

As my maternal grandmother would say, "The proof is in the pudding."

It is a good phrase, and bears repeating, but using it here does not convey information, opinion or a point.

There is a direct, demonstrable connection. Jesus ended Paul's persecution of the church. The dramatic nature of the calling converted Paul into an indefatigable champion of Christianity.

So? What's the point you're trying to make.

Some of the apostles joined Christ simply because he told them he would make them fisher of men.

Source?

*blink*
*blink*

A question to all the current and former Mormons in the thread, is it common among Mormons to be unaware of the "fishers of men?" phrase and its origin? It's a rather substantial Evangelism catch-phrase among Protestants.

Matthew 4:19 "And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Mark 1:17 "And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_4:19

The phrase "fishers of men," also at Mark 1:17, is one of the most well known lines in the entire New Testament, and the most important metaphor for evangelism. The image probably had an important role in the adoption of the Ichthys as a symbol of early Christianity. The reference has also often been moved from the disciples to Jesus, with him being called the "fisher of men," and the image of Jesus as a fisherman is second only to that of Jesus as a shepherd.

Your point being. . .?

Given the fact that you've apparently recanted your efforts to elevate the words of Paul above those of any other preacher, it doens't really matter.

You posit a sterling argument for the wisdom of having a living prophet.

You might want to rethink that stance, as my "sterling" argument necessitates chastity among the faithful.

As you yourself have said, there were many successful preachers. Why is it that Paul stands above them all? Why is he emulated to a degree the others are not?

He isn't emulated above a degree that others are not. All of the Apostles acted in pretty much the same way. He's QUOTED more than the others because, being the most educated, he WROTE more than the others, or at least more was written that was attributed to him than was worth including in the Christian version of the Talmud, the New Testament Epistles.

 

[tsig]

As my maternal grandmother would say, "The proof is in the pudding."



There is a direct, demonstrable connection. Jesus ended Paul's persecution of the church. The dramatic nature of the calling converted Paul into an indefatigable champion of Christianity.



Source?



Your point being. . .?



You posit a sterling argument for the wisdom of having a living prophet.



As you yourself have said, there were many successful preachers. Why is it that Paul stands above them all? Why is he emulated to a degree the others are not?

I'm out of time. I WILL, however, respond to the balance of your post tomorrow.

Why have a prophet, who is but a fallible human being, between you and god when Jesus said He'd send you wisdom?

King James Bible
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[halleyscomet]

Why have a prophet, who is but a fallible human being, between you and god when Jesus said He'd send you wisdom?

King James Bible
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

That's one of the major theological questions that sparked the Reformation. Why do you need a Roman Catholic Priest between you and God? Why do you need Saints between you and God? Why do you need a Mormon prophet between you and God?

In a lot of ways the founding of the Mormon faith was an effort to roll back the egalitarian and independent nature of the Reformation to restore a Catholic style hierarchy. American Christianity, by being mostly Protestant, was fairly democratic as a result. Smith restored a theological monarchy with his religion, a structure you can see in the form of the Mormon church today.

Placing your hierarchy between God and the rank and file membership is an excellent means of controlling the population and forcing them to do what you want. The scum and con artists running the "New Apostolic Reformation" have cribbed a LOT from the Mormons in this regard. The Mormons have crafted a means of theologically manipulating people that works better on Americans than Catholicism, so it's only reasonable for like-minded cultists to emulate them. Scientology cribbed a lot from the Mormons as well.

 

[halleyscomet]

Did Mainstream Mormons REALLY believe the Moon is inhabited?

While reading A comparison of Scientology and Mormonism I stumbled across this gem:

Both founders created galactic lore that was consistent with their time period only. (Scientology: the Galactic Confederacy 75 million years ago looked just like 1950-1960. Mormonism: Joseph taught that 6 ft. tall Puritans live on the moon and the North Pole was a secret oasis for the 10 tribes of Israel.)

The North Pole / Lost tribes claim was touched on in Janadele's "Heart of the Earth" thread but Puritans on the Moon was a new one to me. I did a little hunting and found some interesting articles.

Men on the Moon! Mormon Prophets claim the moon is inhabited

The Mormon church even admits Smith made the claim, and has an apologetic article about it entitled "Joseph Smith/Moon inhabited"

The apologetic is a bit laughable, in part because it doesn't explain why Smith claimed the Lunar inhabitants dressed as Quakers. Then there's Young's claim the Sun was inhabited. It appears Moon Men were a widespread belief among Mormon leaders at one point.

Early Mormon Leaders on the Inhabitants of the Sun and Moon

Despite any questions that remain over Huntington's and Dibble's direct link of the teaching to Joseph Smith, the idea of moon men was commonly held among Mormon leaders, many of whom had intimate acquaintance with Smith. It even showed up in patriarchal blessings, which are supposed to include "an inspired and prophetic statement of the life possibilities and mission of the recipient"6. Van Vogel writes:

Current and former Mormons, have you ever heard of this before?

How widespread is the knowledge that most the Mormon Church's founders thought there were Moon Men and that Young preached there were people living on the sun?

Are there STILL Mormons who adhere to either belief?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Placing your hierarchy between God and the rank and file membership is an excellent means of controlling the population and forcing them to do what you want.

The "rank and file membership" is not forced to do what the Church wants them to do. Agency is a fundamental tenet of LDS doctrine; it is what the war in heaven was all about.

Anyone who wants to renounce membership in the Church is free to do so. In fact, the Church's critics have made much of the fact that the retention rate of members is falling--or at least appears to be. So which is it? The Church controls its members and forces its will on them, or some members are leaving the Church, as the falling retention rate suggests?

 

[jsfisher]

Anyone who wants to renounce membership in the Church is free to do so. In fact, the Church's critics have made much of the fact that the retention rate of members is falling--or at least appears to be. So which is it? The Church controls its members and forces its will on them, or some members are leaving the Church, as the falling retention rate suggests?

These two points are not mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction. The LDS Church is forceful in its retention tactics, and members are deserting the Church despite the coercion.

 

[halleyscomet]

. . . Placing your hierarchy between God and the rank and file membership is an excellent means of controlling the population and forcing them to do what you want.

The "rank and file membership" is not forced to do what the Church wants them to do. Agency is a fundamental tenet of LDS doctrine; it is what the war in heaven was all about.

Anyone who wants to renounce membership in the Church is free to do so. In fact, the Church's critics have made much of the fact that the retention rate of members is falling--or at least appears to be. So which is it? The Church controls its members and forces its will on them, or some members are leaving the Church, as the falling retention rate suggests?

It's not an either / or question.

The Church dictates policy and theology from the top down. There is no denying this. The fact that they don't hunt down and execute apostates (anymore) doesn't change this.

Perhaps "forcing" was the wrong term for me to use. "Intimidation" is a better term, given the afterlife blackmail involved in most religions. Mormonism included.

What is the point you were tying to make with your response? You seem to be trying to imply I accused the Morons of something as abhorrent as continuing to maintain the "Avenging Angels" as an official arm of the church isntead of a fringe group among splinter cults.

 

[desertgal]

. . . Placing your hierarchy between God and the rank and file membership is an excellent means of controlling the population and forcing them to do what you want.

The "rank and file membership" is not forced to do what the Church wants them to do. Agency is a fundamental tenet of LDS doctrine; it is what the war in heaven was all about.

Anyone who wants to renounce membership in the Church is free to do so. In fact, the Church's critics have made much of the fact that the retention rate of members is falling--or at least appears to be. So which is it? The Church controls its members and forces its will on them, or some members are leaving the Church, as the falling retention rate suggests?

Why do you present it as one or the other? The LDS church may still exercise control over a majority of active members even as a smaller number break free.

 

[skyrider44]

Why do you present it as one or the other? The LDS church may still exercise control over a majority of active members even as a smaller number break free.

Allowing them to leave hardly constitutes the degree of control referenced.