You can manage it, really! Millions have read it and millions more will read it. Some have read it twice. Others have read it countless times.
Where to get started? Open to the introduction page first and then read the brief explanation page to get a feel for the flow of the book. Finally, read the story of how the book came to be. There are also testimonies of three witnesses and of eight witnesses who saw the original document and signed their names to their testimony. It is notable that not one of these twelve witnesses (including Joseph Smith, its translator) ever denied what they saw, neither under intense persecution or even after some had left the Church.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
14 comments:
We are happy to discuss any and every topic and question. We will give wide berth to a variety of opinions and ideas. The only thing we ask is that you return the favor by respecting our right to believe as we do and by not issuing lengthy, inflammatory diatribes meant to shock and confuse anyone not familiar with LDS teachings. They can certainly get that elsewhere. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rob,
ReplyDeleteYou have a great blog here! I just found it today from mormon-blogs.com.
Keep up the great work!
Regards,
Don
Thank you! Please spread the word about it.
ReplyDeleteRob,
ReplyDeleteJust saw your comment. Thanks! I've added this blog to my BoM blog links section.
I served in the north misssion from 95-97.
Take care,
Don
It is good to get both sides of an issue. So I thought I'd give my own perspective (which is unsympathetic to introductory Book of Mormon issues) to give the beginning reader a broader perspective than the one they would get from Mr. Smoot alone.
ReplyDeleteOn the first page or so of my Book of Mormon, I read that the Jaredites were trying to build a tower to get to Heaven. This is an allusion to the Tower of Babel incident in the Bible. The problem is, that the Tower of Babel incident is better interpreted-at least, in my estimation-not as a tower that was being built all the way up to Heaven. Rather, it was being built as a shrine to the deities of the Heavens. In other words, it was apparently intended as a primitive planetarium in which the Sun and other heavenly bodies could be worshipped. So we haven't even gotten past the title page and we already run into a problem. Namely, misinterpreting the structure, height and purpose of the tower in Babel.
Skip down a few lines and we read "JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD". This is true enough but it is problematic with respect to Mormon theology. First, according to Mormon doctrine, Jesus is not 'the' God but one of many Gods. Second, it is difficult to see how Jesus, on the Mormon view, can properly be called "ETERNAL GOD". Why, you ask? Because God is not eternally God in Mormonism. “ETERNAL GOD,” then, is a contradiction in terms for the Mormon view, it would seem. And I am not sure what to make of the final comment on the title page.
Now onto the Introduction. We read there that salvation is available to us if we believe and obey. This is in direct conflict with the biblical doctrine of grace alone taught throughout the entire Bible (Galatians is a good place to start). There are verses which Mormons tend to interpret as teaching against grace alone but these have other (I.e. better) interpretations. Oftentimes, the misinterpretations of Mormons are easily cleared away by appeal to the immediate context of the biblical passage.
Mention is also made in the introduction of the eleven witnesses. Let us turn our attention to them. The testimony of the three witnesses includes an affirmation of what appears to me to be orthodox Trinitarianism. Belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has been called, in a Mormon Conference talk, “the single greatest heresy in all Christendom.” I forget who the speaker was. The second greatest heresy is grace alone. Too bad for Mormon theology that both are taught in the Bible. At any rate, note that one of the three witnesses has the last name “Whitmer”.
The first four of the eight witnesses are also Whitmers. And the last three are Smiths. So all of the eight witnesses, with one exception, are apparently either relatives of Joseph Smith (whose claims are being authenticated by the eight witnesses) or a relative of David Whitmer who is one of the three witnesses. So all but three of the witnesses belong to just two families, one of which is Joseph Smith’s own family! And the plates are not available for scholarly assessment because they were taken to Heaven. Doesn’t all of this raise a reasonable doubt that, perhaps, the story of Joseph Smith is not true?
If you are being introduced to the Book of Mormon by LDS missionaries, they will want you to pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon. This is a very unusual epistemology. Normally, to find out if something is true, we examine rational arguments or empirical data. We do not normally pray about the said truth claims and wait for a feeling. And if we did pray and then receive a feeling, how would we know the feeling meant, “the truth claim is true,” instead of “the truth claim is false”? Mormons do not like to have the “burning in the bosom” described in these terms but I’ve yet to get a good explanation of how this is not precisely what is going on. By the way, I actually took some missionaries up on their challenge once. The more I read the Book of Mormon, and prayed about it, the more I felt it was false. I told them about this and their reply was that I must not have been sincere in my prayer. Not so, for, I sincerely asked God, in prayer, to show me the Book of Mormon was His word if it was. Perhaps they were just “members of the Fawn Brodie school of mind reading.” And we all know what Mormons think of Fawn Brodie and her mind-reading techniques.
Finally, as I see things, the Book of Mormon is relatively tame when it comes to heresy, and is relatively unimportant to contemporary Mormon doctrine (though, of course, there is certainly a place for it). The Doctrine and Covenants is more to the point on this score. I’ve always been suspicious of the missionary drive to give away Books of Mormon but not Doctrine and Covenants because of this fact. In any case, when one gets straight and clear information about what Mormons really believe, and compares it to Bible (not allegedly pagan councils, as Mormons seem to think) teaching, I think, they will see a vast difference between the two. Of course, if one is already a committed Mormon, they will have ways to misinterpret the Bible when it speaks to these issues. And the fact that Mormonism uses the King James Version exclusively, more or less, can only add to the confusion, for, there are passages in there that are easy to misread because of the archaic language. Again, context is key in arriving at the correct interpretation of the various passages Mormons tend to misinterpret.
I hope these comments of mine help to bring balance to the force. I would invite Mr. Smoot to respond to the above comments and would highly welcome them. Thank you all. Shalom out!
Hey Evangelical.
ReplyDeleteYour comments will be in quotes ("") followed by my comments.
"On the first page or so of my Book of Mormon, I read that the Jaredites were trying to build a tower to get to Heaven. This is an allusion to the Tower of Babel incident in the Bible. The problem is, that the Tower of Babel incident is better interpreted-at least, in my estimation-not as a tower that was being built all the way up to Heaven. Rather, it was being built as a shrine to the deities of the Heavens. In other words, it was apparently intended as a primitive planetarium in which the Sun and other heavenly bodies could be worshipped. So we haven't even gotten past the title page and we already run into a problem. Namely, misinterpreting the structure, height and purpose of the tower in Babel."
The Jaredites were not involved in the building of the tower of Babel, but were instead contemporary with this event. Nowhere does the Book of Mormon say the Jaredites were involved in the building of this tower.
"Skip down a few lines and we read "JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD". This is true enough but it is problematic with respect to Mormon theology. First, according to Mormon doctrine, Jesus is not 'the' God but one of many Gods. Second, it is difficult to see how Jesus, on the Mormon view, can properly be called "ETERNAL GOD". Why, you ask? Because God is not eternally God in Mormonism. “ETERNAL GOD,” then, is a contradiction in terms for the Mormon view, it would seem. And I am not sure what to make of the final comment on the title page."
This is best answered by David Paulsen's essay in the Vol. 13 Number 2 of the FARMS Review, wherein he discusses the early Mormon concept of God and answers the question as to the relationship of Jesus Christ as Eternal God in the Book of Mormon.
"Now onto the Introduction. We read there that salvation is available to us if we believe and obey. This is in direct conflict with the biblical doctrine of grace alone taught throughout the entire Bible (Galatians is a good place to start). There are verses which Mormons tend to interpret as teaching against grace alone but these have other (I.e. better) interpretations. Oftentimes, the misinterpretations of Mormons are easily cleared away by appeal to the immediate context of the biblical passage."
I think it is highly shallow to suggest that obedience is not needed to attain salvation or that the Bible endorses "free Grace" as some Evangelicals propose.
Remember that Jesus says that not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of the Father. This is just one of many verses in the Bible that refute the idea of "free Grace". Jeff Lindsay on his website has an excellent article discussing faith and grace.
"Mention is also made in the introduction of the eleven witnesses. Let us turn our attention to them. The testimony of the three witnesses includes an affirmation of what appears to me to be orthodox Trinitarianism. Belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has been called, in a Mormon Conference talk, “the single greatest heresy in all Christendom.” I forget who the speaker was. The second greatest heresy is grace alone. Too bad for Mormon theology that both are taught in the Bible. At any rate, note that one of the three witnesses has the last name “Whitmer”.
The first four of the eight witnesses are also Whitmers. And the last three are Smiths. So all of the eight witnesses, with one exception, are apparently either relatives of Joseph Smith (whose claims are being authenticated by the eight witnesses) or a relative of David Whitmer who is one of the three witnesses. So all but three of the witnesses belong to just two families, one of which is Joseph Smith’s own family! And the plates are not available for scholarly assessment because they were taken to Heaven. Doesn’t all of this raise a reasonable doubt that, perhaps, the story of Joseph Smith is not true?"
As mentioned before, Professor Paulsen has dealt with the "trinity" in the Book of Mormon, etc.
As for the witnesses, I think you criticizing them for being close to Joseph Smith is strange in light of the fact that the witnesses to the Master's resurrection were his close family and disciples. Do you see the double standard here? Why would you criticize the Book of Mormon witnesses on this ground but not those from the Bible?
As an aside, I would recommend Richard L. Anderson's book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. It is a fine book.
"If you are being introduced to the Book of Mormon by LDS missionaries, they will want you to pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon. This is a very unusual epistemology. Normally, to find out if something is true, we examine rational arguments or empirical data. We do not normally pray about the said truth claims and wait for a feeling. And if we did pray and then receive a feeling, how would we know the feeling meant, “the truth claim is true,” instead of “the truth claim is false”? Mormons do not like to have the “burning in the bosom” described in these terms but I’ve yet to get a good explanation of how this is not precisely what is going on. By the way, I actually took some missionaries up on their challenge once. The more I read the Book of Mormon, and prayed about it, the more I felt it was false. I told them about this and their reply was that I must not have been sincere in my prayer. Not so, for, I sincerely asked God, in prayer, to show me the Book of Mormon was His word if it was. Perhaps they were just “members of the Fawn Brodie school of mind reading.” And we all know what Mormons think of Fawn Brodie and her mind-reading techniques."
The D&C encourages us to gain knowledge "by study and also by faith" so I would agree that we need more than just prayer. Studying, pondering and analyzing the Book of Mormon is a very important aspect in gaining a testimony of such. However, no amount of rational arguments or evidence can prove that the Book of Mormon (or the Bible for that matter) is the Word of God. That must come from the Spirit, which is a biblical principle. Remember that Peter gained his testimony in Christ "not by flesh and blood" but by revelation. James also asks us to pray to God when we lack wisdom.
As per what happens if someone receives a negative witness for the Book of Mormon? Did you test that spirit, as Evangelicals encourage Mormons to do? Are you sure that you are not being deceived? See, it can go both ways.
I would say this; if you don't think the Book of Mormon is true, ask yourself how Joseph Smith could have pulled off this giant hoax in light of the evidence in favor for the Book of Mormon and the circumstances surrounding its production. FARMS has some excellent material on this that I would recommend, most notably Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins. Also good to read would be Opening the Heavens by John W. Welch.
"Finally, as I see things, the Book of Mormon is relatively tame when it comes to heresy, and is relatively unimportant to contemporary Mormon doctrine (though, of course, there is certainly a place for it). The Doctrine and Covenants is more to the point on this score. I’ve always been suspicious of the missionary drive to give away Books of Mormon but not Doctrine and Covenants because of this fact. In any case, when one gets straight and clear information about what Mormons really believe, and compares it to Bible (not allegedly pagan councils, as Mormons seem to think) teaching, I think, they will see a vast difference between the two. Of course, if one is already a committed Mormon, they will have ways to misinterpret the Bible when it speaks to these issues. And the fact that Mormonism uses the King James Version exclusively, more or less, can only add to the confusion, for, there are passages in there that are easy to misread because of the archaic language. Again, context is key in arriving at the correct interpretation of the various passages Mormons tend to misinterpret."
The reason the Book of Mormon is emphasized in missionary work is because it is the keystone of our Church and is the prima facta evidence for the Restoration and Joseph Smith. Everything else falls into line after that.
I think it is a bit presumptuous to think that we Mormons are the ones who are automatically wrong in our interpretation of the Bible. How do you know that YOU are not the one who is in error?
I would also STRONGLY disagree that the Book of Mormon is not important in modern Mormon theology and in the Church. And, in my opinion, to suggest such reveals that you do not really understand Mormon theology.
Anyways, thanks for the comments and the polite manner in which you expressed your opinions.
Best wishes,
Steve Smoot
Dear Steve Smoot,
ReplyDeleteGreetings. I must say that I am very impressed and encouraged with the tone of your response to my comments. You actually read them, reflect on what I really say, then gave your thoughts. This is right in line with what you've said elsewhere about both parties stating their positions and then subjecting both to intelligent scrutiny. You are to be commended for practicing what you preach and allowing for genuine dialogue on the issues.
I also must thank you for pointing out an error on my part. I went back and checked the title page. It is quite true that the Jaredites are not said to have participated in the building of the tower. However, the main point I was trying to make still stands and, for whatever reason, you did not address it.
I’ll have to check out that paper by Paulsen.
The teaching of grace alone is very important. Is it shallow? From the perspective of a person who thinks salvation is by works (“salvation by works” does not preclude a central role for grace, at least, as I use the phrase here) it would seem shallow. Nevertheless, salvation by grace alone is explicitly taught in the Bible. As I said in my original comments, there are verses which are interpreted by Mormons to teach against grace alone. But Scripture cannot contradict Scripture so there must be some other interpretations of such verses which seem to contradict grace alone. Let’s consider the passage you allude to in order to try to disprove grace alone. While Jesus does say only those who do the will of the Father shall go to Heaven, notice what He does not say. He does not say that such persons are getting to Heaven because of doing the will of the Father. So you were reading into the text what is not there for that passage. Now, who are the only ones who do the will of the Father? I would say, those people that have first been save by grace alone, that is, been saved by only the grace of the Father. So we are saved first, by grace alone. Second, we do the will of the Father. Third, we get into Heaven. This makes perfect sense of this verse without violating the sometimes explicit biblical teaching of the entire New Testament, that salvation is by grace alone.
Is there a double standard with respect to the witnesses? The first witnesses of the resurrection were Roman soldiers. The Roman government, you’ll remember, was responsible for putting Jesus to death so they were certainly not sympathetic followers. They were bribed into keeping quiet about the Resurrection by certain Jewish authorities who also were not sympathetic. We have no record of either the Jews or the Romans appealing to a not-so-empty tomb. Further, the disciples of Jesus did not believe in the Resurrection until they saw Jesus Himself in spite of His own prophetic words to the contrary beforehand and the eyewitness testimony of fellow trustworthy disciples after the fact. Finally, Jesus was seen alive by at least 500 different people at one time. In contrast to all of this, the gold plates were seen by only 12 people, most all of whom were either in Smith’s family or a family presumably close to Smith’s family.
The study which seems to be in view here is the study of the Book of Mormon itself. In other words, all that seems to be involved is reading the Book of Mormon itself and praying about it. To look at any evidence being presented against the Book of Mormon, the missionaries would presumably reply with, “that doesn‘t really prove anything,” or “you can‘t rely on anti-Mormon literature only pro-Mormonism literature (which will affirm the Book of Mormon),” or “this is a spiritual matter not a scientific one and we must use spiritual means,” or something like that. As a matter of fact, I kept asking them for evidence and they pretty much just told me to keep praying and look for evidence only after I believed it!
Once evidence is allowed into the picture, one sees how false the Book of Mormon is. For example, “and it came to pass” appears very frequently throughout the entire book. This is a peculiarity which we would expect to reflect a single author. Yet the Book of Mormon is supposed to be written by over 20 different authors all with the same peculiarity. I was reading on MormonFortress.com, or some other sympathetic site, that a statistical study was done on the Book of Mormon which proved that it was written by over 20 different authors. But the site explicitly admited that “and it came to pass” was excluded from analysis! As for Peter’s testimony about Christ, he was following a miracle-worker around. He had evidence through the many miracles. And there is nothing in the text to suggest that the testimony from God was by way of feeling in response to prayer. Likewise goes for the James passage. By the way, James letter was addressed to first century Jews. They are the ones told to pray for wisdom. The idea is that they already believe in Jesus and the gospel as handed down from the beginning and they are to pray for guidance while believing what was handed down. Joseph Smith was neither Jewish nor from the first century. He was praying-at least those after him, following his example were- if they should reject what was handed down from the beginning. This is precisely the sort of thing James is warning the first century Jewish Christians to avoid. Again, there is nothing in James that says the guidance shall be by way of feeling.
I was not told by the missionaries to test the spirits. To test the spirits, I suppose one would compare the new information to old information. When the Book of Mormon, and other LDS teachings, are compared to the Bible, they are seen to be in direct conflict with one another and, hence, must be rejected. If it is a feeling, in response to prayer, which can go both ways, if that is what you meant, then that illustrates my point that feelings are an untrustworthy guide to gaining propositional knowledge such as knowledge that, allegedly, the Book of Mormon is the true word of God.
Is there evidence for the Book of Mormon? If there is or not, there is also evidence against it and what do we do with that? I am only starting to encounter claims such as Hebraisms and comparisons with miscellaneous authentic ancient texts and so forth. That is to say, I do not yet have a good response thought out to those purported evidences. I’ll have to check out those resources you recommend, though. I can say what the general pattern I’ve seen so far in my interaction with Mormon apologetics. The apologists will make a claim that falls into one of three categories. First, the claim is one which I know to be factually incorrect. Second, the claim is one which sounds implausible prima facie but I cannot rule it out with absolute certainty. Third, the claim sounds prima facie plausible. In this third category, I have sometimes looked into the claim further and, in every case, I find that there has apparently been something misrepresented that gives the claim plausibility it would not otherwise have. So I presume that that may likely be the case in what I haven’t looked into further. I am not criticizing individual Mormon apologists here. Rather, I am merely stating the objective fact that he methodology/scholarship of Mormon apologetics is often not very good. It is the claims I have a problem with, not the people making the claims. Still, I’m definitely going to have to look into these matters more.
I admit that Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be foundational to their faith and, hence, you are correct when you say that is why the missionaries push it. I concede this point to you.
Next, it was not my contention that Mormons are ‘automatically’ wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. It is not that say, my pastor, told me a certain passage means a certain thing and since you disagree with my pastor you must be wrong. No. Hermeneutics is the scientific study of proper interpretation. There are certain standards of interpretation. If there weren’t, then I would not be able to understand what you write or say. When you write, there is an intended message you are trying to get across. We can apply the same interpretive standards to the Bible that we do to your writings or anybody’s. Let’s look at a specific example to illustrate my point. Evangelicals will say to Mormons that baptism is not necessary for salvation. In response, the Mormon might appeal to Acts 2:38 where Peter says to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. The problem is “for” has two different meanings. It may mean “to cause” or it may mean “on the basis of.” If I take an aspirin for my headache, that would be using “for” in the latter sense. The Mormon wants me to take the “for” of Acts 2:38 in the former sense. Which interpretation is the correct one? Acts 2:38 is in the wider context of the New Testament as a whole. The New Testament as a whole makes it clear, sometimes explicitly, that salvation is by grace alone. If it is by grace alone then it is not by grace plus baptism. Scripture cannot contradict scripture so we see that “for” must mean “on the basis of” in Acts 2:38. The correct interpretation is based on a careful analysis of context and what words mean. This is how everything is interpreted, not just the Bible. In this example, then, we know that the Mormon interpretation is wrong and the other interpretation is correct. It is a matter of reason not ecclesiastical affiliation.
Finally, I must admit that I was a bit pensive in saying that the Book of Mormon is, in a sense, relatively unimportant. What I was intending to say was that the Book of Mormon does not itself explicitly teach all of the doctrines which Evangelical Christians strongly disagree with in Mormonism. It talks a great deal about the history of the Nephites but not as much about eternal progression, the existence of more than one God, plural marriage (which I realize is not currently practiced by LDS), and so on. I do not think Evangelicals would object to Mormonism if its only unique teachings were that at least some of the Native Americans were Jewish and that Jesus visited America. All of this is not to say that the Book of Mormon is not the keystone to your faith. It certainly is. I hope this clarifies what I was getting at on that point.
I look forward to hearing your response and again thank you for your cordiality. In addition, thank you for your time. See you next time Mr. Smoot.
It's late and I'm heading to bed, but regarding grace, we do agree with mainstream Christianity. There is no substantive disconnect:
ReplyDelete“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” - 2 Nephi 10:24
We know that if we believe the Lord, we strive to keep his commandments, and he will reward us as He sees fit. Without the atonement of Jesus Christ, we would all be lost, no matter how righteous we were.
“yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement...”
-Alma 34:9
Anti-Mormon misunderstanding on this issue is based on semantics, incomplete readings of the Book of Mormon, and (too often) blind prejudice. All anyone need do to verify that we believe that Christ's atonement is sufficient for all mankind to be saved, irrespective of works as a qualification, is to enter an LDS chapel on Sunday and query any adult, mature LDS member. Just ask "How are you saved?" and the answer will be a true Christian one.
Dear Rob,
ReplyDeleteSalutations to you. Perhaps it is best to lay out both plans so they may be compared side by side. We can look at Scripture references in subsequent comments.
I. Evangelical view
Each human being, with the exception of Jesus, is guilty of sin. We have inherited a sin nature and guiltiness from Adam. In addition, we commit individual acts of sin. Sin seperates us from God. God sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. If we accept the free gift of God's grace, then God considers the death of Jesus as punishment for our sin. In turn, God sees the sinlessness of Christ as our own righteousness. The moment we first trust in Christ, all of our sins-past, present, and future-are forgiven and we are gaurunteed eternal life. After being saved, we naturally want to be pleasing and obedient to our Father. Grace is the root of salvation and works are the fruit of salvation.
II. LDS view (correct me if I'm wrong in the following description)
We owed a high debt to Heavenly Father that we could not immedately pay. So Jesus took that debt of ours and paid it, but we have to pay Him back. (Another analogy I've heard is that of a ladder-each rung is a different good work) This we do by joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If we we join the one true church, are baptised by immersion in water with one who has priesthood authority and are generally faithful Mormons we may get a temple recommend. Once obtaining a temple recommend and engaged to a good female Mormon, we may be sealed in the temple for time and all eternity. After enduring to the end, hopefully, if we have done enough good works, we will become gods in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Only then do we know we are saved in the full sense of the term.
It seems to me, that the two views are radically different. One view is based on grace alone. The other, while including a prominent place for grace, is a system of works. What if a person dies without being baptised by an authoritative priest? Then (if there is also no proxy baptism performed on their behalf), they shall not be saved. This is not to say that they shall go to Hell, but, hardly anyone does on your view. And they will surely not reach the Celestial Kingdom. In the first view, in contrast, Jesus paid it all and we cannot pay Him back at all. Aren't these two systems totally different?
As is a common practice by those opposed to the LDS Church, you are attempting to set up a false premise upon which to build your arguments against our beliefs. You specifically stated "correct me if I'm wrong in the following description", so I'm going to take you at your word. That means I will need to rewrite your version of the LDS view to be in our own words, which is the accurate description of what we actually believe. Of course there are going to be differences between evangelical interpretation of scripture, based on what reason alone, by the fleshly mind, can accomplish, and what we believe has been revealed directly from heaven to a prophet. That was the whole point of the restoration--to restore what was lost when mankind refused to believe in revelation as the means of correctly interpreting God's word.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, we make no pretense to try to convince you of anything through debate after the manner of the flesh. In fact, I discourage you from only taking my word for it. This blog exists not as a means of proving that the Book of Mormon is true. We do not believe that God intends for anyone to conclusively prove any scripture through earthly means. If that were so, then why would anyone need to have faith? Instead, this blog is an introduction with commentary to those who do not know what it says or where it comes from. That it may have posts and comments that are heavily apologetic is due to the fact that opposition exists and we feel it better that it be answered from our perspective rather than to go unanswered and unchallenged.
Ask God, with sincere intent (James 1:5-6), whether what we believe is true.
The Plan of Salvation
Many people wonder, "Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?" The plan of salvation gives us the answers to these questions.
God is the Father of our spirits. We are literally His children, and He loves us. We lived as spirit children of our Father in Heaven before we were born on this earth. We were not, however, like our Heavenly Father, nor could we ever become like Him and enjoy all the
blessings that He enjoys without the experience of living in mortality with a physical body.
God’s whole purpose—His work and His glory—is to enable each of us to enjoy all His blessings. He has provided a perfect plan to accomplish His purpose. We understood and accepted this plan before we came to the earth. In the scriptures God’s plan is called
a merciful plan, the plan of happiness, the plan of redemption, and the plan of salvation.
Jesus Christ is central to God’s plan. Through His Atonement, Jesus Christ fulfilled His Father’s purpose and made it possible for each of us to enjoy immortality and eternal life. Satan, or the devil, is an enemy to God’s plan.
Agency, or the ability to choose, is one of God’s greatest gifts to His children. Our eternal
progression depends on how we use this gift. We must choose whether to follow Jesus Christ or follow Satan.
We are physically separated from God during life on earth, but He wants every one of His children to find peace in this life and a fulness of joy in His presence after this life. He wants us to become like Him.
Under the direction of the Father, Jesus Christ created the earth as a place for us to live and gain experience. In order to progress and become like God, each of us had to obtain a body and be tested during a time of probation on the earth. While on the earth we are out of God’s physical presence. We do not remember our pre-earth life. We must walk by faith rather than by sight.
Adam and Eve were the first of God’s children to come to the earth. God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, with bodies of flesh and bones. While Adam and Eve were in the garden, they were still in God’s presence and could have lived forever. They lived in innocence, and God provided for their needs.
In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve their agency. He commanded them not to eat the forbidden fruit, or the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obeying this commandment meant that they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by experiencing opposition in mortality. They could not know joy because they could not experience sorrow and pain.
Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and they chose to do so. This was part of God’s plan. Because of this choice, they were cast from the garden and out of God’s physical presence. This event is called the Fall. Separation from God’s presence is spiritual death. Adam and Eve became mortal—subject to physical death, or separation of the body and spirit. They could now experience disease and all types of suffering. They had moral agency or the ability to choose between good and evil. This made it possible for them to learn and progress. It also made it possible for them to make wrong choices and to sin. In addition, they could now have children, so the rest of God’s spirit children could come to earth, obtain physical bodies, and be tested. Only in this way could God’s children progress and become like Him.
Life on earth is an opportunity and a blessing. Our purpose in this life is to have joy and prepare to return to God’s presence. In mortality we live in a condition where we are subject to both physical and spiritual death. God has a perfect, glorified, immortal body of flesh and bones. To become like God and return to His presence, we too must have a perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones. However, because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, every person on earth has an imperfect, mortal body and will eventually die. If not for the Savior Jesus Christ, death would end all hope for a future existence with Heavenly Father.
Along with physical death, sin is a major obstacle that keeps us from becoming like our Father in Heaven and returning to His presence. In our mortal condition we often yield to temptation, break God’s commandments, and sin. During our life on earth each of us makes mistakes. Although it sometimes appears otherwise, sin always leads to unhappiness. Sin causes feelings of guilt and shame. Because of our sins, we are unable to return to live with Heavenly Father unless we are first forgiven and cleansed.
While we are in mortality, we have experiences that bring us happiness. We also have experiences that bring us pain and sorrow, some of which is caused by the sinful acts of others. These experiences provide us opportunities to learn and to grow, to distinguish good from evil, and to make choices. God influences us to do good; Satan tempts us to commit sin. As with physical death, we cannot overcome the effects of sin by ourselves. We are helpless without the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
Before the world was organized, our Heavenly Father chose Jesus Christ to be our Savior and Redeemer. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ made it possible for us to overcome the effects of the Fall. All of the prophets since the world began have testified of Jesus Christ as our Redeemer.
We will all suffer physical death, but Jesus Christ overcame the obstacle of physical death for us. When He died on the cross, His spirit became separated from His body. On the third day, His spirit and His body were reunited eternally, never to be separated again. He appeared to many people, showing them that He had an immortal body of flesh and bone. The reuniting of body and spirit is called resurrection and is a gift promised to each of us. Because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we will all be resurrected regardless of whether we have done good or evil in this life. We will have a perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones that will never again be subject to disease, pain, or death. The resurrection makes it possible to return to God’s presence to be judged but does not guarantee that we will be able to live in His presence. To receive that blessing, we must also be cleansed from sin.
God sent His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to overcome the obstacle of sin in addition to the obstacle of physical death. We are not responsible for the Fall of Adam and Eve, but we are responsible for our own sins. God cannot look on sin with any degree of allowance, and sin prevents us from living in His presence. Only through the Savior’s grace and mercy can we become clean from sin so that we can live with God again. This is possible through exercising faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.
To fulfill the plan of salvation, Christ paid the penalty for our sins. He alone was able to do that. He was called and prepared in pre-earth life. He was the literal Son of God in the flesh. He was sinless and completely obedient to His Father. Though tempted, He never gave in to temptation. When the Father asked His Beloved Son to pay the price of the world’s sins, Jesus was prepared and willing. The Atonement included His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and His suffering and death on the cross, and it ended with His Resurrection. Though He suffered beyond comprehension—so much so that He bled from every pore and asked whether it were possible that this burden be lifted from Him—He submitted to the Father’s will in a supreme expression of love for His Father and for us. This triumph of Jesus Christ over spiritual death by His suffering and over physical death by His Resurrection is called the Atonement.
Christ promises to forgive our sins on the condition that we accept Him by exercising faith in Him, repenting, receiving baptism by immersion, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and striving faithfully to keep His commandments to the end of our lives. Through continuing repentance, we may obtain forgiveness and be cleansed of our sins by the power of the Holy Ghost. We are relieved of the burden of guilt and shame, and through Jesus Christ we become worthy to return to the presence of God.
As we rely on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, He can help us endure our trials, sicknesses, and pain. We can be filled with joy, peace, and consolation. All that is unfair about life can be made right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
In paying the penalty for our sins, Jesus did not, however, eliminate our personal responsibility. We must show that we accept Him and that we will follow His commandments. Only through the gift of the Atonement can we return to live with God.
Even though Christ conquered physical death, all people must die, for death is part of the process by which we are transformed from mortality to immortality. At death our spirits go to the spirit world. Death does not change our personality or our desires for good or evil. Those who chose to obey God in this life live in a state of happiness, peace, and rest from troubles and care. Those who chose not to obey in this life and did not repent live in a state of unhappiness. In the spirit world the gospel is preached to those who did not obey the gospel or have the opportunity to hear it while on earth. We remain in the spirit world until we are resurrected.
When our bodies and spirits are reunited through the resurrection, we will be brought into God’s presence to be judged. We will remember perfectly our righteousness and our guilt. If we have repented, we will receive mercy. We will be rewarded according to our works and our desires.
Through the resurrection all people will become immortal—they will live forever. Immortality is a free gift to all people, whether they are righteous or wicked. Eternal life is not, however, the same as immortality. Eternal life is a gift of God given only to those who obey His gospel. It is the highest state that we can achieve. It comes to those who are freed from sin and suffering through the Atonement of Christ. It is exaltation, which means living with God forever in eternal families. It is to know God and Jesus Christ and to experience the life they enjoy.
During our mortal lives we make choices regarding good and evil. God rewards us according to our works and desires. Because God rewards everyone according to deeds done in the body, there are different kingdoms of glory to which we may be assigned after the Judgment. Those who have repented of their sins and received the ordinances of the gospel and kept the associated covenants will be cleansed by the Atonement of Christ. They will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom, also known as the celestial kingdom. They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy. They will live together for eternity with those of their family who qualify. In the scriptures this kingdom is compared to the glory or brightness of the sun.
People who do not accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ but live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the moon.
Those who continued in their sins and did not repent in this life will receive their reward in the lowest kingdom, which is called the telestial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the stars.
Here are the scriptural references that back up our beliefs. You can find these at http://scriptures.lds.org
Children of God
D&C 93:29
Hebrews 12:9
Acts 17:29
God's Purpose
Moses 1:39
John 17:3
Premortal Life
D&C 138:53–56
Abraham 3:22–26
Moses 3:5
Jeremiah 1:5
Topical Guide, "Man, Antemortal Existence of"
Creation
1 Nephi 17:36
Moses 2:1
JST, John 1:1–3
Alma 30:44
Moses 6:63
2 Corinthians 5:6–7
D&C 88:41–47
Abraham 3:24–25
In the Garden
2 Nephi 2
Moses 3:15–17
Genesis 1:26–31
Moses 2:26–31
Moses 5:11
Genesis 2:15–17
The Fall
2 Nephi 2:25
Moses 4
Genesis 3
Alma 12:22–34
Moses 5:10–12
Probation or Testing Period
2 Nephi 2:21
Alma 12:21–24
Abraham 3:25–26
2 Nephi 9:27
Alma 34:31–35
Mosiah 3:19
Alma 42:2–10
Choice
2 Nephi 2:26–29
Joshua 24:15
Good and Evil
Moroni 7:12–19
Sin
Romans 3:23
1 John 1:8–10
1 John 3:4
The Unclean Cannot Be with God
1 Nephi 10:20–21
3 Nephi 27:19
Moses 6:57
Alma 41:10–11
Resurrection
2 Nephi 9:6–7
D&C 88:27–32
JST, 1 Corinthians 15:40
Alma 11:42–45
Luke 24:1–10, 36–39
Topical Guide, "Resurrection"
Alma 40:23
1 Corinthians 15:20–23
Bible Dictionary, "Death," "Resurrection"
Helaman 14:15–19
1 Corinthians 15:41–42
Atonement
2 Nephi 2:6–8
D&C 19:15–19
1 John 1:7
Alma 7:11–13
D&C 45:3–5
Bible Dictionary, "Atonement"
Alma 34:8–10
John 3:16–17
The Gospel—The Way
2 Nephi 9:1–24
Alma 11:40
3 Nephi 27
2 Nephi 31
3 Nephi 11:31–41
Moroni 7:27–28
Gospel Preached to the Dead
D&C 138
1 Peter 3:19–20
1 Peter 4:6
Death and the Spirit World
Alma 34:34
Alma 40:11–14
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Resurrection and Restoration
2 Nephi 9:14–15
Jacob 6:8–9
Alma 42:13–15, 22–23
Judgment
2 Nephi 28:23
Alma 5:15–21
D&C 132:12; 137:9
Mosiah 3:23–25
Alma 12:12–14
John 5:22
Kingdoms of Glory
3 Nephi 28:10
D&C 137
1 Corinthians 15:41–42
D&C 76
Matthew 5:48
JST, 1 Corinthians 15:40
Eternal Life
2 Nephi 31:17–21
D&C 45:8
John 3:16
D&C 14:7
D&C 93:19
John 17:3
D&C 29:43–44
Dear Rob Watson, I am sorry to hear about your hand. Please get well soon.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit concerned about your comments, next of all, about scriptural interpretation. I use my mind to interpret the Bible and, it seems, you think that is a mistake. How do you interpret it? Well, as I understand, your position is that only the standard works absolutely require acceptance of faithful Mormons. So, for example, you might sometimes use the Book of Moses to interpret Genesis. But how do you interprate the Book of Moses? With your mind? Perhaps you listen to what the current ecclesiastical authorities (e.g. Thomas Monson) say. But how do you interpret what they say? With your mind? Perhaps God reveals it directly to your mind. But how do you interpret what God is placing in your mind? With your mind. There is, it seems to me, no getting around it. We both use our minds to interpret the Bible, or anything else.
The next thing I'd like to point out, is how surprised I am by your next comments. I thought that you and Steve were Book of Mormon apologists. If so, then proving the Book of Mormon is what you do. Now you are saying that is not what you, as Book of Mormon apologist qua Book of Mormon apologist, are trying to do.
I think that part of what you are getting at is the whole personal testimony thing. But the whole pray-and-feel epistemology is totally unacceptable, at least in my estimation. I am the sort of person who needs good reason. So far, in my opinion, the reason has been very unpersuasive.
Next, I believe you have misunderstood the concept of faith. Faith is something one accepts on the basis of good evidence not in the absence of it. We have good reason to believe in the existence of God and the trustworthiness of the Bible so we place our faith in God Who has first proven Himself faithful and trustworthy.
Now, as far as opposition to Mormonism, at least from godly Evangelical circles, that is only because we have studied it out and, can see something that you, as a faithful Mormon, apparently cannot. In other words, we are merely trying to warn our friends of the danger and deception. Remember, it is not a matter of a blind leap or wanting to believe one way rather than the other. Instead, it is a matter of evidence. I do not mean to sound presumptuous or arrogant. There, but for the grace of God, go I. I hope you can try to view my point of view with more of an open mind then you perhaps already do. I am open to the possibility to your perspective if you can establish it with solid proof (and nullify the manifold defeaters).
I have asked God with sincere intent and He has told me that Mormonism is false.
Finally, you conclude with a long description of what you believe, as a Mormon, with respect to the gospel. And yes, I really did want you to correct me if I was misrepresenting your position. But after I read what you had to say I went back and reread what I said (about the gospel in LDS theology) and, I confess, I do not see a substantial difference between what I said you believe and what you said you believe. You went into a lot more detail and had a different way of saying things. But I honestly do not see where I misrepresented you. Perhaps you could point out to me precisely where I went astray? In any case, even on your reworded version, I think it is easy to see that what Mormons believe about salvation is almost the exact opposite of what all Evangelicals have always believed. Paul warned about accepting a different gospel from the one found in the Bible. We each ought to make very sure we have the correct one. We can both be wrong but we cannot both be right, logically speaking.
Thank you for your time. Talk to you again real soon dear Rob. Goodbye for now.
Actually, it's my shoulder. Got it xrayed again today and will have surgery on Dec 15th. not fun, but at least it'll be back in place.
ReplyDeleteStill hurts to type too much, so this will be brief.
Biblical or BoM apologism does not equal "proving" anything to be true or false. These are matters of faith. One man's "proof" is another man's folly, as you've been keen to set forth in your posts. We strive to provide "evidences" which are not the same as "proof". Proof implies accuracy to 100%. Evidence implies one more reason to believe.
Again, these are matters of faith. You cannot prove the Bible true either. Any pretense that you can will quickly be shot down by the next atheist, orthodox Jew, or Muslim you argue with. You'll be in the same position (defensive) that I find myself in when someone comes in on your turf and accuses you of lying, covering up, etc.
So, now it's your turn. If you are so sure that you have infallible proof that the Bible itself is completely and universally inerrant and is completely sufficient for everything that God intended to tell His children, list everything that shows 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is.
Oh, and you can't use the Bible to do it. Nor can you refer to creedal Christian literature, sources, professors, adherents, clergy, or anything of the kind. Your proof must be 100% objective, scientific, and free from bias.
Dear Rob Watson,
ReplyDeleteI am deeply concerned about your surgery today. I think by now you are probably out of the o.r. and beginning to recuperate. It sounds like relatively minor surgery but still, it can be a bit disconcerting to go under the knife. At least it would be for me. I'll be sure to keep you in my prayers.
As for the current discussion, if you wish to continue it after you heal, then I offer the following thoughts. Of course, there is no need to answer them prior to your full and speedy recovery. If you do wish to continue at a later date, then, at your leisure, please read on.
My thoughts with respect to your last posted comments are as follows. I would personally tend to see "proof" and "evidence" as more or less synonymous with one another. And neither of them necessitates 100% certitude. You however use the terms with a different nuance as you have explained above. In the future, I shall try to stick to your definitions of "proof" and "evidence". While there is strong evidence for the Bible, to go down that rabbit trail now would take us too far afield I think. But I'd certainly be happy to come back to it later if you wish. Your original post "Getting Started" was about, well, getting started. Getting started with the Bible? No, with the Book of Mormon. However, there is strong evidence against the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, and maybe even full-blown proof. So why get started in the first place? I have raised several objections in the above comments and I do not think you really dealt with them in a meaningful and persuasive way. I think we should focus on that for right now. The first several problems I addressed were
1. The presumably inspired introduction apparently misinterprates the Babel account but Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
2. The witnesses are almost entirely made of Smiths and Whitmers which raises some level of suspicion as to their trustiworthiness in an unbiased consideration of their testimony.
3. The epistemology appealed to as primary support for the Book of Mormon's divine origin and/or truthfulness is highly controversial and accepted by nobody but Mormons or those about to become Mormons and this "burning in the bosom" is only appealed to with regard to Mormon truth claims (including Mormon misunderstanding of general Christian truth claims).
In your first response, you say that the Mormon doctrine of grace is identicle to the traditional Christian doctrine but then as we both further expounded your views it became only more manifest that the two doctrines are almost in diametric opposition. If all of Christendom for 2000 years has been wrong, apart from Mormons over the last century and a half, why, you ought to have very good reason (as opposed to having very good feeling) for such a radical claim. Furthermore, what was restored, and where does all the apostacy and creedal abomination come in if we are in total agreement when it comes to soteriology? Finally, none of this addresses the three original problems, listed above, which are a roadblock to any thinking person, aware of the problems, from seriously examining the Book of Mormon. We may still read it, of course, but we will not even entertain the idea, I think, that it might have possibly come from God unless you (or some other Mormon) can provide plausible explanations as to why the three problems, for starters, are not so troublesome as they currently seem to me.
Thank you for your time. My apologies for referring to you as Steve Smoot on occasion. You and he are certainly two totally different persons. That was my bad. Get well soon (if not already well) and I look forward to any and all responses I recieve from you to this post. Bye for now.
Thanks for your concern. I do appreciate it. Surgery went well. Arm is still in a sling, so this will be short.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I really need to comment too much beyond Steve's rebuttal of your three points about "Getting Started". You simply misunderstood the context of the statements made about the Jaredites and read more into it than necessary and now you want to cling to the refuted argument without additional reading or study of the Book of Mormon or anything else we have to say about that. so be it.
The whitmers and smiths were close, yes, but most witnesses of the type needed to authenticate a document considered to be critically important usually are (think of a family's will, a deed to a house, etc.) I find nothing inconsistent or suspicious about that. The same thing could be said about Peter, James, John, and even Mary. They were close relatives and associates of Jesus who went wherever he went, witnessed what he did, taught what he taught, and testified to the truth of it. Your "proof" that the Book of Mormon can't be true because they were close family or friends of Joseph Smith can be used to refute the Bible as well. The fact that they stuck to their testimony of what they saw and handled, even when most had left the church at some point or another (even Peter had denied Christ three times), is good enough for me. You can split hairs on this subject if you want, but I see no further need. Their testimonies stand unbroken and uncontradicted to this day.
re: "burning in the bosom", you continue to ignore similar and numerous statements of feelings of the heart being indicative of religious conviction and testimony. I've quoted them to you and others before on this blog, both out of the Bible and out of the Book of Mormon. Feel free to browse the site, for I won't be bothered to quote them again. I'm beginning to wonder if you've read the bible straight through even once. I've read it at least twice. Once straight through and once by studying all kinds of doctrinal and historical commentaries (some non-mormon, btw) and by studying for topicals and themes. I'd even add 1/2 more to that if you consider all the Bible scriptures I quoted (in support of it as a true work of scripture) to people during my mission, at Church, and in other settings.
I'm sorry if I sound testy about all of this, but you've not shown me one new thing that I can't find easily refuted on our side of the scholarship. But that's just it, there are always two sides to an argument. By definition there has to be. Otherwise, it's called consensus. And when have even so-called "mainstream" Christians had the benefit of consensus within their own ranks, let alone from "outside". I appreciate that you have theological differences that you feel will never reconcile with mine and I hope you appreciate that I will have theological differences that I feel will never reconcile with yours. That is a natural outcome of the splintering of the Christian Church which is evident even to the blindest of the blind in this day and age of whomever setting up a "mainstream" Christian church wherever teaching whatever ignoring the fact that their doctrines disagree (as long as it's all in the name of God, it's okay). The varying and competing creeds that spawned them, all of them extrabiblical, is all the evidence I need that there indeed was an apostasy and therefore either a need for restoration and reconciliation, or, otherwise, a need for damnation without hope of salvation because of ignorance and confusion as to what is correct. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Joseph Smith knew that because God put it into his mind and heart, just like He did with the reformers of old. The difference between Martin Luther, Calvin, etc. and Joseph Smith was that the former were sent to begin the process of gathering the pieces of broken doctrine. Joseph was sent nearer to the Second Coming of Christ to finally erect a banner under which to finally unite those pieces as a single, unified, fully and completely restored doctrine. Why didn't God just do all that in one fell-swoop under a single prophet earlier than now? Ask Him. The answer I get through study and prayer is that based on the understanding that God won't force us to Heaven, God saw fit to spread the Gospel as far and wide as possible on the globe by allowing the splintering to occur up to a certain point, but then clearly defining a rallying point in the last bit leading to the Second Coming, when other globalization, communications, and transportation innovations would be able to sustain and support that effort and keep the doctrine purer in a more efficient way than in the past.
Look, either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he was not. Either he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God, or (incredibly, incomprehensibly) he made it up from scratch, guessing a lot of things that we're finding he got right despite the fact that he had no primary resources to turn to in his day. Either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true or it is not.
Read it, or not. I won't waste your or my time if you haven't read it, because it is ridiculous to have a debate with you about a book you obviously refuse to read. On what basis can we then productively argue our points with any sense of clarity? You will forever be bewildered by my understanding, within their full context, of verses you've never bothered to read. I will forever be bewildered by your understanding, which I will view to be incomplete because of your lack of due diligence in your scholarship.
If you believe none of this is true, then I leave you to that. God shall reveal it all to us in the end and then we shall see as He sees.
Dear Rob Watson, I hope your new year is going well. As for me, it is splendid. I trust you are continuing to heal from your operation so that now you are, I hope, almost completely better. And, thanks for your kind introduction.
ReplyDeleteNow, your second and third paragraphs betray a very bad misrepresentation of my previous comments. These paragraphs are actually irrelevant to what I actually said so, you may wish to go back and re-read what I said before.
As for your next paragraph, I have two points to make. First, there is only one passage in the entire Bible, so far as I know, which speaks of a burning in the bosom. This is when Jesus was talking to the folks on the road to Emmaus. In the passage, Jesus is talking with them about Old Testament passages and their "hearts burned within them." Notice that while their hearts were burning they DID NOT KNOW it was Jesus who was speaking with them. They had a certain feeling while Jesus was studying the Bible with them. And? You want to magically make that passage mean that the ultimate and sole test of all spiritual truth is a similar experience! It sounds like you are the one tinkering with the plain and precious meaning of the text of the Bible. I may feel emotionally moved when I read about God's love in the Bible but the propositional knowledge of God's love comes from the Bible not my heart. The Bible is in turn corroborated by objective evidence. So we have the objective evidence of the death and resurrection of Jesus to know, not feel, God loves us and we are moved BY the knowledge. The feeling rests on the knowledge-not the other way around. In contrast to this, Mormons may appeal to some evidence which is not very persuasive (in my opinion) but then qualify it with, "well, all that is interesting but the most important thing is a personal testimony. After all, spiritual truth can only become known through spiritual means." As soon as we base the knowledge on the feeling, as you want us to do, we are in very real trouble. Other passages appealed to, not explicitly mentioning a burning, include "flesh and blood have not revealed this to you..." and the infamous passage in James about praying for wisdom. In neither of these passages are we told that the knowledge comes by way of subjective feeling.
My second point, is that I have read the Bible through cover to cover multiple times, Mrs. Brodie, and have been studying it for years. It is because of my study of the Bible that I strongly disagree with with LDS theology. Notice I did not say because of my gullible and thoughtless swallowing of pagan-apostate councils.
Moving on to your next paragraph. We evagelicals keep pointing out the same old problems because Mormons still haven't answered us. Your own traditional response is to either post a link to FAIR or just say, "read what Steve says." By passing the buck to someone else, you make it impossible to have a meaningful dialogue. How am I to know which parts of the other persons ideas you agree with and which you disagree? Surely you don't totally agree with everything another person says. Furthermore, these other persons normally misrepresent the "anti-Mormon" criticisms in the first place (and then complain when Evangelicals allegedly do the same thing!). Next, mainstream Christians have ALWAYS had consensus within their ranks. This is perhaps the most difficult concept to get across to many Mormons. The Baptist church and the Methodist church, for example, are not two different churches or two different religions. There is only one Church or body of Christ and it is NOT divided. If I am a baptist and you are a Methodist, whatever that means, we are in total agreement on essential doctrines. On secondary doctrines, however, we may disagree. This is just like Latter-Day Saints. Some teachings within your church are less important than others and there is room for disagreement on those points. The many denominations differ only on relatively minor points of doctrine. There is concensus on all the essential doctrines of Chrisitanity (or the Bible). The Trinity, Deity and humanity of Christ, inspiration of the Bible, and Grace alone are all examples of essentials. While the essentials were often codified through formal councils they derive ultimately from the Bible. And whenever a council contradicts a biblical teaching the council ruling (if even known by the church member, which is doubtful) is to be whole-heartedly rejected. The ecumenical (or consensus) councils are a middle man of historical theology with relatively little authority/importance today. Being "essential Christian doctrines" means that if you don't believe them, then you are outside of Christianity. This is why Mormons are not considered truly Christian.
And what about the many Mormon denominations? Since Brigham Young took the baton from Joseph Smith, there have been splinter groups within Mormonism. You may not consider them to be true Mormons but they could say the same about you. They all have a subjective feeling that Brigham Young (or whomever) is not the real sucessor of Smith. And this is a classic example of selective use of data which is characteristic of Mormon apologetics. When you were a missionary (I think you went on a mission, correct me if I am wrong please) you would sometimes try to persuade people to join allegedly united LDS church by appealing to the alleged disunity in Protestant denominations would you not? You would conveniently forget to mention the Strangites, Community of Christ, etc. Why the double standard here?
The apostosy of these latter days IS Mormonism. Mormonism contradicts essential Christian doctrines, found in the Bible, as I said above. It is therefore apostate by very definition. Mormonism itself is ultimately based only on subjective feeling. What is more, there is a mountain of objective evidence against it (inside and outside of the Bible). While there are defensive apologetics attempting to defend it (Mormonism), it is normally, in my experience, very shallow and unpersuasive. In any case, I have gotten almost none of it from you, and it is you, Rob, I am speaking with now (not FAIR, Steve Smoot, etc). My question, then, is what in the world are you doing still being a Mormon in light of all this? You have no good reason to be a Mormon that I can see, and plenty of good reason not to be one.
You have a different theological perspective than I do? Fine. But I am talking here about objective evidence that you can look at yourself. You may be letting other people look at it and tell you what to think about it. You may be looking at it and misinterpreting it. But if you honestly look at it and seriously reflect upon it, the implications are unmistakable. Adherents of Mormonism have been deceived.
Then, I must confess to you that I DO read and study the Book of Mormon. That is another reason why I disbelieve in Mormonism. I do not mindlessly swallow everything "anti-Mormons" say. I go to the standard works themselves and other Mormon writings to establish my case against Mormonism more strongly.
Finally, I must stress it is not a matter of winning an argument for me or causing doubts in people of other religions than my own. Rather, I have found out the truth about Mormonism and am trying to show you, whom I sincerely consider a friend (I hope you count me your friend too) the truth of what I have found before it is too late. You might say, I am sharing the restored gospel, with you, as any good missionary would.