S
SirThomasMore
Guest
yes…like I said, the lds jesus, by definition, must be a cruel, weak, liar
Biblical Evidence for Great Apostasy and Restoration? (Mormons)
- Status
S
SteveVH
Guest
I had to pause before responding to this thread. Do I really want to enter into this frey again? Biblical evidence, without an authentic interpreter, can be twisted in many directions as evidenced by the continual division among Protestant denominations, of which Mormonism is just one more. What is more important, IMO, is the utter lack of historical evidence. From a historical viewpoint, if there was an apostasy, no one knew it until 1800 + years after it happened. It is a myth, and a recent myth to boot.
Don’t be fooled by the twisting of Sacred Scripture.
Don’t be fooled by the twisting of Sacred Scripture.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
1 Timothy clearly says that some shall depart the faith, but since ‘some’ is not ‘all,’ your claims don’t hold up.
And since the church maintains and/or has taught that the three Nephites and John the Baptists are alive and well, it can easily be argued that the church never truly left the earth at all.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
*]Matthew 16:18-19 / Isaiah 22:22 (Authority)
*]1 Timothy 3:15 (Authority)
*]2 Thessalonians 2:15 (Tradition)
*]1 Peter 3:21 (Baptism)
*]John 20:23 (Confession)
*]John 6:53-58, 66-67 (Eucharist)
*]1 Corinthians 11:27 (Eucharist)
*]James 5:14-15 (Anointing)
*]Colossians 1:24 (Suffering)
*]James 2:24 (Works)
Just a side not” We had an ex Mormon who comes to Bible study make a great point regarding Church tradition and the Protestants
At the end of the Our Father they say for Thine is the Kingdom, and the Glory and the Power for ever Amen.
Not knowing that this is Catholic Church Tradition. It is a separate prayer said at the conclusion of the Our Father.
When you look at all of the other Christian churches along with non Christian Church’s such as the LDS and Jehovah witnesses you always find pieces of the Mother Church, like a pie with a few slices left over. It is good to be Home where we have it all to help us on our Journey.
I have to say this because its so true in my life. To the Mormons here, when I compare both religions I see sinners on one side actually trying not to sin, on the other side I see sinners pretending they are not sinners and trying not to sin. This has to be so hard without the Sacrament of Confession.
This is what has been dealt because they have to be a little better in order to attain this seat, power. (Apostasy) It makes one feel good right, to be a little smarter than the other poor sole over there. The myth that is the Great Apostasy shows this to be true. Its pure deflection for a certain kind of power… Innocent for some not so much for others.
We had an LDS women come to our RCIA about 3 years ago. She was heavily involved in the LDS church, sealed in the temple, 3 children, primary teacher, etc….She had questions that continued to haunt her. When she would ask them at meetings, not sure which ones she was told to ask them in private with the Bishop. When the answers were not good enough she started to wander not telling anyone.
To make a long story short when she left the RCIA inquiry the first night after being with sinners such as us she remembers thinking as she left …her words “Well they may be sinners but I am certainly not” Now that is just one women, I would not pin this on all of the LDS. When she reflects on it today as she now helps with RCIA here in Logan it’s cute!
She bought into the restoration most of her life and now she is truly restored in Christ. The fog has lifted for her and she see’s Jesus as her Lord and God. He is her desire now not her family as she understands that her Family will be behind Him and found in Him. Through Him, that He is the reason she has one. That we will not be separated by time and space nor dedicated to just a few. We will be one family together and our Groom will be God, the Father, Son and Their Holy Spirit. He will be our God and we will be His adopted children. How do I know these things? I am a Christian in the Catholic Church. I to have a wife and three Children who I love very much. I just know where this loves comes from…not from me!
S
SteveVH
Guest
There is no evidence that the Nephites ever existed, and I’m pretty sure John the Baptist was beheaded. Did you mean John the Apostle? In other words, everything you have said here is make believe. You have zero evidence. You are obviously free to believe whatever you chose, but believing it does not make it true, nor does it present a persuasive argument.
Z
zerinus
Guest
We don’t think that everyone “departed from the faith”. There were many who still believed, and still do. It is just that the priesthood authority was lost.
We don’t think that the church completely left the earth either!
—but not because John and the three Nephite disciples (and probably others) still held the priesthood. They had other kinds of work to do, and they were not acting as officers of the Church. But according to D&C 10, which I have already discussed elsewhere, the Lord still regarded the true believers in Him among the Christian nations as “His church,” even though they lacked the priesthood and the revelations that goes with it. The purpose of this Restoration is to gather those into the true fold of God according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, give them a recognizable identity as God’s only true Church, and confer on them the priesthood authority that they lacked. The purpose of this Restoration is to “build them up,” according to D&C 10, not pull them down.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
That’s exactly what ‘apostacy’ is. The Aaronic priesthood (and I’ve already covered this)was lost due to the occupation of Israel by Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, the destruction of Herod’s temple and finally, the deportation of the Jews and their being slaves to the Egyptians. The entire point of the Aaronic priesthood was to foreshadow the coming of Christ.
But since the Mormon Aaronic priesthood is ‘restored,’ why does it have nothing to do with the fuctions of the priests outlined in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy?
And there’s no indication that the Melchizedek priesthood was meant to be passed on or that there was ever another priesthood holder than Jesus Christ?
This actually sounds cohesive and makes sense, but unfortunately, it took over 150 years to get to that point. Since the church of the devil was founded, your claims of ‘true believers’ doesn’t make sense because if they were an abomination before God in 1820, according to the currently accepted version of the Furst Vision, how did they cease to be abominable in the intervening 190 years? Why did God make such a politically correct about-face? You go on to contradict yourself because if, in the first part of the sentence, God still regarded true believers as his church, how could they then be considered his ‘only true church’ if they were catholic, Methodist, Protestant, or what have you?We don’t think that the church completely left the earth either!
You also mentioned revelations and can you tell me the reason that there’s not much more of your purported ‘continuing revelation’ in the years since about Joseph F. Smith? Any time I look through a book about LDS presidents, there’s a ton of material on Joseph Smith, a little less on Brigham Young, and less on each subsequent president as time goes on.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
Think about what your LDS church has attempted to build upon
I was working in my yard today and started thinking how the Mormon hierarchies have pretty much erased 2000 years of Christian Saints from their members. I believe if you were to make a study of the Saints of the Church spanning 2000 years you would begin to see that the Priesthood authority (Jesus) has always remained present in their lives because of their devotion to Him. . What is sad is that it is these souls that gave their lives to bring Christ to you. They are not just forgotten in the LDS Church they are hidden from the children. What LDS Parent would give one of their sons or daughters a book on the lives of Catholic Saints?
As LDS you have built your church upon the graves of the Authentic Saints and in many ways have denied their devotion to Jesus from your Church, whole lives thrown out, the very Body of Christ in the hopes that they may be forgotten. But today they cried out to me in order for me to mention their very existence and strange as it may seem, and you can believe it or not, they are all praying for you. This is what they do, they pray for you.
Take the time to read about their lives and seek out the common bond that they all share.
Don’t be afraid to go to places you have never gone before. Read their stories………You can start right here, right now. As to the Apostasy I think we need to put some faces on His Church. Does anyone here have a favorite Saint? In no way is this getting this post off track. At least I believe this…Am I wrong?
You can start here:
The saints were seized and brought before the prefect of Rome, whose name was Rusticus. As they stood before the judgment seat, Rusticus the prefect said to Justin, “Above all, have faith in the gods and obey the emperors.” Justin replied, “We cannot be accused or condemned for obeying the commands of our Savior, Jesus Christ.” Rusticus said, “What system of teaching do you profess?” Justin said, “I have tried to learn about every system, but I have accepted the true doctrines of the Christians, though these are not approved by those who are held fast by error.” The prefect Rusticus said, “Are those doctrines approved by you, wretch that you are?” Justin said, “Yes, for I follow them with their correct teaching.” The prefect Rusticus said, “What sort of teaching is that?” Justin said, “Worship the God of the Christians. We hold him to be from the beginning the one creator and maker of the whole creation, of things seen and things unseen. We worship also the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Rusticus said, “You are a Christian, then?” Justin said, “Yes, I am a Christian.” The prefect said to Justin, “You are called a learned man and think you know what is true teaching. Listen: if you were scourged and beheaded, are you convinced that you would go up to heaven?” Justin said, “I hope that I shall enter God’s house if I suffer in that way. For I know that God’s favor is stored up until the end of the whole world for all who have lived good lives.” The prefect Rusticus said, “Do you have an idea that you will go up to heaven to receive some suitable rewards?” Justin said, “It is not an idea that I have; it is something I know well and hold to be most certain.” The prefect Rusticus said, “Now let us come to the point at issue, which is necessary and urgent. Gather round then and with one accord offer sacrifice to the gods.” Justin said, “No one who is right-thinking stoops from true worship to false worship.” The prefect Rusticus said, “If you do not do as you are commanded you will be tortured without mercy.” Justin said, “We hope to suffer torment for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so be saved.” In the same way the other martyrs also said, “Do what you will. We are Christians; we do not offer sacrifice to idols.” The prefect Rusticus pronounced sentence, saying, “Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the command of the emperor be scourged and led away to suffer capital punishment according to the ruling of the laws.” Glorifying God, the holy martyrs were beheaded, and so fulfilled their witness of martyrdom in confessing their faith in their Savior. - from the Acts of the Martyrdom of Saint Justin and his Companions
http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-justin-martyr/
Would you let your LDS child read about one Catholic Saint per night?
Did your parents read to you about these when you were young?
Its just food for thought. Maybe move a few blocks around that are on your head.
Here is a few more
http://www.catholic.org/saints/martyr.php
In Christ Jesus
Rich
www.utahmission.com
I was working in my yard today and started thinking how the Mormon hierarchies have pretty much erased 2000 years of Christian Saints from their members. I believe if you were to make a study of the Saints of the Church spanning 2000 years you would begin to see that the Priesthood authority (Jesus) has always remained present in their lives because of their devotion to Him. . What is sad is that it is these souls that gave their lives to bring Christ to you. They are not just forgotten in the LDS Church they are hidden from the children. What LDS Parent would give one of their sons or daughters a book on the lives of Catholic Saints?
As LDS you have built your church upon the graves of the Authentic Saints and in many ways have denied their devotion to Jesus from your Church, whole lives thrown out, the very Body of Christ in the hopes that they may be forgotten. But today they cried out to me in order for me to mention their very existence and strange as it may seem, and you can believe it or not, they are all praying for you. This is what they do, they pray for you.
Take the time to read about their lives and seek out the common bond that they all share.
Don’t be afraid to go to places you have never gone before. Read their stories………You can start right here, right now. As to the Apostasy I think we need to put some faces on His Church. Does anyone here have a favorite Saint? In no way is this getting this post off track. At least I believe this…Am I wrong?
You can start here:
The saints were seized and brought before the prefect of Rome, whose name was Rusticus. As they stood before the judgment seat, Rusticus the prefect said to Justin, “Above all, have faith in the gods and obey the emperors.” Justin replied, “We cannot be accused or condemned for obeying the commands of our Savior, Jesus Christ.” Rusticus said, “What system of teaching do you profess?” Justin said, “I have tried to learn about every system, but I have accepted the true doctrines of the Christians, though these are not approved by those who are held fast by error.” The prefect Rusticus said, “Are those doctrines approved by you, wretch that you are?” Justin said, “Yes, for I follow them with their correct teaching.” The prefect Rusticus said, “What sort of teaching is that?” Justin said, “Worship the God of the Christians. We hold him to be from the beginning the one creator and maker of the whole creation, of things seen and things unseen. We worship also the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Rusticus said, “You are a Christian, then?” Justin said, “Yes, I am a Christian.” The prefect said to Justin, “You are called a learned man and think you know what is true teaching. Listen: if you were scourged and beheaded, are you convinced that you would go up to heaven?” Justin said, “I hope that I shall enter God’s house if I suffer in that way. For I know that God’s favor is stored up until the end of the whole world for all who have lived good lives.” The prefect Rusticus said, “Do you have an idea that you will go up to heaven to receive some suitable rewards?” Justin said, “It is not an idea that I have; it is something I know well and hold to be most certain.” The prefect Rusticus said, “Now let us come to the point at issue, which is necessary and urgent. Gather round then and with one accord offer sacrifice to the gods.” Justin said, “No one who is right-thinking stoops from true worship to false worship.” The prefect Rusticus said, “If you do not do as you are commanded you will be tortured without mercy.” Justin said, “We hope to suffer torment for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so be saved.” In the same way the other martyrs also said, “Do what you will. We are Christians; we do not offer sacrifice to idols.” The prefect Rusticus pronounced sentence, saying, “Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the command of the emperor be scourged and led away to suffer capital punishment according to the ruling of the laws.” Glorifying God, the holy martyrs were beheaded, and so fulfilled their witness of martyrdom in confessing their faith in their Savior. - from the Acts of the Martyrdom of Saint Justin and his Companions
http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-justin-martyr/
Would you let your LDS child read about one Catholic Saint per night?
Did your parents read to you about these when you were young?
Its just food for thought. Maybe move a few blocks around that are on your head.
Here is a few more
http://www.catholic.org/saints/martyr.php
In Christ Jesus
Rich
www.utahmission.com
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
S
soren1
Guest
Take as a starting point the following false syllogism:
Premise 1: If A is true then either X or Y is true.
Premise 2: A is true.
Conclusion:Therefore X is true.
I am guessing it will obvious why this syllogism does not work. The correct conclusion ought to be “Therefore X or Y is true.” The logical error is the unwarranted assumption that, contrary to the first premise, X is necessarily determined by A. The first premise does not support, but actually precludes, the necessity of the conclusion. This is clear, I think?
My argument has been that your application of Is 60:2, in light of D&C 112:28 has the same logical form as this false syllogism, and is disprovable for the same reason. In your case, the terms are defined in this way:
A = The words of Is 60:2
X = The fact of a world-encompassing apostasy
Y = The fact of a non-world-encompassing apostasy
If you fill in the syllogism with these terms, you get:
Premise 1: If the words of Isaiah 60:2 are true, then there is either a world-encompassing apostasy or non-world-encompassing apostasy.
Premise 2: The words of Isaiah 60:2 are true.
Conclusion: Therefore there is a world-encompassing apostasy.
Premise 2 is not in dispute, but you acknowledge Premise 1 at the very same time that you try to avoid it when you rightly say:
I am not failing to understand that that is what the verse is teaching. This is exactly what I have though all along. My point is not about the meaning of D&C 112:38, but about the logical entailments that follow from it. Namely, the moment you say* the words of Is 60:2 can hold good at a time when Apostasy does not cover the whole world, Zion included, *you have at that instant conceded the main point in dispute, and you have validated Premise 1.
If you are still confused, the argument can be restated conversely as a reduction to the absurd:
Premise 1: The words of Isaiah 60:2 necessarily apply to times when there is no Church on earth.
Premise 2: The words of Isaiah 60:2 apply in one instance to Joseph Smith’s time.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must have been no Church on earth in Joseph’s Smith’s time.
From the standpoint of Mormonism, the conclusion is absurd. Therefore, either the logical form is fallacious or one of the premises is wrong. I see no flaw in logic, and, again, Premise 2 is not in dispute. Hence, Premise 1 is false. For this reason, to maintain the coherency of Joseph’s Smith’s own teaching, you must deny that premise. Yet the moment you reject it, you concede the contrary: that 60:2 need not refer to a time of a total absence of the Church from the earth. That granted, you cannot consistently claim that Is 60:2 is a problem text for Catholics.
S
soren1
Guest
You commentary has been helpful. Here is what I think we agree on: we both accept that there is a distinction in play in this text between Zion and the nations. I think we also agree, verse-for-verse, about where that line is to be drawn, when it is referring to each. A primary point of disagreement seems to be about time. When is this gross darkness doing its thing? Catholics say it is about the dispersion of Israel and the darkness of sin that all mankind has suffered since Adam, while lacking clear knowledge of Christ. This darkness is dispelling when Christ is born, lives, and dies. He then brings to gospel to the nations, thereby achieving the restoration of scattered Israel by extending the Church through the world. Yet you say it is about a loss of Church authority that ended with the Restoration, at which time the literal gathering of Israel ensues. [Am I right about the italicized portion?]
Granted you have a different interpretation, what about Is 60:2 or its context poses a specific difficulty for the Catholic view and should lead us to prefer the Mormon one? You have clarified a lot by giving your own interpretation in detail, and it has helped me make a bit more sense of the Mormon reading not just of this verse but of Isaiah in general. Yet if you want to show that Is 60:2 is evidence for your understanding of Church history, you must also show why your interpretation is better. And that is what I find lacking.
So far I have offered, as the most important reason for taking the Catholic view, that the immediate verses refer to the continuation of divine covenants and the permanence of Isaiah’s words on earth. This should lead us to be optimistic about Zion’s persistence during the darkness involved. I don’t see where you have answered this. I can add in addition that the following context of Chap 60, though indeed it need not all be literal, has one passage that seems to point to the birth of Jesus:
Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD. (Is 60:4-6)
Is it not easy to see this as a fulfilled in the epiphany, when the gentiles pay homage to Jesus my offering Gold and two types of incense? Does it not seem that the story in Matthew is written to represent a fulfillment of this prophecy?
R
Returning_Home
Guest
I’ll be the one to point out the obvious that, while you’re right in this, I think it can be boiled down to simpler terms; since the BOM can be shown to date to at least the first printing of the KJV (1611), it’s not what it purposrts to be. Therefore, it must be the product of at least some of those who stood to benefit from it, which would be Smith and Whitmer families, Martin Harris, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery.
Since that can be established, it becomes very important that the author(s) of the BOM, Joseph Smith and probably Sidney Rigdon, saw fit to plagiarize much of Isaiah for their own text in the first place. They must’ve thought very highly of it and used it to prop up their flimsy attempt at writing Bible-flavored nonsense.
That all said, your point, Soren, was well constructed and cohesive, cutting to the bone in the fallacies of Mormon apologetics.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
S
soren1
Guest
I wouldn’t boil it down that way.
Sidney Rigdon? He did not know of Joseph Smith until Parley Pratt, acting as a missionary, showed him the BOM. Have you been influenced by the Spaulding hypothesis? Mormons are not the only ones who have pointed out the holes in that theory, not the least of which is the vast stylistic difference between the BOM and Rigdon’s preaching and writing. By contrast there is a close stylistic similarity between the BOM and Smith’s other revelations. That is just what one would expect if Smith were the sole author or inspired translator.
As far as getting benefits from the BOM’s publication, that seems and unlikely hypothesis if you mean material gain. I would say that all the men you mention were true believers, and they wasted their substance financing the first BOM printing. While you or I might question their grounds for belief, and their personal ethics, I don’t think they were motivated by anything as flagrantly low as material benefits. They had to be acting from motives that were, or seemed to them, to be morally upright.
As for the use of the KJV, one must be very careful about how to make that argument. It must be granted that the New Testament authors themselves used a specific translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, and the interpretive colorings of that translation are reflected in the Gospels and Epistles. Hence, we must tread carefully when criticizing Mormon usage of the KJV, since the analogy to the Septuagint makes it defensible for Smith, even in his “inspired” writing, to make use of a specific translation. This does not mean Mormonism does not commit serious exegetical errors based on evident misunderstandings of that English translation, but it does mean you can’t broad-brush the whole thing as a fraud solely because of the KJV.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
No, I actually don’t know anything about the Spaulding angle. Perhaps I mispoke here; I’m simply operating on the basis that while Smith was of average intelligence, writing the entire BOM seems a bit beyond him and that he may well have had help.
On your other points, I wholly agree; Smith used the same language throughout his life as a prophet such as “And it came to pass…” and the purported chiasmus that apologists like to point out being unique to revelation from God.
Gain isn’t always material. Smith achieved a form of immortality because his church deifies him and we vilify him. As long as he’s a controversial figure, he’s not gone and forgotten.
Keep in mind that Oliver Cowdery had issued at least two warrants for theft and Martin Harris changed his religion at least as often I change socks. David Whitmer also later said in his book that the church and Smith had fallen into error as early as 1838 (I personally believe this to be over the topic of polygamy, but there’s no evidence to my knowledge to back that up at the moment).
What were their motivations? Only they themselves knew but it seems too convenient that you have the entire Whitmer and Smith family on board with this golden plate nonsense. We know that the Smith family was very into mysticism so it just goes without saying there but to give more the appearance of impartiality, he shouldn’t have had his family anywhere near this.
Since we know that Elizabethan English had fallen from favor by Smith’s time, there should be no evidence of it because as David Whitmer and Apostle Russel M. Nelson have said, there was no usage of Smith’s own wording in the text; he was essentially a conduit between the scribe and the Urim and Thummim, the latter of which did most of the work.
I really don’t need to use the Septuagint in the argument because there should be no similarities to any known text since these plates were not only lost but predated any assembled version of the New Testament.
If you and I see a movie together, Paranormal Activity, for example, and are both going to write a shirt review to post to our respective blogs, are our reviews going to be anything close to similar? No, of course not because our writing styles are very different. And even though we’ve now seen the same movie, my perception of it is going to be filtered through all of the ****** horror films I’ve seen over the years and that fact that it owes so much to the Blair Witch Project style of filming. I will note these but if you haven’t seen the Blair Witch Project, you won’t have that as a reference point. Therefore, it wouldn’t make any sense that you would be using anything from that movie to describe another, which is essentially what’s happening with the BOM, plagiarizing from a book not yet written by people not born, and then translated into a region-specific dialect that wouldn’t happen for another 2,200 years.
Does that, in light of the fact that Smith owned a KJV and his church canonized it, make any sense?
And no, I don’t use that as the sole reason to declare Mormonism a fraud; I start there and use the false prophecies of Smith and the fact that there exists not one piece of evidence to support anything in the pages of the BOM. That three pronged attack will undermine just about anything an apologist can mount as a defense of Mormonism and a pass for Smith.
S
soren1
Guest
I grant Smith high intelligence.
Ah, but Smith did not use chiasmus consistently through his time as prophet. The Achilles heel for the chiasmus argument is the consistent botching of known chiastic passages that occurs in the JST. For instance, there is a very elegant, tight chiasm in John 1:1 merged with a stairway structure. Yet Smith’s alterations to that verse derail it: he catches on to the stairway pattern, but he demolishes the chiasm. Hence, while we can see from D&C that Smith was able to produce his own chiasms, the JST shows that he did not have the gift to discern and translate chiasms in a known ancient text.
If you just mean they were not impartial, I agree. I also agree that the personal honesty of the witnesses is easily impeachable on other grounds. It should never be forgotten that Martin Harris clearly committed the sin of false witness in defense of the BOM by slandering the antiquarian Samuel Mitchell. Because Harris is known to have been willing to lie in Smith’s defense, at the expense of another person’s reputation, (See Ex 20:16) his signature on the witness document is worth zilch, since God himself does not respect the testimony of slanderers. (Ps 101:5)
Elizabethan English had fallen from vulgar use, but it had not fallen wholly from favor, precisely because the KJV preserved it religious contexts. Consider how the Quakers were still using “thee,” “thou,” and “ye” for just that reason. I think one could fairly hypothesize that God dictated to Smith in a KJV-like style in order to not alienate the many readers for whom the Bible and the KJV were synonymous.
The LDS Church has only canonized the KJV inasmuch as it is the only Bible they use in worship, but they don’t claim it as especially revealed. In fact, they also attack the KJV in some contexts. One of the arguments they use for Biblical corruption is the allegation of contradiction in the Bible. The most popular basis of these allegations are the discrepancies in the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts, which are actually only apparent contradictions occasioned by imprecision in the KJV translation.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I agree that that syllogism doesn’t work. What I don’t agree with is that it is relevant to the line of argument I was presenting.
I simply don’t agree.
Incorrect. Premise 1 should be amended to read as follows:
Premise 1: If the words of Isaiah 60:2 are true, then there IS a world-encompassing apostasy.
Premise 2: The words of Isaiah 60:2 are true.
Conclusion: Therefore there is a world-encompassing apostasy.
No, I think you are being a bit pedantic with that one. You are failing to take into consideration that the nuances of human language does not always fit easily into a simple logically constructed syllogism. If you wanted to build a syllogism to fit it, that syllogism would have to be a more complicated one than the simplistic one you have constructed. Let’s take a look at D&C 112 in isolation for a moment:
23 Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.
This word was spoken to Joseph Smith and his associates in the early days of the Church, or at the time of the Restoration. The section heading says that it was received in 1837, which is about 7 years after the LDS Church was organized. When it says all, does that include Joseph Smith, his close associates, and the fledgeling LDS Church that was organized at that time, or are they excluded from all? If you wanted to look at it in an absolutely logical sense, then you would have to conclude that they must be included; but human language does not follow that kind of mathematical logic. Let’s compare that with a similar passage from the Bible:
Genesis 6:
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Did “all” include Noah and his immediate family? If you wanted to follow a mathematically logical line of reasoning in that statement, you would have to include Noah and his family among those “flesh” which had been “corrupted,” and therefore needed to be “destroyed;” but clearly that is not the correct reading of those verses, because Noah and his family were not included. They were saved by an elaborately constructed Ark. So if you wanted to construct a syllogism to fit that verse, it would have to be more complicated than the simple one you had devised. D&C 112 follows a similar pattern. D&C 112 presupposes, (1) that Isaiah 60:2 is true; (2) that it refers to the time in which we live; and (3) that it signifies a general Apostasy of the earlier dispensations of the gospel prior to the last one, which is the LDS Church. But it does not include the last dispensation in that apostasy. That is just not a logical reading of those verses. That would be equivalent to counting Noah and his family among the lost, which would be absurd.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Yes, that is about right.
Valid point. As I said before, Isaiah is a book that is difficult to read and interpret; and it is possible to put more than one interpretation on it; and it is difficult to argue in favor of a particular one—although not impossible.
Thank you for the quote. It is easy to show that that quote cannot be interpreted in that way. You are overlooking the context of Isaiah 60. The whole of this chapter is an allegorical reference to the redemption and restoration of Zion in the last days; and those verses you had quoted are a part of that composite whole. That composite whole includes these verses too:
11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.
12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.
13 The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.
14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.
16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
17 For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness.
18 Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.
If you focus on the highlighted words and phrases, you will see that the whole passage is describing a city—the city of Zion. That includes the verses that you had posted. They all refer to the same entity—a city!—hence they cannot be referring to Jesus, because He was not a city! The reference of the entire Chapter 60 is the city of Zion, which is another word for Jerusalem (including the New Jerusalem that LDS believe in). Therefore the interpretation you had put on it cannot be correct.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
I dunno about that because if he did, should’ve covered his tracks better. I don’t want to give too much credit, however, for him being anything but a con-man.
I agree and the ‘chiasmus’ is a style that can be, if what Smith said about seriously studying the Bible from the age of 12, imitated because he had some 13 years before the first publication of the BOM, give or take a few months.
The chiasmus isn’t of divine origin and if it were, we’d be deifying Mae West and John F. Kennedy for their use of it, too. I agree with you that he used it, but poorly.
This is just one thing that apologists use to justify their following a false gospel.
Harris’ opinions about God and religion changed with the direction of the wind and were just as substantial. He’s known to have been a member of at least six different faiths, showing a real problem with discernment. He’s wasn’t impartial as much as he seemed to have ADD.
I think there were plates of some kind, something Smith and his conspirators made and used to support their claims. The claims of there being plates seem to be fairly consistant, but their divine origin isn’t possible because of the other gaping holes in Mormonism.
I meant in every day language; we don’t have any evidence that newspapers or periodicals of the day used it as part of their regular speech patterns. The Quakers are a different matter and not what anyone would consider, even at that time, mainstream society.
Your second point here is that if ‘God’ dictated KJV English to Smith so as to appear familair and comfortable, that would be fine but we have two clear statements showing that he didn’t use his own language. If he didn’t, why would God be using it? Did God speak Elizabethan English before the subsect of English evolved? Of course not, that’s just plain stupid.
Those same two statements also make it clear that it was a literal translation, either character-for-character or word-for-word, depending on which person you find more credible, thus indicating that the plates themselves were originally wrriten in Elizabethan English, but that’s stupid, too.
The LDS Church has only canonized the KJV inasmuch as it is the only Bible they use in worship, but they don’t claim it as especially revealed. In fact, they also attack the KJV in some contexts. One of the arguments they use for Biblical corruption is the allegation of contradiction in the Bible. The most popular basis of these allegations are the discrepancies in the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts, which are actually only apparent contradictions occasioned by imprecision in the KJV translation.
And now you get into the problems for the church not canonizing the JST, referring, instead, to an admittedly imperfect edition. Why would you, if you were restoring the gospel of God, use a version that had been corrupted and was missing many ‘plain and precious things?’
T
twopekinguys
Guest
At least one of our mormon posters has tried to make it sound like JS was just a bumpkin or sorts, and not well educated.
If found these interesting quotes:
*
If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together.*
Journal of Discourses 6:6 Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
*
I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Hebrew, Latin, German, and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. *
Journal of Discourses 6:5 Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
*
I have now preached a little Latin, a little Hebrew, Greek, and German; and I have fulfilled all. I am not so big a fool as many have taken me to be. Ge Germans know that I read the German correctly.*
Journal of Discourses 6:10 –p. 11 Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
If found these interesting quotes:
*
If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together.*
Journal of Discourses 6:6 Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
*
I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Hebrew, Latin, German, and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. *
Journal of Discourses 6:5 Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
*
I have now preached a little Latin, a little Hebrew, Greek, and German; and I have fulfilled all. I am not so big a fool as many have taken me to be. Ge Germans know that I read the German correctly.*
Journal of Discourses 6:10 –p. 11 Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
- Status