More Discussion of LDS & Christian Tithing

[Patavium]

And Jesus. According to the JoD, the early Mormons in Utah taught that Jeus and the apostles were polygamists. That is the reason why the early Christians were so persecuted. The apostasy began when the last of the polygamist Apostles were killed off.

Of course Modern Mormons don’t teach that, and deny it when asked. It just sort of fell by the wayside.

But this is a derail. Let us get back to the modern LDS church, and tithing.

See this one for Tithing youtube.com/watch?v=VAQy7x7dsCg

Blessing from tithing? Entrance to Heaven by Tithing?

Pay tithing even if you have no money.

 

[garyo49]

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Mal 3:10)

Who could doubt the Lord’s word when he promises a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it? Tithing is not a burden but a marvelous blessing. It blesses the lives of those with faith enough to see beyond the coin in their pocket.

While I was growing up my father struggled to pay tithing. We likewise struggled to make ends meet. However, I have paid tithing faithfully my entire life and I promise you I have been blessed beyond measure. These blessings are not limited to monetary means. Those are perhaps the least of the blessings.

Tithing is a measure a faith. The temple is a place of covenant making and keeping. The Lord blesses and expects more of those who make such covenants, just as he does with people who are baptized. To ensure those who enter are spiritually prepared they are asked if they are a full tithe payer (earning statements are not shown it is a simple “yes” or “no” question). It is not to prevent the poor from entering. Any person claiming such is judging motive without understanding.

The promlem with mormon tithing is that it is extorted out of you. If you are mormon the only way to eternal salvation is by, among other things, participating in temple ordinances that were borrowed from the Masons by brother Joseph two months after becoming a Mason himself. Your temple ordinances have never had anything to do with Christianity or Solomans temple. As for being “blessed beyond measure”, I know many mormons that have struggled all of their lives and suffered many calamities and were full tithe payers.

I personally have been “blessed beyond measure”, I have a wonderful wife of forty-three years, wonderful and very productive children and grandchildren, retired from my family’s very profitable construction company with a nice pension and a fifty percent share of company profits. There are millions of people just like me that have been “blessed beyond measure” and never paid a cent of mormon tithing. Maintainance of the Church is one of our precepts and we Catholics take it seriously, but what I give is between me and the Lord, not between me and the bishop. See, Jan that is the problem. You mormons make sure that you pay, and pay EVERY cent possible. What does that sound like? It sounds like everything short of the pistol to the head.

Last summer Father mentioned at the end of a Sunday Mass that our parish was struggling a little bit financially. He said that there was an insert in that weeks buletin discussing the problem. The insert said that we were running behind every week because the economy here is still struggling. Anyway, the bulletin insert said that if everyone that was currently donating would just keep donating what they were, and those that weren’t would donate just $5.00 a week, we would be fine. Now compare that to mormon tithing which is ten percent of GROSS income. That means before you even pay your taxes. BTW, the mormon church’s 2 billion dollar plus shopping mall in Salt Lake just opened. I wonder where that money came from. The mormon church will tell you that no TITHING money was use for it, but since mormon people (the sheeple) don’t even care that the mormon church won’t give them an accounting of their finances, no one will ever know. Now that is definitly following the prophet, right Jan?

 

[truthsave]

Now, whether Catholics interpret the verses the same way we do, I don’t know, but that is how we interpret them.

 

[truthsave]

TAO1:

Now, whether Catholics interpret the verses the same way we do, I don’t know, but that is how we interpret them.

No, no, no. It is just a question of loosing the basic good sense to justify his own emotional, and I repeat emotional world. Justifying his own emotional world is the path to the individualism and each own “goodness” and godness". The last term maybe not regular but I made it up and I think it is of easy access for mormons.
It is not a question of interpretation.
There were people very close to St. Paul. They knew what he was talking about. If what he was talking about was remotely close to what you call mormon “interpretation” it would have been shown by them. It is not difficult.
If I go to learn cooking directly from a master and then I become a cook and tramsmet what I have learnt fro him do you really think somebody that has never had any contact with my master would be really be in the position to say he knows what he wanted to say better then me that I have spent few years next to him? Don’t you think I had enough time with him to clarify some points better then who didn’t spend not even 5 min. with him?
It doesn’t matter. This anylogy would cut out your world out so just turn it your way so you could make your world survive.

If Milton in his Paradise Lost had made Satan say: “It is better to reign in hell then to serve in aradise” for a mormon it would be: “better to feel well in the dim light of a lie then be tourmented by the bright light of the truth”

 

[TAO1]

Where is there a commandment for tithing? Tithing is an Old Testament concept. The tithe was a requirement of the law in which all Israelites were to give 10 percent of everything they earned and grew to the Tabernacle/Temple (Leviticus 27:30; Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 14:24; 2 Chronicles 31:5). In fact, the Old Testament Law required multiple tithes which would have pushed the total to around 23.3 percent, not the 10 percent which is generally considered the tithe amount today. Some understand the Old Testament tithe as a method of taxation to provide for the needs of the priests and Levites in the sacrificial system. The New Testament nowhere commands, or even recommends, that Christians submit to a legalistic tithe system. Paul states that believers should set aside a portion of their income in order to support the church (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

Yes, tithing as a commandment comes in the Old Testament. I believe personally that this law still applies today. In any case, it is also commanded to pay tithing in the Doctrine and Covenants (which would be scriptural to LDS), and so, regardless of whether the verse in Malachi should be restricted to the Old Testament, I am commanded to pay it (and feel like I should anyways =p)

The New Testament also mentions tithes (though it doesn’t command) in Luke 18:12, and in Matthew 23:23. (In case you wanted some extra references or something).

The New Testament nowhere designates a percentage of income a person should set aside, but only says it is to be “in keeping with income” (1 Corinthians 16:2). Some in the Christian church have taken the 10 percent figure from the Old Testament tithe and applied it as a “recommended minimum” for Christians in their giving. The New Testament talks about the importance and benefits of giving.

Mmmm… I wouldn’t assume the law of tithing is invalid simply because it is in the Old Testament though.

We are to give as we are able. Sometimes that means giving more than 10 percent; sometimes that may mean giving less. It all depends on the ability of the Christian and the needs of the church. Every Christian should diligently pray and seek God’s wisdom in the matter of participating in tithing and/or how much to give (James 1:5). Above all, all tithes and offerings should be given with pure motives and an attitude of worship to God and service to the body of Christ. “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

Of course.

 

[TAO1]

Personal opinion/practice then?

We all have personal opinions and practices

Neither of those say anything about salvation being separate from eternal destiny.

In my interpretation, they do.

Where did Jesus command tithing?

His prophet’s commanded it in Malachi.

Jesus reiterated it in the Book of Mormon and reiterated it again in the Doctrine and Covenants.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean saying, “Thanks Jesus!”, with real sincerity, means you have lost yourself?

No, I’m saying that because of my gratitude, I will lose myself in service to him. Sorry if that wasn’t clear =p.

 

[TAO1]

No, no, no. It is just a question of loosing the basic good sense to justify his own emotional, and I repeat emotional world. Justifying his own emotional world is the path to the individualism and each own “goodness” and godness". The last term maybe not regular but I made it up and I think it is of easy access for mormons.

You may believe that if you want to.

It is not a question of interpretation.
There were people very close to St. Paul. They knew what he was talking about. If what he was talking about was remotely close to what you call mormon “interpretation” it would have been shown by them. It is not difficult.

Who are these people? The New Testament was written many years after the death of Paul. The people who wrote the books of the NT likely didn’t even know Paul personally.

And furthermore, what is your interpretation of these verses? What do you think they mean by celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial?

I believe in modern-day-revelation, and so, I have no problem supporting my interpretation from my own point of view. Could you please explain how you support your own interpretation from your own point of view? Thanks.

If I go to learn cooking directly from a master and then I become a cook and tramsmet what I have learnt fro him do you really think somebody that has never had any contact with my master would be really be in the position to say he knows what he wanted to say better then me that I have spent few years next to him?

What if you learned cooking from a cook who learned it from a cook who learned it from a cook who learned it from the master cook. Don’t you think the recipes could have changed a bit? Not that I’m saying we know, but, I think my interpretation of the verse is just as valid as yours is. Can you please show me why you think my interpretation is incorrect, and why you think yours is the correct one.

Don’t you think I had enough time with him to clarify some points better then who didn’t spend not even 5 min. with him?

LDS believe in modern-day-prophets. While the New Testament has existed for many thousands of years (and thus the interpretation if we simply trust language isn’t very clear), modern-day-prophets give clear meanings behind the verse. I know you don’t believe in these prophets, but I do. And I am happy that they give clear language, that, is (at least in my opinion) sometimes a bit obscure in the scriptures.

It doesn’t matter. This anylogy would cut out your world out so just turn it your way so you could make your world survive.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Sorry =(.

If Milton in his Paradise Lost had made Satan say: “It is better to reign in hell then to serve in aradise” for a mormon it would be: “better to feel well in the dim light of a lie then be tourmented by the bright light of the truth”

You can believe that if you want to. =p

 

[TAO1]

How about mormons claim to direct ancestry to the apostles?

youtube.com/watch?v=f5x0wjT9Uq8 see 2:40

Patavium, I’m sorry to say this… but I really don’t like responding to Youtube videos… (it’s a small pet peeve since videos don’t talk back) I prefer responding to the people themselves. Could you please detail the question you would like me to respond to here? Thanks.

Actually… knowing things… it’d probably be better in a new thread.

Best of Wishes,
-TAO

 

[Patavium]

Hi Tao,

The videos are supported by the Mormon organization.

Basically, two questions.

First

How come mormons claim that their line is traced back to apostles and Jesus Christ itself?

wasn’t Joseph Smith not alive during the times of the Roman Empire?

Second

How come an Elder of the Mormon Organization claims that Tithing must be done even if there is not enough money to sustain the family, and that those who Tithed receive blessings from Mormon god?

See the video where it clearly says this. Also by the Mormon organization.

 

[NewSeeker]

Who are these people? The New Testament was written many years after the death of Paul. The people who wrote the books of the NT likely didn’t even know Paul personally.

Much of the New Testament was written while Paul was still alive. In the case of Paul’s letters, they really were written by Paul - presumably he wrote them while still alive. Acts and Luke were both written by Luke, who knew Paul personally. Acts cuts off the story while Paul is still alive. It’s reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Paul was still living when Luke wrapped up his letter to Theophilus.

And furthermore, what is your interpretation of these verses? What do you think they mean by celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial?

The surrounding verses of 1 Cor 15 indicate that Paul is talking about the nature of resurrected bodies, not heavenly kingdoms. Terrestrial=earthly, mortal; celestial=heavenly, resurrected. The verses don’t mean what you think they mean. Joseph Smith’s interpolation (adding ‘Telestial’ to the verse) was just that - an interpolation. It never was included in the original.

I believe in modern-day-revelation, and so, I have no problem supporting my interpretation from my own point of view. Could you please explain how you support your own interpretation from your own point of view? Thanks.

The authority issue is the crux of the matter. We can swap interpretations as long as we like without any progress. The scriptures don’t speak for themselves; we need an authoritative voice to help us understand. On this Catholics and Mormons agree. I’ll tell you why I’m a Catholic. We Catholics support our own interpretation based on the Tradition handed down to us by the apostles through the bishops, the same Tradition that gave you your Bible (well, except for a few OT books that Martin Luther didn’t like and took out on his own authority). 2,000 years of documentary and historical evidence supports the Catholic view. You believe in modern-day-revelation based on the word of Joseph Smith and (presumably) your own personal spiritual witness (aka warm, fuzzy feelings) received after putting Moroni 10:3-5 to the test. Of course, as a Catholic, I think Joseph Smith is not a credible witness. Lying about polygamy, the Book of Abraham problem, the Kirtland Bank debacle, the fact that prior to 1830 he was a money-digger and confidence man are all indications that all is not well behind the Zion Curtain in Utah. Among other problems. That is why I am no longer a Mormon. I don’t mean to offend but that’s how I see Joseph Smith, as a con man. His (and the LDS Church’s) interpretations are therefore not reliable. For me, that’s what it comes down to. The same applies to everything the LDS Church says about tithing.

 

[TAO1]

How come mormons claim that their line is traced back to apostles and Jesus Christ itself?

Very simply, we believe that the line was restored later after being lost, by several angelic messsengers (the first begin John the Baptists, the later ones being Peter, James, and John). You can see this here: lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng It’s in v. 68-72. You can also see it here, in the Doctrine and Covenants: lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/27.12?lang=eng#11

So there wasn’t really a need to be around during the times of the apostles, because, it was restored by some of them later.

How come an Elder of the Mormon Organization claims that Tithing must be done even if there is not enough money to sustain the family, and that those who Tithed receive blessings from Mormon god?

They don’t. It’s up to the Bishop’s Digression. Most people have the money to pay the 10% though. And many who are rather tight on their money still pay it (because it works).

You still receive blessings if you don’t pay tithing (God’s blessing us with tiny little things all of the time. You just won’t receive as many blessings, which is, kinda a downer, because the blessings God gives you from tithing can be really big.

Also by the Mormon organization.

You can believe that if you want. I don’t believe that =p.

 

[TAO1]

Much of the New Testament was written while Paul was still alive. In the case of Paul’s letters, they really were written by Paul - presumably he wrote them while still alive. Acts and Luke were both written by Luke, who knew Paul personally. Acts cuts off the story while Paul is still alive. It’s reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Paul was still living when Luke wrapped up his letter to Theophilus.

Do you mind if I ask for a source on this one. Thanks =).

The surrounding verses of 1 Cor 15 indicate that Paul is talking about the nature of resurrected bodies, not heavenly kingdoms. Terrestrial=earthly, mortal; celestial=heavenly, resurrected. The verses don’t mean what you think they mean. Joseph Smith’s interpolation (adding ‘Telestial’ to the verse) was just that - an interpolation. It never was included in the original.

That would be a good interpretation of it. There is a problem though. In v 41, it talks about the glory of the stars. If Terrestrial is the glory of the moon, and celestial is the glory of the sun, what is the glory of the stars in your paradigm?

And yeah, I know that telestial wasn’t included in the original. Glory of the stars was (that’s what the word telestial was created off of). But yeah… you probably already know I don’t need something to be in the original to believe it (judging by your next section).

The authority issue is the crux of the matter. We can swap interpretations as long as we like without any progress. The scriptures don’t speak for themselves; we need an authoritative voice to help us understand. On this Catholics and Mormons agree. I’ll tell you why I’m a Catholic. We Catholics support our own interpretation based on the Tradition handed down to us by the apostles through the bishops, the same Tradition that gave you your Bible (well, except for a few OT books that Martin Luther didn’t like and took out on his own authority). 2,000 years of documentary and historical evidence supports the Catholic view. You believe in modern-day-revelation based on the word of Joseph Smith and (presumably) your own personal spiritual witness (aka warm, fuzzy feelings) received after putting Moroni 10:3-5 to the test. Of course, as a Catholic, I think Joseph Smith is not a credible witness. Lying about polygamy, the Book of Abraham problem, the Kirtland Bank debacle, the fact that prior to 1830 he was a money-digger and confidence man are all indications that all is not well behind the Zion Curtain in Utah. Among other problems. That is why I am no longer a Mormon. I don’t mean to offend but that’s how I see Joseph Smith, as a con man. His (and the LDS Church’s) interpretations are therefore not reliable. For me, that’s what it comes down to. The same applies to everything the LDS Church says about tithing.

Yes, you are right, we do have different interpretations, because of our different authorities, but that is okay. We will simply agree to disagree =).

On the other hand, I am glad that you understand about different interpretations with different authorities. That is one that people often have a hard time understanding and such. And that means less head-banging for both of us.

Best of Wishes,
-TAO

 

[NewSeeker]

Do you mind if I ask for a source on this one. Thanks =).

Regarding Paul’s letters, the evidence is internal; he identifies himself right at the start. Regarding Luke/Acts, the books are anonymous, the evidence is not as definitive as for Paul’s letters, but I’m sure you’ve seen this from the LDS bible dictionary: lds.org/scriptures/bd/luke?lang=eng&letter=l. There’s also the ancient witnesses on which the dictionary entry is based: the internal evidences in Acts and in Paul’s letters; second century statements from the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.

That would be a good interpretation of it. There is a problem though. In v 41, it talks about the glory of the stars. If Terrestrial is the glory of the moon, and celestial is the glory of the sun, what is the glory of the stars in your paradigm?

The correct interpretation depends on the context and on the Apostolic Tradition preserved in the Catholic Church - which clearly indicates Paul is talking about resurrected bodies. Not kingdoms. The meaning of the phrase “glory of the stars” must be interpreted in that context, the contest of “with what [resurrected] body are they raised?”. There is no other interpretation. Joseph Smith’s view is highly imaginative, but wrong.

And yeah, I know that telestial wasn’t included in the original. Glory of the stars was (that’s what the word telestial was created off of). But yeah… you probably already know I don’t need something to be in the original to believe it (judging by your next section).

Yup, when push comes to shove it all goes back to the warm fuzzy feelings that Mormons experience when seeking a testimony. No amount of actual historical and documentary evidence can counteract such feelings once they’re interpreted as coming from God. In the end, discussions such as these usually end up as a waste of time.

Yes, you are right, we do have different interpretations, because of our different authorities, but that is okay. We will simply agree to disagree =).

Fine by me. If you want to base your testimony on the word of a known confidence man, that’s your affair.

On the other hand, I am glad that you understand about different interpretations with different authorities. That is one that people often have a hard time understanding and such. And that means less head-banging for both of us.

Indeed. As there is zero historical or documentary evidence for an imagined Great Apostasy, it really does come down to the word of Joseph Smith versus the unbroken Tradition and witness of the Catholic Church.

Have a great weekend!

 

[TexanKnight]

Very simply, we believe that the line was restored later after being lost, by several angelic messsengers (the first begin John the Baptists, the later ones being Peter, James, and John). You can see this here: lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng It’s in v. 68-72. You can also see it here, in the Doctrine and Covenants: lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/27.12?lang=eng#11

So there wasn’t really a need to be around during the times of the apostles, because, it was restored by some of them later.

Actually, LDS can only trace any “authority” back to Joseph Smith. Anything else is relying on his story of visitations. But, this is the same guy who was a convicted con man and who had nine versions of an alleged first vision.

They don’t. It’s up to the Bishop’s Digression. Most people have the money to pay the 10% though. And many who are rather tight on their money still pay it (because it works).

Actually, it does not work. When I was LDS, we had families who paid their tithing and lost their jobs and homes. They could have used to tithing money for rent and food, but instead lost everything.

You still receive blessings if you don’t pay tithing (God’s blessing us with tiny little things all of the time. You just won’t receive as many blessings, which is, kinda a downer, because the blessings God gives you from tithing can be really big.

In the LDS Church, you must pay for God’s Blessings. You are constantly told that IF you pay, God will bless you. I had no idea God’s Blessings were for sale.

Be Blessed

 

[TAO1]

Actually, LDS can only trace any “authority” back to Joseph Smith. Anything else is relying on his story of visitations. But, this is the same guy who was a convicted con man and who had nine versions of an alleged first vision.

Of course all of the authority relies on whether his story is true or not. Wouldn’t that be kinda obvious… just sayin’ =p.

Mmmm… you can believe he’s a con man if you want. I don’t.

Eh, I don’t expect anybody to tell a story in the exact same way every time. Just sayin’.

Actually, it does not work. When I was LDS, we had families who paid their tithing and lost their jobs and homes. They could have used to tithing money for rent and food, but instead lost everything.

And I’ve met those who had the faith to get through.

In the LDS Church, you must pay for God’s Blessings. You are constantly told that IF you pay, God will bless you. I had no idea God’s Blessings were for sale.

You can believe that if it makes you comfortable.

I am told if I sacrifice for the Lord, I will receive his blessings.

 

[TAO1]

Regarding Paul’s letters, the evidence is internal; he identifies himself right at the start. Regarding Luke/Acts, the books are anonymous, the evidence is not as definitive as for Paul’s letters, but I’m sure you’ve seen this from the LDS bible dictionary: lds.org/scriptures/bd/luke?lang=eng&letter=l. There’s also the ancient witnesses on which the dictionary entry is based: the internal evidences in Acts and in Paul’s letters; second century statements from the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.

Naturally, but what I mean is how do you know it is not an abridgment.

The correct interpretation depends on the context and on the Apostolic Tradition preserved in the Catholic Church - which clearly indicates Paul is talking about resurrected bodies. Not kingdoms. The meaning of the phrase “glory of the stars” must be interpreted in that context, the contest of “with what [resurrected] body are they raised?”. There is no other interpretation. Joseph Smith’s view is highly imaginative, but wrong.

That’s where we’d disagree - I don’t believe in the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church. And if the glory of the stars refers to what type of body they are raised with, that would seem to signify what I was trying to aim at by posting the verse in the first place… that salvation and eternal destiny are different.

So we will have to agree to disagree there as well.

Yup, when push comes to shove it all goes back to the warm fuzzy feelings that Mormons experience when seeking a testimony.

That’s what it all goes back to, yes. Everything.

No amount of actual historical and documentary evidence can counteract such feelings once they’re interpreted as coming from God. In the end, discussions such as these usually end up as a waste of time.

Shrugs I’m not here to convince anybody. On the other hand, I do feel a need to correct supposed Mormon beliefs.

Fine by me. If you want to base your testimony on the word of a known confidence man, that’s your affair.

Thanks.

Indeed. As there is zero historical or documentary evidence for an imagined Great Apostasy, it really does come down to the word of Joseph Smith versus the unbroken Tradition and witness of the Catholic Church.

You can believe that if you want. I’m not the sort who goes around criticizing other’s religions, and so, it’s not really my wish to explain it. I have heard of books that explain the apostasy in great detail though, if you really want to know.

Have a great weekend!

You too =).

 

[NewSeeker]

Naturally, but what I mean is how do you know it is not an abridgment.

How do you know that it is abridged? The burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion; you can’t prove a negative. All we have is the surviving copies of original manuscripts and those show a remarkable degree of consistency (speaking of Paul’s letters, for instance). The consistency is evident across time (from the earliest complete 2nd Century manuscripts to copies from later centuries) and space (the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types). Of course, you could argue that the supposed redactions occurred in the late 1st-early 2nd centuries, but then you need to provide evidence of the editing. There is none apart from, perhaps, asserting the existence of a cabal of wicked priests (as some LDS church leaders and the BoM suggest). But then, what’s your documentary evidence of the conspiracy? There is none. The burden of proof for the abridgement hypothesis (aka the idea that plain and precious truths were eliminated from the originals) is on the one making the assertion. And, of course, there is no valid evidence that Mormons possess to support that hypothesis. apart from their warm, fuzzy feelings.

 

[NewSeeker]

You can believe that if you want. I’m not the sort who goes around criticizing other’s religions, and so, it’s not really my wish to explain it. I have heard of books that explain the apostasy in great detail though, if you really want to know.

Perhaps you’re speaking of Talmadge’s “Great Apostasy”? It’s the seminal LDS work in the area. There are others, more recent. None that I’ve read actually use the the full range of the most ancient authorities to support their claim. Instead it’s cherry picking a few isolated verses wrenched out of context and pointing to instances of corruption to support the claim. Of course, the foundation of the LDS argument is the verses in Acts the describe the replacement of Judas. But those verses, too, are wrenched out of context. The fact is, there is no evidence for eternal marriage, the endowment, plurality of gods, the Mormon notion of exaltation, polygamy, masonic hand grips, three degrees of glory, and other key mormon doctrines and practices in the early church. Joseph Smith made the whole thing up.:tsktsk: There is no evidence a Great Apostasy occurred save the word of Joseph Smith.

 

[TAO1]

How do you know that it is abridged? The burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion; you can’t prove a negative. All we have is the surviving copies of original manuscripts and those show a remarkable degree of consistency (speaking of Paul’s letters, for instance). The consistency is evident across time (from the earliest complete 2nd Century manuscripts to copies from later centuries) and space (the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types). Of course, you could argue that the supposed redactions occurred in the late 1st-early 2nd centuries, but then you need to provide evidence of the editing. There is none apart from, perhaps, asserting the existence of a cabal of wicked priests (as some LDS church leaders and the BoM suggest). But then, what’s your documentary evidence of the conspiracy? There is none. The burden of proof for the abridgement hypothesis (aka the idea that plain and precious truths were eliminated from the originals) is on the one making the assertion. And, of course, there is no valid evidence that Mormons possess to support that hypothesis. apart from their warm, fuzzy feelings.

I don’t, my friend. On the other hand, I do know you don’t know whether or not it was handed down directly. In other words, we can assume nothing. We don’t know if it was altered, or if it wasn’t.

And yes, the burden of proof is on the person making the assumption. But we both made assumptions, believe it or not. I made the assumption that there was editing. You made the assumption there wasn’t. And yes, you are required to supply evidence just as much as I - the default theory is not accepted by default so to say. The truth is, the most we can really say is we don’t know.

 

[TAO1]

Perhaps you’re speaking of Talmadge’s “Great Apostasy”? It’s the seminal LDS work in the area. There are others, more recent. None that I’ve read actually use the the full range of the most ancient authorities to support their claim. Instead it’s cherry picking a few isolated verses wrenched out of context and pointing to instances of corruption to support the claim. Of course, the foundation of the LDS argument is the verses in Acts the describe the replacement of Judas. But those verses, too, are wrenched out of context. The fact is, there is no evidence for eternal marriage, the endowment, plurality of gods, the Mormon notion of exaltation, polygamy, masonic hand grips, three degrees of glory, and other key mormon doctrines and practices in the early church. Joseph Smith made the whole thing up.:tsktsk: There is no evidence a Great Apostasy occurred save the word of Joseph Smith.

So, you assert that all of those books don’t use valid examples whatsoever? I find that hard to believe =p.

There is evidence, actually, for all of those things. Eternal Marriage finds evidence in Rabbinacal writings. The endowment finds evidence in old Temple Studies. Plurality of Gods finds evidence in translating the first verse of Genesis literally. The three degrees of Glory, I’m not quite sure about, but I’m sure they have found evidence there.

The thing is, most of this ‘evidence’ isn’t published very well. You essentially have to go to Mormon sources, in order to find it. That’s probably why you haven’t seen it.