More Discussion of LDS & Christian Tithing

[NewSeeker]

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.

It’s reasonable to conclude there was no extensive editing since there is no evidence of such editing. That is the consistent view of Christians for nearly two millenia. The Mormons come along very late in the game and claim and Apostasy and editing occurred. Contrary to your view, I am not required to provide evidence that no editing occurred as no amount of evidence - in principle - can be gathered to prove a negative. In fact, I carefully posed my hypothesis in positive form and noted the remarkable consistency in the manuscripts across time and space. Turning it around and pretending that the Catholic view is based on an assumption posed in negative form is just a Mormon dodge used to excuse them from the requirement to defend their claims about the Apostasy. Sorry, but the burden of proof is always on those who make positive claims and is therefore on you. But I do understand why you would want to argue that there is no evidence that editing did not occur. Such unfalsifiable negative hypotheses are the only defense Mormons have - apart from the warm fuzzies in their bosoms.

 

[NewSeeker]

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.

I know all the Mormon sources very well. I was raised in the church, sixth generation, baptized at 8, schooling and young adulthood in suburban SLC, four year seminary grad, honorable 25(!) month mission (zone leader and so forth and yes, I voluntarily extended for the extra month), temple marriage, callings magnified, tithing, etc. etc. As I said, the only evidence Mormons have for an Apostasy and for the supposed presence of Mormon teachings in the ancient witnesses is scriptural verses and excerpts of Church Father writings wrenched out of context. There isn’t any argument or evidence that you can present that I haven’t already heard or read or taught to Gospel Doctrine classes or investigators many, many times. Of course, now that I’m an ex-mormon Catholic apostate, that obviously proves that I don’t know anything about Mormonism, or so certain relatives and ‘friends’ keep telling me.

 

[garyo49]

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.

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.

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.

My mormon wife has more reverence for Joseph Smith than she does for our Lord Jesus. I sent her an email one time, I can’t remember the subject, but I said “who would you believe, Joseph or Jesus”? She came flying out of the bedroom and said to me, “I don’t believe that and I don’t believe you”. The problem was that what Jesus said contradicted mormonism and Joseph Smith.:bowdown:

 

[garyo49]

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

TAO, go through this thread and see my posts on this subject, OK.

 

[truthsave]

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.

You prefer it was altered. Jesus never said he was going to be altered in ANY WAY.

Editing: historical continuation of a message. The heart of the message. If there was an editing, there was not an editing in the core of the message. What your father told you you can alter. But I Cshould believe in you reporting what your father told you then believing in me affirming I restored what he have told you.

Default theory?

Christian knowledge comes from history, from real men, fro mpeople called marthyr (of course not like Joseph Smith) that to preserved the message with their lives. To these Saints all you mormons, are insulting their sacrifice. Mormon knowledge comes from prefering to believe, for no reason, that all was lost. Where? How? Why? Against even to Jesus own words.

OF course you can answer that I can believe this if I want and of course you can tell me this, just it is a little childish way of putting things. My believing is not anchored in what I want or don’t want to believe. If was like that my believes were fantasy anchored. Myself would be the “master” that would pass things.
Your master is Joseph Smith.
The master of Christianity is Jesus Christ. He is the Word. The Word doesn’t need a restauration.
Your word or my word could one day need restauration, not Jesus one. Since HE is the Word.

But you mormons that picture God the Father as an exalted man, you don’t want to grasp this.
You treat God as a man.
You treat the Son as a man.
At that point you are right. If they are simply exalted men their word one day would need to be restoured like the word of your prophets. For this reason you have a " continuous revelation".
If somebody doesn’t have the truth he has to keep up with partial truths that of course changes according to times and expecially human needs.
Christian have to change according to the Word to be different.
Mormon change the Word to be the same good all men.
Mormon are conservatory. Chrsitians are absolutely revolutionary.(in their inside life of course. they respect the order where they live). Christians live in this world but don’t belong to this world.
Mormon live in this world and they belong so much to this world that not to be separated from it they translated ti and its values in the after life.

God bless you and lift the veil of your heart.

 

[NewSeeker]

My mormon wife has more reverence for Joseph Smith than she does for our Lord Jesus. I sent her an email one time, I can’t remember the subject, but I said “who would you believe, Joseph or Jesus”? She came flying out of the bedroom and said to me, “I don’t believe that and I don’t believe you”. The problem was that what Jesus said contradicted mormonism and Joseph Smith.:bowdown:

I’ve had similar experiences with family members and in-laws. Once, when I presented clear evidence of Joseph Smith’s evasions and contradictions my mom raised her arm to the square, invoked the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and commanded me not to malign The Prophet. Another time, I asked her what she would do if Joseph Smith’s hand-written “I made it all up!” confession was found, authenticated by handwriting experts. She told me she would just assume that Satan made him write it. She KNOWS the church is true, you see. The Spirit told her so.

 

[garyo49]

HEY! They use that tithing money so all those poor people can have chapels so they can go and be bored three hours a week!

When I handed my last check in, about 2 months ago, I told the member of the bishopric “this is my LAST mall payment”. He just kinda chuckled

I wish you would have given that money to some homeless guy. It would have done way more good. Anyway, God bless you on your journey.

 

[TAO1]

It’s reasonable to conclude there was no extensive editing since there is no evidence of such editing. That is the consistent view of Christians for nearly two millenia. The Mormons come along very late in the game and claim and Apostasy and editing occurred. Contrary to your view, I am not required to provide evidence that no editing occurred as no amount of evidence - in principle - can be gathered to prove a negative. In fact, I carefully posed my hypothesis in positive form and noted the remarkable consistency in the manuscripts across time and space. Turning it around and pretending that the Catholic view is based on an assumption posed in negative form is just a Mormon dodge used to excuse them from the requirement to defend their claims about the Apostasy. Sorry, but the burden of proof is always on those who make positive claims and is therefore on you. But I do understand why you would want to argue that there is no evidence that editing did not occur. Such unfalsifiable negative hypotheses are the only defense Mormons have - apart from the warm fuzzies in their bosoms.

It’s only reasonable to assert this if you are not using it as an authority. But you are using them as an authority, so you have to justify your belief that there wasn’t such editing. And, yes, it is impossible to prove a negative. That’s one reason it’s a good idea that you don’t use negative assertions.

And yes, it is a dodge… dodges are fun, kinda =p.

And I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there; I think burden of proof is not on positive claims. It is on all claims, imho.

 

[NewSeeker]

And I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there; I think burden of proof is not on positive claims. It is on all claims, imho.

Well, I suppose if someone did make a negative claim then they would need to provide some evidence. Of course, that’s an impossible task; such claims are unfalsifiable by nature. Only hacks and conspiracy theorists make such claims in the first place. As I said, your persistent recasting of positive Catholic claims about the apostolic succession as a negative claim is just a dodge.

 

[TAO1]

I know all the Mormon sources very well. I was raised in the church, sixth generation, baptized at 8, schooling and young adulthood in suburban SLC, four year seminary grad, honorable 25(!) month mission (zone leader and so forth and yes, I voluntarily extended for the extra month), temple marriage, callings magnified, tithing, etc. etc. As I said, the only evidence Mormons have for an Apostasy and for the supposed presence of Mormon teachings in the ancient witnesses is scriptural verses and excerpts of Church Father writings wrenched out of context. There isn’t any argument or evidence that you can present that I haven’t already heard or read or taught to Gospel Doctrine classes or investigators many, many times.

Well, apparently you don’t know them well enough to know there is evidence. You should spend some time browsing MD&D, probably… you could find the stuff I’m talking about in the archives there.

I haven’t researched the apostacy, so, I can’t really tell how well the books are on it (nor would I really want to, as I said, I don’t really like critiquing other religions). But, I can say that I have a good feeling that they did a better job that you said they did.

On the other hand, I do know that there is evidence for Mormon teachings outside of the excerpts of Church Fathers (though there is some good ones from there too). Especially for exaltation… there is so much evidence for that… even outside of our faith tradition, where they view it differently… that, well, that one’s pretty much set. I think you should do a bit more research, in any case.

No offenses intended,
-TAO

 

[TAO1]

My mormon wife has more reverence for Joseph Smith than she does for our Lord Jesus. I sent her an email one time, I can’t remember the subject, but I said “who would you believe, Joseph or Jesus”? She came flying out of the bedroom and said to me, “I don’t believe that and I don’t believe you”. The problem was that what Jesus said contradicted mormonism and Joseph Smith.:bowdown:

Lol. I think what she was saying was that she doesn’t believe they contradict. =p.

 

[NewSeeker]

Well, apparently you don’t know them well enough to know there is evidence. You should spend some time browsing MD&D, probably… you could find the stuff I’m talking about in the archives there.

I haven’t researched the apostacy, so, I can’t really tell how well the books are on it (nor would I really want to, as I said, I don’t really like critiquing other religions). But, I can say that I have a good feeling that they did a better job that you said they did.

On the other hand, I do know that there is evidence for Mormon teachings outside of the excerpts of Church Fathers (though there is some good ones from there too). Especially for exaltation… there is so much evidence for that… even outside of our faith tradition, where they view it differently… that, well, that one’s pretty much set. I think you should do a bit more research, in any case.

No offenses intended,
-TAO

MD&D aka the board that quotes the Maxwell Institute aka the old F.A.R.M.S.? I know the literature those BYU folks publish well. They point mainly to certain early church fathers who discuss theosis and say “see? they’re talking about exaltation!” It’s just more quoting out of context. Anyone can cherry pick quotes to support a viewpoint. As a Catholic, I actually find it offensive that they stake a claim to the ECFs who discuss theosis - all of whom were catholic! They were Trinitarians each and every one of them.

 

[TAO1]

Well, I suppose if someone did make a negative claim then they would need to provide some evidence. Of course, that’s an impossible task; such claims are unfalsifiable by nature. Only hacks and conspiracy theorists make such claims in the first place. As I said, your persistent recasting of positive Catholic claims about the apostolic succession as a negative claim is just a dodge.

Nah, you misunderstand, I’m not trying to recast Catholic claims. I’m trying to recast their authority as it is used to evaluate other religions. I have no problem if you believe that there was no changes on your own. On the other hand, I can ask for you to provide evidence if you assert it was the case to me, who is not of your faith (as if it was authority).

Really, I’m not trying to undermine your beliefs, ok? =)

In any case, I gtg, it may be a while before I respond.

 

[garyo49]

Well, I suppose if someone did make a negative claim then they would need to provide some evidence. Of course, that’s an impossible task; such claims are unfalsifiable by nature. Only hacks and conspiracy theorists make such claims in the first place. As I said, your persistent recasting of positive Catholic claims about the apostolic succession as a negative claim is just a dodge.

WOULD EVERYONE STOP ASKING MORMON QUESTIONS. I FOR ONE AM TIRED OF THIS:newidea:

 

[NewSeeker]

Nah, you misunderstand, I’m not trying to recast Catholic claims. I’m trying to recast their authority as it is used to evaluate other religions. I have no problem if you believe that there was no changes on your own. On the other hand, I can ask for you to provide evidence if you assert it was the case to me, who is not of your faith (as if it was authority).

Really, I’m not trying to undermine your beliefs, ok? =)

In any case, I gtg, it may be a while before I respond.

Ok by me. I didn’t take it that way. But it does seem like you’re sidestepping the issue that it does come down to two competing positive claims: 1) a remarkable consistency in documentary witnesses since the early 2nd century and 2) manuscripts that have been edited substantially. I don’t need to tell you which one is the Mormon claim. The problem is that there is evidence to support the former; there is no evidence to support the latter, apart from the word of JS and those warm fuzzies I keep mentioning.

 

[NewSeeker]

WOULD EVERYONE STOP ASKING MORMON QUESTIONS. I FOR ONE AM TIRED OF THIS:newidea:

I got tired of the Mormon questions myself a while back and took a break. But I thought I’d dive in again on a couple of them that interest me. I don’t think they’ll go away as long as there are Mormons knocking on doors. Maybe move on to some other threads for a while?

 

[Jerusha]

  	  				 					Join Date: July 21, 2010
  			Location: Southwest USA
  			 					 						Posts: 55

  	 			 		  		 		 			 			**WOULD EVERYONE STOP ASKING MORMON QUESTIONS.  I FOR ONE AM TIRED OF THIS**:newidea:

Gary, although you joined some time ago, you have only logged 55 posts. You have only begun to fight. Us old hands know that this will go on until there are no more Mormon missionaries. I, for one, am glad to step back and watch others learn.

 

[RebeccaJ]

His prophet’s commanded it in Malachi.

You do understand Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets? The sacrifices commanded in the OT were for the Chosen people of God, the Jews. These sacrificial practices prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus, Who is the fulfillment of all the OT sacrificial practices.

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

No offense intended, but I see no reason to accept these writings as anything but a sort of fan fiction.

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

OK, but what I asked is, do you tie your sacrifice of tithing to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? I didn’t ask about gratitude and service.

Jesus Christ is God’s Perfect Sacrifices. Sacrifices given for the sake of sacrificing, are meaningless, unless they are tied to the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is why I ask.

 

[TAO1]

Ok by me. I didn’t take it that way. But it does seem like you’re sidestepping the issue that it does come down to two competing positive claims: 1) a remarkable consistency in documentary witnesses since the early 2nd century and 2) manuscripts that have been edited substantially. I don’t need to tell you which one is the Mormon claim. The problem is that there is evidence to support the former; there is no evidence to support the latter, apart from the word of JS and those warm fuzzies I keep mentioning.

NewSeeker, I think there are either 1) manuscripts that have been changed minorly or 2) interpretations that were not expressed clearly. You are exaggerating what I believe.

And yes, the warm fuzzies. You mean the Holy Ghost. That is essentially what everything comes down to, yes. Everything must be based on the Holy Ghost.

 

[RebeccaJ]

NewSeeker, I think there are either 1) manuscripts that have been changed minorly or 2) interpretations that were not expressed clearly. You are exaggerating what I believe.

And yes, the warm fuzzies. You mean the Holy Ghost. That is essentially what everything comes down to, yes. Everything must be based on the Holy Ghost.

Well the question is then, why would you believe the Holy Ghost abandoned Christ’s church in order that (1) and especially (2) would occur?

Serious question, yes it is.