Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_Robert F Smith]

Hope you have a great Christmas.

Thanks, I did.
Have a happy New Year, Themis.

[_Mittens]

Nice testimony to listen to


http://www.unveilinggrace.com/video/unv ... e_full.htm

[_Robert F Smith]

Nice testimony to listen to

http://www.unveilinggrace.com/video/unv ... e_full.htm

Thanks, BrianH Mittens.
I enjoyed watching this 55 min video. I have spent a large part of my life (decades) hanging out with evangelical christians and they tend to be very nice, well-intentioned people.
This particular film, "Unveiling Grace," was produced by the Main Street Church in Brigham City, UT (Sacred Groves Films).

RIght off the bat the Wilders and others in the film admitted that they were "naïve," and that they lived in a "Mormon bubble" -- they did not know that there was a life outside of Mormonism. They also admitted to having an extremely shallow or non-existent understanding of the Bible at the outset. Indeed, it is clear from their descriptions that they were unable to read and understand the biblical text due to that overwhelming naïvété, and failure to understand actual LDS doctrine. They wanted "to earn salvation." They believed that they had "to obey certain commandments to be worthy of God," and that they were saved by works (including proper ordinances). They interpreted "after all you can do" (2 Nephi 25:23, Alma 24:11; cf. 2 Nephi 10:24) naïvely and incorrectly, leaving no place for such essential principles as repentance.

They were unable to understand that the very same standards which they applied negatively to the LDS Church are equally damaging to evangelical christianity. That is they do not hesitate to apply a double standard.

They had the incorrect belief that other members of the LDS Church were hypocrites, and were only outwardly righteous. They did not understand that all LDS members come short of righteousness and perfection in this life. Moreover, they had the incorrect belief that LDS people cannot have a personal relationship with Christ.

They bore false witness that Christ is not in the Book of Mormon, except in one small section in 3rd Nephi, and stated that they had been "duped and deceived" (so Mrs. Wilder). They bore false witness that Mormons supposedly believe that evangelical christians get "saved" and then can commit any sin that they want. They bore false witness that Mormons discourage reading of the Bible, even though on national tests Mormons score higher than any other religion on knowledge of the Bible.

Warren's mother had pretended to raise him in the LDS Church, even though she did not believe in Mormonism. Does it occur to him that this is likely to have provided a false foundation?

"I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening, we have sinned against you." Richard J. Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary, in Salt Lake Tabernacle, Nov 2004, as quoted by Tom Thorkelsen in Latter-day Trumpet, 5/9 (Oct 2007), 6; cf. Richard J. Mouw’s harsh criticism of his fellow evangelicals for “bearing false witness against” Mormons (in the foreword to F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge [Zondervan, 2002], 11). See also RIchard J. Mouw, Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals (Eerdmans, 2012).

Dr. Mouw, who is an evangelical christian minister of the Presbyterian Church, has a nice video at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55744-dr-mouw-fuller-and-changing-attitudes-towards-mormonism/ (April 8, 2011, in La Canada, California).

[_Albion]

One issue in your above post. I was in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when Mouw made the comment you quoted. The man is entitled to speak for himself, of course, but he certainly did not speak for me or any other "evangelicals" I spoke with that evening. I personally found his statement unacceptable in the broad sense he mean it and only remained in my seat out of a realization that he was playing "nice" in the Mormon house...that and the fact I was more interested in the remarks of Ravi Zacharias. That you claim that it is false that Mormons charge that evangelicals believe they can sin all they want after being saved has about as much merit as taking comfort from Mouw's remarks as representing the view of all evangelicals. You only have to read a history of my discussions with devout Mormons on the board to see how many times that charge has been made. Have some evangelicals misrepresented Mormon beliefs...of course...do some Mormons constantly argue that Christian salvation is a licence to commit sin....of course....but to argue that, as you appear to me to do, that somehow those poor, innocent Mormons are just sitting there minding their business and those nasty Christians just won't leave them alone is just plain baloney.

[_Robert F Smith]

One issue in your above post. I was in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when Mouw made the comment you quoted. The man is entitled to speak for himself, of course, but he certainly did not speak for me or any other "evangelicals" I spoke with that evening. I personally found his statement unacceptable in the broad sense he mean it and only remained in my seat out of a realization that he was playing "nice" in the Mormon house.

Had you bothered to watch the video of Dr. Mouw speaking in that Presbyterian Church in La Canada, you would know that he speaks with the same voice and concern in all venues, and his sincere sorrow expressed in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for the inappropriate conduct of evangelicals was authentic and based upon substantive knowledge (including his personal observations of out-of-control evangelicals, as described in his La Canada talk). Lying about Mormons on behalf of God is both wrong and blasphemous.

..that and the fact I was more interested in the remarks of Ravi Zacharias. That you claim that it is false that Mormons charge that evangelicals believe they can sin all they want after being saved has about as much merit as taking comfort from Mouw's remarks as representing the view of all evangelicals.

I did not suggest that Dr. Mouw's views reflect that of all evangelicals. Indeed, why would he claim that other evangelicals have lied about Mormons if he were claiming to speak for all of them? His voice is one of accusation against those in the evangelical community who do not feel that honesty is required when dealing with Mormons. It is a call to repentance for those evangelicals who do not yet feel constrained by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You only have to read a history of my discussions with devout Mormons on the board to see how many times that charge has been made.

I'm not sure what "devout" means in this context, but bearing false witness about the internal practices or beliefs of any community (no matter how hated) is unacceptable and should be condemned by us. That is what Dr. Mouw is doing and he has been at it for a while now. When I hear anyone, Mormon or non-Mormon (devout or not) make ignorant or deliberately false statements about others, I call them on it. And so should you. In any case, the people you deal with on this Board do not constitute a representative sampling of all Mormons. Moreover, the anonymous nature of most of those who participate here is not conducive to any of us knowing for sure their actual spiritual status or knowledge. Certain types of dumb statements might very likely tell us more about them than anything else.

My direct and longtime experience is that most evangelicals and most Mormons are very nice people. That doesn't mean that they spend much time with each other, nor that they understand the theological differences. Most Mormons simply do not believe that evangelicals get "saved" and then go right back out and sin at will. Nor do they believe that immediately following dissolution of sins via a Roman Catholic confessional the Catholic simply goes out and deliberately sins again. Nor is it likely that they believe that all RC priests and nuns are involved in sexual predation. Most Mormons understand that such instances are rare and unfortunate. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are deeply prejudiced against Mormons. National polls taken during the Romney campaign (I didn't vote for him) have shown this repeatedly. Evangelicals need to repent of this deep seated hatred for Mormons.

Have some evangelicals misrepresented Mormon beliefs...of course...do some Mormons constantly argue that Christian salvation is a licence to commit sin....of course....but to argue that, as you appear to me to do, that somehow those poor, innocent Mormons are just sitting there minding their business and those nasty Christians just won't leave them alone is just plain baloney.

This is a false moral equivalence.
The notion that Mormons are as likely to bear false witness against evangelicals as the evangelicals are against Mormons is ridiculous. Mormon bookstores, for example, simply do not stock the vile and atrocious anti-literature which the evangelicals do. The hate propaganda against Mormons does not find its equivalent inside the Mormon community directed against other religions. You might want to reread the Sermon on the Mount.

[_Themis]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117145206/A-BRIEF-ASSESSMENT-OF-THE-LDS-BOOK-OF-ABRAHAM.

I have had a chance to read your article. It covers the areas I thought it would, and doesn't mention the areas I thought it would. I noticed many years ago that LDS apologia was only engaging in dismissing the main areas of evidence , and in trying to build a case for the church focusing in very subjective areas of trying to see connections to antiquity in the text. It can be a good way to increase our knowledge when done for scholarly reasons as apposed to apologetic, since scholarly work is not interested in defending a position, and will try to look at all the possibilities.

Your article brings up many believed connections, but does not really get into whether certain ones really are a connections(ex chiasmus), and also doesn't spend any time trying to look at all possible pathways to antiquity for other believed connections. I realize you are calling this a brief assessment.

The biggest problem I see is you focus on believed connections from the text of the Book of Abraham, but ignore the best evidences we have to look at. You spend most of your time on fac 2 and parts of the text, and mention fac 1 once and I don't recall fac 3 even being brought up. This is understandable since fac 2 still doesn't translate into what Egyptology have suggested, but it is the most vague of the three. I mentioned fac 3 before but didn't get a response. Joseph didn't even come close to getting any of it right. Again if you get most things wrong you get an F.

Considering all the evidence I see no way to conclude Joseph was doing anything but making it up. All three fac fit exactly what they should. The papyri also exactly supports what the fac are used for. We even know who Egyptology identify on the lion couch. It's the same guy they identify in fac 3, and it's not Abraham.

[_SteelHead]

Classic case of the Sharpshooter fallacy.

Ignore the two hundred items that are completely wrong, these three hits prove we are right.

[_Themis]

Classic case of the Sharpshooter fallacy.

Ignore the two hundred items that are completely wrong, these three hits prove we are right.

I think as well there is this idea that Joseph could not get 1% right, so if he does, then he must have translated it right, even though 99% is still wrong.

[_Robert F Smith]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117145206/A-BRIEF-ASSESSMENT-OF-THE-LDS-BOOK-OF-ABRAHAM.

I have had a chance to read your article. It covers the areas I thought it would, and doesn't mention the areas I thought it would. I noticed many years ago that LDS apologia was only engaging in dismissing the main areas of evidence , and in trying to build a case for the church focusing in very subjective areas of trying to see connections to antiquity in the text. It can be a good way to increase our knowledge when done for scholarly reasons as apposed to apologetic, since scholarly work is not interested in defending a position, and will try to look at all the possibilities.

Since you do not come to grips with the standard Egyptological sources I cited, I am not sure what you are actually saying here. Could you be more specific?

Your article brings up many believed connections, but does not really get into whether certain ones really are a connections(ex chiasmus), and also doesn't spend any time trying to look at all possible pathways to antiquity for other believed connections. I realize you are calling this a brief assessment.

Again, I am not sure what you are actually saying here. The one specific item you mention, chiasmus, is not even discussed by you, except by insinuating doubt.

The biggest problem I see is you focus on believed connections from the text of the Book of Abraham, but ignore the best evidences we have to look at. You spend most of your time on fac 2 and parts of the text, and mention fac 1 once and I don't recall fac 3 even being brought up. This is understandable since fac 2 still doesn't translate into what Egyptology have suggested, but it is the most vague of the three. I mentioned fac 3 before but didn't get a response. Joseph didn't even come close to getting any of it right. Again if you get most things wrong you get an F.

I am not sure what your phrase "believed connections" means, and the lower register of the only illustration I provided should seem to you surprisingly like Fac 3. On what basis do you make the claim that "Joseph didn't even come close to getting any of it right"? Have you actually kept up with the Book of Abraham debate, and read books and articles from both sides of the controversy? Again, you neglect specific comments on particular issues.

Considering all the evidence I see no way to conclude Joseph was doing anything but making it up. All three fac fit exactly what they should. The papyri also exactly supports what the fac are used for. We even know who Egyptology identify on the lion couch. It's the same guy they identify in fac 3, and it's not Abraham.

Just what evidence did you actually consider in concluding that Joseph was "making it all up"? Given the kind of evidence I assembled, this would be impossible. And I note that you do not respond to that actual evidence, except to make subjective general statements.

[_Robert F Smith]

Classic case of the Sharpshooter fallacy.

Ignore the two hundred items that are completely wrong, these three hits prove we are right.

Is this an accurate and fair description of what I presented? Talk is cheap. Stand and deliver!!