Mormons are excluded as Christians in that we do not share the conviction that the Bible alone is enough, that the present canon of scripture is so perfect, so complete, that it cannot possibly be improved upon. We do not agree that it alone answers all theological questions with clarity. We do not agree that any inspiration from God to man or woman now is only superfluous and redundant.
This assertion goes hand in hand with Bible inerrancy. It is supposed that the Bible in its many retranslations from language to language to language has remained without error. The radical inerrantists typically believe that through the protection of God there is no corruption. God has never provided such protection over time to anything assembled by woman or man, with his guidance or not. Mormons are a bit more reasonable in knowing that the Bible can easily be misinterpreted. Through the great centuries of mankind, we looked to the present for the words of living prophets, even living prophetesses for help in the days we lived.
The scorn of truth has been common to all ages. We suggest you ignore it still and evaluate truth from us for a time by spending some time with the Book of Mormon.
We are confronted with some version of the following logical argument:
1. Every wit of religious truth is found in the Bible.
2. The Revelations of Joseph Smith are not found in the Bible.
3. Therefore, the revelations of Joseph Smith are not religious truth.
But how about this counter:
4. Premise number 1 is not found in the Bible either.
5. Therefore, Premise number 1 is not religious truth.
6. Where Premise number 1 is not religious truth, then neither is conclusion 3, which is based upon it.
Further support for #4: The word or concept of "Bible" is not found in the Bible. Thus, there is no evidence that the writers of the books of scripture thought it productive to bind and close all scripture at any particular time. They never thought that scripture would end or it would have been found written as such by them.
If you didn't and can't find them I still have my copy and there is one in particulair that I would like you to hear. Let me know and I will just type it up and send it to you.
I hope your week is going well. Tell Gecko I said hello.
Godspeed.
R.E. Knowlton III
Can you copy it R.E.?
The letters are found in the June 4th issue of Time and they are responding to the prior weeks cover story on Mitt Romney and the Presidency, plus (of course) his mormonism.
Jeff Mangum of Poway, CA writes:
"How can one ridicule the Mormon belief that the Garden of Eden was in the Misouri without objecting to the beliefs that men turned the Nile into blood, parted the Red Sea, walked on water, turned water into wine and rose from the dead? Condemning one religion's inherently unverifiable beleifs without subjecting other religions' equally unverifiable beliefs to the same scrutiny is nothing less than bigotry"
And ...
Paul F. Brown of Wilmette Illinois writes:
"I'm fed up with the bigotry aimed at Romney. Vote for him if you agreewith his views. If you don't, vote for someone else. The only reason Mormon doctrine and history are so frequently distorted is because there are relatively few of us. No one would ever say the sort of things about African Americans, Jews, women, Catholics, or Protestants that are routinely read about my faith. Particularly ironic is that much of the offensive commentary is by journalists, who undoubtedly characterize themselves as tolerant, objective and fair."
Those were just two of the ones that stand out. Some of the anti-Morman ones are real doozies!
I am quite sure you could find them if you went to Time.com and looked in the archives.
Just thought I would pass it along.
Be well and smile.
Godspeed.
R.E. Knowlton III
The Book of Mormon has undergone THOUSANDS of changes.
The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible even where the Bible is supported with physical archeological evidence and no such evidence exists for the book of Mormon.
Most offensive to Christians is the totally opposing claims of the Book of Mormon with regard to the nature of Christ and God.
The D&C is changed at will by the hierarchy based on what is politically expedient; the changes in the priesthood for blacks, the whole polygamy thing, as well as the temple ceremonies….I could go on for a long time.
Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God and is the inerrant Word of God. It cannot be supplanted by, or made inferior to, any other text.
If you are able to base your entire faith on the say-so of a man with a seriously questionable personal history, then that is your right. But to expect Christians to accept the same things that so blatantly contradict the Bible is laughable.
I think you have been reading the wrong people. I would have to be an idiot to belong to the church you describe. In fact, if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was as you advertise, I would certainly not believe it to be Christian.
But most foundational. Proposition 1 is not made true through your anti-Mormon protestations. If the Bible is the fountain of ALL wisdom, please provide cogent evidences.
As for the several fabrications and distortions you spewed, all of them have been dismissed long ago. As for Archeological evidences, please go to F.A.R.M.S. and get an up to date education.
An error I see commonly is that anti-Mormon Christians seem to want us to clear a bar they themselves could never clear. Are you aware that there is no Historical or Archeological account of the man MOSES? Or his activities, at all? Now personally, I don't require the verification of the sciences of Moses in order to know the accounts in the Bible are in fact true. That is what faith is, my Christian friend. Go to God (if he accepts you) for your answers, it is icing on the cake if science agrees.
(For the record, I still love my Mormon family. I'm not anti- Mormon, so please stop with the assumptions. I disagree with Islam and Judaism, but am not anti-Jew or anti-Muslim either.)
FARMS???
Peace, "da-rat" "frankly-speaking" :-)
Not to be unfriendly but......
I write the post.
You respond to the post.
Your response is on topic.
We have a conversation....on topic.
The truth becomes revealed
People learn
The only item you gave that was on topic was the first sentance.
All you did was disagree with the first premise.
You provide not evidence, no reasoning. Reasoning gets us to truth.
That is where this blog goes. Unfortunately, sometimes it goes nowhere, like now.
As a personal note. I do not have hours to answer off topic questions unless the information is not readily available. As for you, the answers you are looking for you were already taught to you. So, ask your parents, or old Mormon friends, or wait until the topic comes up.
Please stay on topic.
you for visiting my little spot....
hope all is well here....
In our insecurities we look at people different than ourselves and embrace bigotry instead of tolerance. This is especially true in the Christian faith. Thank you for your thoughtful and simply put remark.
Like you, I have little time, and can't waste much more on your circular games of denial. Of the many questions I have asked, you have failed to answer even one directly, but simply resorted to personal attacks.
Please understand this:
NOT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOUR FAITH IS ANTI- YOU!!!
NOT EVERYONE WHO WON'T ACCEPT YOUR VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS A BIGOT, OR INTOLERANT!!!
NOT EVERYONE WHO WON'T ACCEPT YOUR VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS A BIGOT, OR INTOLERANT!!! "
---------------------------------------------
Please don't scream. I can hear you. Your ongoing tone has a distinct measure of hostility. And, curiously, you are persuing me.
As for your first statement, I agree.
Your second statement does not follow from the first.
If you choose not to accept Mormons as Christians you are less tolerant than most people in this world about that issue. In this case there is no middle ground for you, so you are in fact intolerant. You are anti-Mormon in your views and actions here. You go out of your way to persecute Mormons. You are a predator in your view toward the LDS faith and me. Anyone who knows the truth of our doctrines would find your conclusions as fabrication, deflammatory, and your tactics are devious.
You can't follow the rules here. You are about to be blocked because you persist in the same tone and falsehood, avoiding productive on topic dialogue.
Now, as far as accepting my faith, the post of this entire blog is not to require that of anyone. I have a sister-in-law who is an active lesbian. She married a trans-sexual (he to she). The marriage lasted three months. She claims to be Christian. She accepts Jesus as her savior and as God. I and my husband (her brother) accept her as a Christian. I need not live her lifestyle to be a Christian. We would be intolerant to her if we did not accept her definition of self. We would in fact be anti-Christ, in my humble opinion.
If you are inclined to point out her error, then take the beam out of your own eye first. After you remove it however, there be the sudden sight which will make you more tolerant.
That is not my opinion. It is fact.
1.Some dominant Greek New Testament manuscripts of the 4th century omit Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews, while including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Acts of Paul (not our Acts), and the Apocalypse of Peter.
2. The Syrian Christian canon is significantly different to this day.
3. The same for the Georgian and Armenian churches, the Abyssinian Orthodox church.
4. Significant scholars, led by Luther, did not accept the canon now extolled by the dominant contingency of Protestants.
We do not believe that any of these books are spurious or any of these churches are not Christian because of their chosen scripture. It is a matter of record that Catholic and Protestant Christians have always disagreed as to the what constitutes the CHRISTIAN canon.
I have taken the "time" to read the original article about Mitt Romney and the Presidency. And I note with interest that he presently has a commanding lead among Republicans in NH.
I believe most folks see him as a decent man of integrity among candidates less decent and with less integrity.
I am old enough to chuckle at the many who have reservations in voting for him purely on religious grounds.
OOOOOOOO, don't vote for John F. Kennedy - He's Catholic!! they used to say.
Fact is, I may not vote for the man. I will not be biased because we share the same church. But I am not so political this distant from the election really.