Why is the Church of LDS of Jesus Christ the only denomination growing in the NZ Christian community

[Dawnofhope]

I believe it is because they go door to door and like most cults make it difficult for a person to leave and brainwashing probably has a lot to do with that.

That is a very harsh criticism. What is your evidence for LDS being a brainwashing cult?

I believe it does not serve new believers well. When I was preaching the gospel, I would recommend the Baptist church because it has a focus on teaching the Bible. The greatest need for a new convert is to learn from the Bible.

I certainly agree with the importance of learning and understanding the Bible. I'm aware the Baptists give this strong emphasis. I was a Baptist before becoming a Baha'i.

 

[Katzpur]

How would you account for the differences in census numbers and numbers recorded by your church?

I wondered that myself. I had just googled "LDS Church in New Zealand" and got the information I gave you from there. I don't even know what the date was for that information; it was my mistake to assume it was the most current available. So anyway, I went to the Church's official website and got a different number: 108,912. That's slightly lower than the first number, but still more than the number from your census. I know that the Church automatically drops the names of people assumed to be dead at a given age. What age that actually is I don't know. I do know it's over 100 years, though; it might be something like 105 years. This is just my guess, because I don't know how religious affiliation is determined by the New Zealand census. If people have to self-identify as LDS in order to be counted, then the inactive LDS might not claim membership in the Church, even though they are still on the Church's official membership records.

The numbers recorded by your church are slightly over twice as high as the census figures in New Zealand, over three times higher for Tonga and over two times higher for Samoa?

I'm afraid there are just too many unknowns for me to answer that. Again, my guess is that the lower numbers might reflect the number of people claiming to be LDS as opposed to the number of people who have been baptized. Another thing that gets in the way of accuracy when it comes to religious demographics is that not all Christian denominations count their membership in the same way, so you're almost always comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I wondered that myself. I had just googled "LDS Church in New Zealand" and got the information I gave you from there. I don't even know what the date was for that information; it was my mistake to assume it was the most current available. So anyway, I went to the Church's official website and got a different number: 108,912. That's slightly lower than the first number, but still more than the number from your census. I know that the Church automatically drops the names of people assumed to be dead at a given age. What age that actually is I don't know. I do know it's over 100 years, though; it might be something like 105 years. This is just my guess, because I don't know how religious affiliation is determined by the New Zealand census. If people have to self-identify as LDS in order to be counted, then the inactive LDS might not claim membership in the Church, even though they are still on the Church's official membership records.

I'm afraid there are just too many unknowns for me to answer that. Again, my guess is that the lower numbers might reflect the number of people claiming to be LDS as opposed to the number of people who have been baptized. Another thing that gets in the way of accuracy when it comes to religious demographics is that not all Christian denominations count their membership in the same way, so you're almost always comparing apples to oranges.

I think its difficult to measure or quantify religious affiliation. I’ve certainly copped criticism on this forum for discrepancies between census numbers and the official numbers recorded by the Baha’i governing bodies.

The New Zealand census is generally well run and asks participants to identify their faith. Of course some who are recorded as LDS may no longer identify as such or simply consider themselves Christian.

I’m not sure how well run the censuses would be in the Pacific Islands. With so much subjectivity in the realm of religion I find it useful to have more objective quantitative data to consider. Thanks for your response.

 

[firedragon]

That's correct. However the New Zealand population based on census data increased by 457,707 from 4,242,048 to 4,699,755 or about 11%. So it would be better to compare religion as a percentage of the population. In that case it is more like about 4% per annum. That is still remarkable given the decline with Christianity as a whole and that all the other major religions have declined. However the growth most likely reflects immigration from Pacific Island countries and higher birth rates among Pacific Islanders as opposed to new converts.

No brother. I was only referring to the Mormons you quoted.

 

[Katzpur]

The New Zealand census is generally well run and asks participants to identify their faith.

That's your answer then. That explains the discrepancy. In the U.S. census, we are not asked about our religious beliefs.

 

[Clear]

Muffled said : “I believe it is because they go door to door and like most cults make it difficult for a person to leave and brainwashing probably has a lot to do with that.”

We all make certain misjudgments about other religions. (I thought the book of Mormon was Brigham Youngs diary as the saints moved across the west to Salt Lake….). However, this sort of Caricurature is a bit silly.

My introduction to the Christian restorational movement (the movement seeking to discover and return to the earlies and most authentic Christian beliefs) in college by a highly respected Lutheran Scholar who was joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“Mormons”). I was in such awe of this person that this is what initially got me interested in the restoration movement. In joining the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, I never felt brainwashed, but instead, was encouraged to think for myself.

In fact, I made sure my children had to visit other churches so that they could see and feel for themselves the difference. They have always known that their choice in what they are to believe is their own choice. My best friend was a Baptist minister and we felt perfectly at ease with the differences of opinions.

My interest in early Christian history was in fact, sparked by the restorational movement and it’s desires to discover what early Christianity was like, their beliefs, their literature, their doctrines and their practices.



Muffled said : “I believe it does not serve new believers well. When I was preaching the gospel, I would recommend the Baptist church because it has a focus on teaching the Bible. The greatest need for a new convert is to learn from the Bible.

I agree that in most cases, the more narrow the area of study, the more one can know about it. However, the many, many, many disagreements about what the bible means is evidence that this is insufficient to come to religious agreement or confident conclusions.

Restorational theology is, by it’s very nature, centered on historical Christianity and early beliefs. Historical Judeo-Christianity and it’s literature has a framework such that historians may take years to form a coherent framework as they slowly work out historical parallels which then form coherent models as to what early Judeo-Christianity was like and what Gods underlying purpose and plan is for existence. It’s a slow, laborious process. Revelation is much more efficient.

Thus, I see historians struggle for years to form historical models that the LDS children grew up with. Pre-existence for example. Many historians are forming models regarding what God was doing before the creation of this world and surveying vast amounts of early literature (before rabbinic prohibitions against such study were in place) and forming basic models that restorational theology has had in mature, almost complete theology for many years. This sort of framework is invaluable for new believers since they can place their own discoveries and questions into the early christian context and have a better chance of making accurate religious models.

One may simply look at the many arguments between biblicists regarding the meaning of bible theology to see that more is needed than simply applying personal interpretations on the biblical text and forming a personal belief system based on that interpretation.

At least, this has been my own experience with restorational theology

Clear
τωσεσιω

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So why is the Church of LDS of Jesus Christ the only major Christian denomination to have experienced growth amidst the rapid decline of Christianity in NZ? Is it a phenomenon in other countries? Why is this Church growing whereas others are in a state of unprecedented decline?

In North America, we're starting to see a "dumbbell-shaped" distribution when it comes to Christianity: the "nones" and the extremist Christians are both growing at the expense of the more moderate denominations.

So Evangelical Christianity isn't growing in New Zealand? If not, then it would seem that you're dealing with different trends than we are.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In North America, we're starting to see a "dumbbell-shaped" distribution when it comes to Christianity: the "nones" and the extremist Christians are both growing at the expense of the more moderate denominations.

So Evangelical Christianity isn't growing in New Zealand? If not, then it would seem that you're dealing with different trends than we are.

Some of the trends are similar but New Zealand is overwhelmingly a secular country whereas the USA is strongly influenced by Christianity. For example its fine for our politicians to be Christian but its not OK to say too much about it or to criticise homosexuality and abortion based on Christian ideals.

A 20-25% decline in the number of those who identify as Christian over just 5 years is huge.

 

[danieldemol]

Historical Judeo-Christianity and it’s literature has a framework such that historians may take years to form a coherent framework as they slowly work out historical parallels which then form coherent models as to what early Judeo-Christianity was like and what Gods underlying purpose and plan is for existence. It’s a slow, laborious process. Revelation is much more efficient.

Alleged “revelation” is much more efficient at delivering wrong answers than scientific study of history.

 

[Clear]

@danieldemol said : "Alleged “revelation” is much more efficient at delivering wrong answers than scientific study of history." (post #29)

I agree that fakers and the mentally ill are much more efficient at delivering wrong answers. It is very RARE for fakers and mentally ill or even the best of the historians to come up with correct, coherent mature models of history from mere guessing. This is part of what makes what Smith did so amazing. Though I've met individuals who can explain any mistake he made, no one (so far) can explain how he obtained vast historical models that are so correct by simple guessing or by stealing it, or by any other means that is more plausible than by revelation.

There are reasons why I said authentic revelation IS much more efficient at delivering correct answers to historical issues than historical study. For example, it took many years for religious historians to discover the role of pre-creation existence of the spirits of mankind which LDS children grow up learning about. Additionally, the Historians had to wait until the 19th century until the great flood of discovery of early Judeo-Christian literature to gain sufficient historical data to make models regarding such early Judeo-Christian doctrines and to put parallel accounts together enough to create historical models.

Joseph Smith comes on the scene within a couple of months with mature models and parallels to this literature which did not exist in his day. We had to wait until Lawrence and Bruce provided us with copies of Enoch while the LDS had a version before these Enochs had been discovered and translated and printed. Dead Sea Scroll theosis and descriptions of these themes had to be discovered in the mid 20th century while the LDS possessed these same doctrines a century before Dead Sea Historians discovered them.

This is not to say that historians are poor restorationists. Religious Historians are wonderful at discovery of early literature, and translating and printing it and then creating models. Their difficulty is trying to form a coherent framework on which to place the data whereas the LDS possess a mature, fully developed ancient framework which allows them to simply take up the early Judeo-Christian literature and use it in a sunday school lesson without doctrinal ripples. The fact that they can do this means that their doctrines parallel the early literature. The fact that their doctrines parallel the ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines also means something profoundly important as well.

Clear
δρδρτζω

 

[Vouthon]

@adrian009 I have always perceived Mormons to have very strong ethical standards and imagine that the church is growing in NZ (other than a high birth rate relative to other groups) because people are attracted to the 'authenticity' of its members.

By 'authenticity', I mean adherents effectively practising what one preaches. Ultimately, that is the true 'witness' of anything.

In addition, the LDS have beautiful temples and rituals. They thus combine a kind of 'Protestant' style missionary mindset with a relatively 'high church' liturgical tradition, which will likely be an attractive combination for a certain demographic.

As a Restorationist church that also believes in 'continuing revelation', Mormonism has the ability to accomodate itself to the circumstances of the modern world - perhaps, arguably, more effectively than certain churches that are more resistant to 'doctrinal development'. In this it is closer to Catholicism again than Protestantism. And yet like Catholicism, for all that doctrine develops and grows in 'understanding' of the truth (isn't rigid), the core doctrines do not 'change' - and so there is a consistent and immutable moral framework.

And again, like Catholicism, it claims to both be the true church of Jesus Christ without that claim thereby leading it to be 'exclusivist' in terms of salvation, ecumenism or interfaith dialogue today.

So, I can think of a number of things that could account for a growth in numbers for the LDS.

Interestingly, my country - the United Kingdom - is as secular in culture and disposition as NZ. Our stats back up @9-10ths_Penguin in that the mainline churches - Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian - have seen a decline in membership over the last few decades, with Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism being on the rise:


Faith Survey | Christianity in the UK

Faith Survey | Catholics in England and Wales

UK Church membership has declined from 10.6 million in 1930 to 5.5 Million in 2010, or as a percentage of the population; from about 30% to 11.2%.

By 2013, this had declined further to 5.4 million (10.3%). If current trends continue, membership will fall to 8.4% of the population by 2025.2

Over the period 2005-2010, the major Christian denominations such as Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian all saw falls in membership. Orthodox, Pentecostal and other new churches (Evangelical and Charismatic) on the other hand, saw an increase in membership.

Church membership is declining in all four constituent countries of the UK, but in England the decline is relatively small, whereas the biggest decline appears to be in Scotland.

The retention rate of Cradle Catholics was 55.8% (the highest among Christian denominations). The Catholic percentage of the total population has remained fairly stable over the last 30 years or so. By way of contrast, the Anglican percentage has declined from 44.5% in 1983 to 19.0% in 2014.

​

More than half UK population has no religion, finds survey

For the first time, more than half the population say they have no religion, and the generation gap on religious affiliation is widening, according to the British Social Attitudes survey.

Only 3% of adults under 24 describe themselves as Anglican – fewer than the 5% who identify as Catholic. Almost three out of four 18- to 24-year-olds say they have no religion, a rise of nine percentage points since 2015.
​

I can't find any specific survey figures on Mormonism in the UK.

 

[Katzpur]

@Vouthon, thank you for your incredibly kind comments. And Happy Birthday!

 

[danieldemol]

@Clear,
It would not be correct to downplay the work of the best historians as "guessing", critical examination of relevant facts is crucial to any proper study of history.

Taking your example of pre-creation of spirits, genuine historians would know that some early Christians such as Origen (a second and third century church father), advanced the idea of pre-existance from his interpretation of the Bible*. Thus if it was possible for Origen to come up with similar ideas from interpretation of the Bible then it is also possible for Joseph Smith to have done it from interpretation of the Bible.

I think personally that an examination of where Smith got it wrong is more useful than an examination of where he got it to be similar to early judeo-Christian apocryphal works which themselves do not necessarily accord with facts and reason. Suppose if something was 99% correct and only 1% wrong, that tiny amount of wrongness would still be enough to determine that it did not come as the dictation of an omniscient God.

If you are really truly interested in determining the facts I would suggest a reading of the entire page of Criticism of the Book of Mormon at wikipedia, but if you don't have time for all that a quick look at the subsection on anachronisms should be enough of a taste test: Criticism of the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia

*Pre-existence - Wikipedia

 

[Clear]

Post one of two

@Clear,It would not be correct to downplay the work of the best historians as "guessing", critical examination of relevant facts is crucial to any proper study of history.

I certainly agree with this point and it is my point as well. I also, am also a historian of early Judeo-Christian literature.

My point was that it takes YEARS of diligent study for religious historians to study various areas of knowledge (archaeology, linguistics, literature, history, etc.) to gather data and then come up with their theories and then to put together enough data to support those theories as they present them to other historians as an authentic model of history. For example, Michael Heiser spent years working on his Doctoral thesis as a Hebraist and, when he presented his theory on a council of Gods he was then accused of being a "closet mormon" because his years of work and research had resulted in a doctrine that confirmed LDS friendly history. Michael is NOT LDS ("mormon"), but doesn't particularly like the LDS. He attempted to write an article showing the difference between his data and the LDS theology. The problem again arose that his data again supported the LDS theology since his comparisons supported LDS theology instead of demonstrating differences. Michael was left to either NOT present his data, or to allow the historical data to funnel him into the LDS direction. Similarly, I noted Charlesworth, in his 2000 page tome of early Jewish literature became a convert to multiple LDS principles (though he is not LDS either). The historical data and literature simply forced them in that direction and with those conclusions they made.

@Clear, Taking your example of pre-creation of spirits, genuine historians would know that some early Christians such as Origen (a second and third century church father), advanced the idea of pre-existance from his interpretation of the Bible*. Thus if it was possible for Origen to come up with similar ideas from interpretation of the Bible then it is also possible for Joseph Smith to have done it from interpretation of the Bible.

No, he could not have done. This was my point. Joseph smith prolifically produces multiple tangible and profoundly prophetic literature, which coordinates and connects to vast amounts of ancient Judao-Christian Literature and history. No other religious writer in history, including Origen, was able to do this.

For example, as a prior non-mormon, I faced the same question as everyone else who has seen the Book of Abraham, which is a small book inside a library of books (The Pearl of Great Price) and had to ask : What does one do with a tangible, existing sacred literature that has unmeasured connections with ancient and authentic religion as well as the stamp of prophetic intuitive association to an increasingly vast amount of authentic doctrine undiscovered in the century in which they were written? What do I do with something that could represent “the real thing” that all historians of early literature claim to be looking for? This discovery was is at once, both discomforting and exciting.

The early Christians, in making reference to both the authentic Gospel and the many counterfeits said “There are two coinages, the one of God and the other of the world, each of them has it’s own stamp..the faithful bear the stamp of god the father (Ig-Mag 94:5:2)”

One MUST look at the coinage himself. There is no short cut to reading and studying the Book of Abraham and asking God for help in discernment while attempting to make making a judgment on the Book of Abraham itself. Hasty and incorrect conclusions do not begin to answer profound questions regarding the Book of Abraham, (and the rest of the library in which is it found).

How does a fraud steal true and authentic prophetic things?

How does a non prophet create consistent and distinct and unexplainable prophetic ties to vast amounts of literature and doctrines was not yet re-discovered in his lifetime?
For example:

How does Joseph Smith, with a forth grade education, have access to and deep understanding of and correct usage of authentic enoch (or qumran doctrines; or Old and New Testament Pseudographa, or apostolic Fathers; or Abbaton, etc, etc, etc) in his day? In the early 1800's, one could not simply go to a public library and pick up one of the very few and rare copies of enoch just as one cannot simply peruse the New Testament Stutengartsia manuscript today. Much of the literature Joseph Smith refers to will not be discovered for another 100 years after he dies. No one person or even a group of the best religious historians in his day could have created discrete histories which did not exist from the thousands of educated guesses they would have had to make.

Such questions face us on every single page and they slam into us from the very start: For example in the beginning verses of chapter one, from the Joseph Smith book of Abraham , Abraham says

Quote: “ And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers....My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice...” (Abraham 1:2-5)

post two of two follows

 

[Clear]

Post two of two

As a student of various abrahamic histories, we are startled with such impossibly neat summations of multiple Abrahamic histories with cross-overs into the Quran, the ahadith, and into multiple early Judo-Christian histories. I cannot begin to do this principle justice but can only hint at the impossibility of what Joseph Smith did by illustrating a very SIMPLE coordination of JUST “The Apocalypse of Abraham (AA)” with Josephs “Book of Abraham (JSAA)”.

For example : In AA, Abraham is told not only that “the Eternal One whom you have loved has chosen you” but Abraham is to use authority God gave him as he is directed. “Be bold and do through your authority whatever I order you against him who reviles justice” (aa 14:3) Such references described in JSAA as “I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers... “ However, there’s much more even in this partial sentence.

How is Joseph aware that the “priesthood” started MUCH earlier than Abraham (i.e. it was a right belonging to “the fathers”) when very few historians have studied the origins of the priesthood? Most individuals are only aware of Mosaic and Aaronic “origins”. Not only is Smith aware, but he expounds upon Melchisedek and his relationship to Abraham’s priesthood authority. Thus connections exist into the Enoch Literature where Noah blesses the child Melchisedek and prophesies : quote: “And behold, Melkisedek will be the head of the 13 priests who existed before. And afterward, in the last generation, there will be another Melkisedek, the first of the 12 priests. And the last will be the head of all, a great archpriests, the Word and Power of god, who will perform miracles, greater and more glorious than all the previous ones. (from 2 en 71:33-34)


Quote : another version summarizes : “And Melkisedek will be the head of the priests in another generation.” )


How does Joseph know both such ancient original material and how does he know how to use it correctly and how does he correctly make the connection to Abraham and his entire history? A simple fraud cannot do this.

I’m having to skip due to space, but consider the historical contexts of just a few words further along JSAA : “ And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers....My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice...” (Abraham 1:2-5)

For example, the final sentence - “My fathers, having turned...unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utter refused to harken to my voice.”

Where in the old testament can Smith turn for details of this history and apply it to abraham countrymen (and Abrahams own father in fact)?

The many Abrahamic Youth histories have specific idol worship as the main frustration of Abraham as a youth. So does AA : Abraham’s Father and Brother, Terah and Nahor are not just immersed in the culture of idolotry, Terah is an artisan who makes and sells idols. As Abraham comes to the gradual conclusion that the wooden and stone idols are NOT Gods, he attempts many times to convince his father than the idols are not Gods. “What is this superfluity of activity which my father is doing? [i.e. making idols] Is it not he rather who is god for his gods, because they come into being from his sculpting, his planing, and his skill? They ought to honor my father because they are his work.” Abraham, discovering the Idols are not Gods, frequently voices his opinion in order to teach his father this truth “ I said to him, “Listen, father Terah! The gods are blessed in you, because you are a god for them, because you made them...and their power is vain. They did not help themselves; how then can they help you or bless me?” Terah remains obstinate for a long time during Abraham’s youth. Such Abrahamic literature was not even available in Josephs time.

How does Joseph get so many multiple details of Abrahamic histories correctly without access to them? How does Smith make specific summary references to MULTIPLE historical accounts without access to this material? It can be revealed to him if he is a prophet, but how does he do it without revelation? If he guesses, how does he consistently guess correctly against intuition and against the theological currents of his own generation?

Not only does Smith, within the first few sentences, correctly summarize the modern discoveries regarding abrahamic histories of Jewish origin, but they agree with parallel discoveries in islamic histories and ancient Christian traditions. How does a con artist decide which sort of Abrahamic “history” to create and have it agree in specific detail with undiscovered but minute and authentic historical details?

My point is that even within the first few words of the Joseph Smith book of Abraham, we are plunged deeply into a historical world that he (and most people today), have absolutely no familiarity with and (for him), no access to. And we’ve not even gotten beyond the first 5 sentences of Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham, we’ve not touched the rest of the book; we’ve not even touched upon Abraham’s revelation’s as a prophet; Abraham’s vision of the pre-existent spirits and the relationship of this earth to God’s other creations; we’ve not touched upon Abraham’s testimony of the future messiah and redeemer of the world. We’ve only touched our toe into the pool to see if it is warm. And it is.

The LDS literature has been the most fascinating and the most illuminating of any literature I’ve ever been exposed to. It has represented the most profound testimony and tangible evidence that Jesus Christ was the Savior of the world that I’ve been exposed to. I grew up without exposure to any of this sacred literature and am profoundly grateful to have discovered it.



CONSIDER THE CORRECT AND AUTHENTIC THEMES PLACED INTO JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF JOSEPH SMITH’S BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Joseph Smith correctly places Abraham into a milieu of Idolatry.
He correctly describes Abraham’s FATHER’S worship of idols.
He describes the construction of idols (including both stone AND wooden idols)
He includes the theme of children being sacrificed.
He points out that those who will not worship idols were killed.
He includes the theme of Abraham himself being brought to be killed or sacrificed.
He includes the association of Terah with the attempt to kill Abraham.
He includes the binding of Abraham.
He includes the theme of Abraham being rescued by an angel (or by God) from death
He includes the little known theme that altar and idols were destroyed (though Islam has history on this subject)
He includes subtle details regarding Abraham’s prayer to be saved.
Joseph includes the details regarding Abraham being heir to the Priesthood.
He correctly links Abraham to Noah ( other than historians, how many know of this connection?)
He included the “smiting” of the priest who was to kill abraham.
He includes the improbable (yet authentic) history of Abraham’s knowledge of astronomy (including the details of having learned from ancient records and from God’s teaching.
He includes the relatively unknown traditions about Abraham having taught astronomy.
He includes Abrahamic knowledge regarding the creation of the universe and this world.
He includes Abraham’s claim to have records of the ancients.
He includes a claim that Abraham left his own records for others.
He includes the almost unknown (even today) history of the founding of Egypt.
He includes the rare tradition of the Abrahamic Pharoah’s descent from Ham and Canaan.
He even includes the tradition of Abraham having sat on a king’s throne.

He could not have made up such details and indeed, entire histories with the help of all the apostolic Fathers and later doctors of the Church such as Origen, ALL helping him at once. He could not have ensured that these histories agreed with literature that would be discovered beyond his life time.

AND WE’VE NOT LEFT THE FIRST CHAPTER

how many individuals, including professors, savants, religionists, etc would have know this set of facts at ANY time in the world's history (including our day?) My point is that, by the end of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham, it is already impossible for Joseph to have created this book, not in his day, and not given his circumstance. He did not get this vast history from Origen who did not know these things himself.

Obviously I agree completely that Joseph had to have created this book from revelation. I cannot imagine any other way it could have been generated, given Joseph’s time period and circumstances. If one compares the evidence as to what Smith did with the puny claim that he got his vast ancient histories (plural...) from "Origen" or from a completely new interpretation of the "bible" that was given earlier, it is clear that one must avoid vast amounts of evidence in order to conclude "guessing".

@Clear, Suppose if something was 99% correct and only 1% wrong, that tiny amount of wrongness would still be enough to determine that it did not come as the dictation of an omniscient God.

I have no idea why you are referring to "dictation" from God. Revelation is not dictation as all. If my secretaries get 99% of my dictation correct, I am happy. However, if they have to guess what my entire letter is going to say without me telling them anything at all, then 99% correct would be yet another amazing miracle that would be inexplicable.


Clear
φιτωνεω

 

[danieldemol]

I have no idea why you are referring to "dictation" from God. Revelation is not dictation as all. If my secretaries get 99% of my dictation correct, I am happy.

So would you disagree with the statement of Martin Harris who said that the words which appeared on the seer stone would not disappear until they were correctly written?

If revelation is only a percentage of truth would it not make sense to turn to science and reason to determine which bits of it are not true?

 

[Clear]

So would you disagree with the statement of Martin Harris who said that the words which appeared on the seer stone would not disappear until they were correctly written?

Yes, I would either disagree with Martin Harris or with the interpretation of his statement. Also, I might point out that his statement is not describing "dictation".



IS SCIENCE A GOOD MEASUREMENT FOR MEASURING RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES SUCH AS MORAL HISTORIES OR WITNESSES OF GODS' DEALING WITH MANKIND?

If revelation is only a percentage of truth would it not make sense to turn to science and reason to determine which bits of it are not true?

What SORT of truth are you talking about? I do not think the sacred records such as the Old or New Testament or Book of Mormon or book of Abraham or any of the ancient apocalypses or decension literature or epigraphic literature or early biopics in the sacred genre are meant to be books on archaeology or geography or physical sciences books. I think that, in the main, they are meant to pass on histories such as moral lessons and personal witnesses of God and his dealing with mankind. While science is a good measure of the correctness of a science book, it doesn't work well for a book that is meant to pass on religious and moral histories.

I think that History is best done by historians rather than scientists.

Reason and logic tell us that Science mostly deals with the physical world and how it operates rather than the metaphysical world and how it operates. Reason and logic further tell us that Physical science is poorly equipped to explain metaphysical revelation from God. So, no. I don’t think it makes sense to use science as the main tool in studying revelation.

For example, suppose what I have told you about the creation of vast amounts of coherent, correct historical literature without source is correct. We can use science to prove Smiths book of Abraham was written near 1835-42 and the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham discovered and first translated into English in 1898. (Hebrew or Greek originals no longer exist and now it only exists in slavonic, first translated into English in 1898)

How does science explain how Joseph Smith produces a version of the Apocalypse of Abraham almost 60 years before it was discovered and translated into English? Science must also explain this same question regarding multiple other Abrahamic youth histories which were either were undiscovered, unknown or did not exist or were inaccessible to Smith during his lifetime.

I have tried to come up with a more plausible explaination than revelation but cannot. Even if Joseph Smith stole these vast histories from someone else, this does not help. It simply transfers the question to the original author. Then the question becomes, “How did THAT person create vast amounts of detailed historical narrative that parallels later historical discoveries.

HOW DOES SCIENCE EXPLAIN AND MEASURE REVELATION?

For example, say I am treating a newly diagnosed cancer patient and am getting ready to dictate a letter to a secretary. I am going to dictate why they ended up seeing me. What signs and symptoms they have and any progression or change in these symptoms. I am going to dictate the patients sex, age, prior social and family history including cancers and risk factor and progenitor history for cancers and cause of death, their own prior risk history such as smoking and chemical exposure, their own answers to questions about allergies, heart and lung history, gastro-intestinal history, bone and joint history, urinary history and problems. I am going to dictate their history of prior medical treatment including labs and surgeries, etc. I am going to dictate their physical examination in detail. I am going to dictate the results of any biopsies, and other lab values that might include circulating tumor cell blood tests, complete blood count results, Flow cytometry texts, mammogram results, the results of Oncotype texts to see if chemotherapy will be helpful or evaluate disease recurrence. I may dictate the result of a Cancer antigen test and I will dictate my current plan and what the patient and I discussed regarding the patients condition and treatment and expected outcome of such treatments.

I will be dictating a very complicated letter that will have many, many, many variables.

IF, a secretary comes up to me and hands me a finished dictation of that letter BEFORE I even start dictating. I will ask how in the h*** the secretary could POSSIBLY have known all of these variables when she had no access to them. IF she tells me she received a revelation from God that gave her the dictation, I might or might not believe her. However, I cannot reasonably attribute it to mere guessing. Try as I might, if the secretary had no access to the patients record or knowledge of the results of labs, I cannot think of any way more plausible than the secretarys claim to have come up with this incredibly detailed letter by revelation.

This is what Joseph Smith did with a vast historical genre of sacred literature. It was not something he could have done by looking at origen or any of the Church Fathers. They also did not know knowledge of nor access to such histories that were undiscovered in their generation as well.

In any case Danieldemol, I hope your own journey in this life is wonderful

Clear


Such things as History and revelation are not particularly amenable to proof by science. That was part of my point. Science typically deals with physical things, revelation is metaphysical.


For example, how do YOU think science would explain my secretaries ability to create such an exhaustingly detailed letter without access to the underlying records and patient data?

 

[danieldemol]

For example, how do YOU think science would explain my secretaries ability to create such an exhaustingly detailed letter without access to the underlying records and patient data?

So far I have avoided your queries on the Book of Abraham because I prefer not to comment on things I don’t know much about.

Having said that I see you are insistent on querying me concerning things which I do not have adequate knowledge about, so I will give an answer since you are determined to press me on matters outside my expertise, but it should be clear that my answer is only preliminary and not a fully formed and informed idea.

Basically I would ask is the Apocalypse of Abraham (AA as opposed to JSAA) part of the LDS cannon?

If not it is strange to hold it to be the yardstick of truth, whilst ignoring the parts of it that don’t confirm the JSAA narrative.

How much does JSAA parallel possible interpretation of the Bible?

Bearing in mind that the Apocalypse of Abraham is based on the Old Testament* (which Joseph Smith did have access to), if it was possible to arrive at those interpretations in 70-150AD when it was composed, then is it not a possibility that any parallels between AA and JSAA are the product of being based of the same book (the OT)?

As far as the rest of your post goes please note I said science and reason. Not science alone.

*Apocalypse of Abraham - Wikipedia

 

[Clear]

1) IGNORANCE OF HISTORY IS NOT A GOOD BASIS UPON WHICH TO EXPRESS OPINIONS REGARDING HISTORY

Having said that I see you are insistent on querying me concerning things which I do not have adequate knowledge about, so I will give an answer since you are determined to press me on matters outside my expertise, but it should be clear that my answer is only preliminary and not a fully formed and informed idea.

In claiming ignorance regarding these issues, you have simply admitted the obvious. Yet you deemed it necessary to offer an opinion regarding the very thing you admit ignorance to, i.e. the role of revelation in religion and history.



2) EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE TELLS US ABOUT EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES AND TRADITIONS AND FAITH -

Basically I would ask is the Apocalypse of Abraham (AA as opposed to JSAA) part of the LDS cannon?

Danieldemol. Why, as a historian, would I care whether a historical book is in the LDS Cannon? I do want to know what early Judeo-Christianity was like, but hardly any of the early Judeo-Christian literature, their diaries, their letters, their sacred and secular texts, their mishnas, their lectionaries, their romantic and biopic literature, their decensus literature, the apocalyptic literature, etc. is in the western, modern "cannon". Early sacred literature was sacred to THEM and it tells us much about early Judeo-Christian doctrines and practices. Why, if I want to know about early Judeo-Christian doctrines, would it matter if it is in either the modern western or modern eastern canons? Can you explain the relevance of your question for a historian?



3) IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM WHICH DON'T CONFIRM SMITHS NARRATIVE - DANIELDEMOL IS TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES

If not it is strange to hold it to be the yardstick of truth, whilst ignoring the parts of it that don’t confirm the JSAA narrative.

Can you give readers some literary examples having to do with important base doctrines?



4) POSSIBLE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONS

How much does JSAA parallel possible interpretation of the Bible?

What do you mean by "possible" interpretation of the Bible. With so many conflicting Christian movements having so many conflicting doctrines based on a multitude of Biblical interpretations, I can imagine a LOT that is possible. What is more important historically is how the Early Judeo-Christianity interpreted their texts, and what they believed.



5) DANIELDEMOLS THEORY THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS USED TO DEVELOP THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM/BOOK OF MOSES, ETC.

Bearing in mind that the Apocalypse of Abraham is based on the Old Testament* (which Joseph Smith did have access to), if it was possible to arrive at those interpretations in 70-150AD when it was composed, then is it not a possibility that any parallels between AA and JSAA are the product of being based of the same book (the OT)?

Could be. Describe your theory and tells us how it works so that we can see if it has any validity and use.

The use of the Old Testament to come up with such Literature as The Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses is YOUR theory. So far, the only supporting data you have given us for your theory is a single line from Wikipedia and the suggestion that Smith created his literature from the Old Testament. Please, please reassure readers that your theory as to how Smith created these vast histories is not simply based on a Wikipedia "one liner".

Describe your theory of using the Old Testament to create New and unheard of narratives that are not IN the Old Testament, yet agree with Judeo-Christian literature that will be discovered beyond your life time. I gave you plenty of examples in posts 34 and 35 that you can use. Describe in better detail how your theory works. Give us some supporting data for your theory. Give us some examples as to how your theory actually works in practice..


I think that the examination of your theory will be a good example for the difficulties that I am talking about when I claimed that even the most expert historians could not have created this historical narratives Smith created. I honestly will be interested to see how your attempt turns out. You are certainly more educated that the 4th grade educated Smith was.

Clear
φισεφυω

 

[danieldemol]

I think that the examination of your theory will be a good example for the difficulties that I am talking about when I claimed that even the most expert historians could not have created this historical narratives Smith created.

If you think anything I say reflects on the most expert historians you are not very interested in an authentic representation of genuine expert historical research.