[MapleLeaf]

Good thread, Flowerdrops! My answer is emphatically No, we have not missed Christ’s return.

Jesus made it very clear that his second coming would be obvious and known to all:

“So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matt. 24:26-27)

When he said he would come like a “thief in the night”, he simply meant that his second coming would be unexpected. Take note of this verse which makes his meaning clear: “If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” (Matt. 24:43-44).

[MapleLeaf]

Rix wrote:

If “God” is “all that is good,” and “love,” it changes things, but not in a bad way (IMO). Personally, I find when studying history, and particularly the history of religion, it makes complete sense that the “dogma” that is assigned to religions was instituted by political/religious leaders for control of the members.

The concept of unconditional love is much more consistent with what Jesus most likely taught, and simply feels better than the cog-dis of “God loves you as long as you do such and such…” That “such-and-such” is man-made, IMHO.

Ah, but Rix, you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Jesus taught us to love and not to take vengeance, but he also taught that vengeance belonged to God – that’s why we can be free to forgive unconditionally and still rest assured that justice will be served in the end. Otherwise those who don’t subscribe to the “all you need is love” philosophy would use force to get ahead, and that’s simply not fair. God says they won’t stay ahead for long. The early Christians understood this! (See Romans 12:19).

God is more than love, he is also justice – and that message, properly applied, would not benefit the political leaders in any way. Instead it is fuel for dissenters, dying as innocent martyrs rather than bow down to an oppressive dictator. Surely the persecution of early Christians by Rome would clarify that. Christianity was hijacked and perverted, I certainly agree. But the core message of Jesus and his early followers (as described in Paul’s writings and the gospels) remains to this day. I can’t think of anything in the NT which adds the “as long as you do such and such” clause that you speak of – that most certainly is added by political opportunists, but that happened after the Bible.

My point is that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is not a politically-motivated pagan mythical construct. He was a real man, I believe, who stirred up real waves against the system, gathered real followers, and left a real mark in history. Just as it would be impossible for the early Mormon movement to exist if Joseph Smith was fictitious, it would be impossible for the early Christian movement to exist if Jesus was fictitious.

[MapleLeaf]

Brian Johnston wrote:

I prefer to see this parable in a personal and internal way. I don’t like to think of some people as wheat and others as tares. Sorry, but I just don’t like that all-or-nothing view of people.

Jesus had an all-or-nothing view of people in general. While he was radically inclusive, reaching out to those considered unclean (sinners, gentiles, lepers), he was also radically exclusive in his claims to be the only way to God. If we’re dealing with Biblical texts, it would be more accurate to work within that context, rather than operating on preferences, imho.

[MapleLeaf]

To those who disagree that the wheat and tares refer to people, you gotta fill me in on how you interpret the rest of the parable.

If the wheat and tares represent the good and bad in all of us, then…

-Are we not supposed to purge the bad from our lives for fear that the good will go with it? (v 28-29)

-What is the “harvest”, and why do we have to wait ’til then to deal with the negativity in our lives? Who are the “reapers” who get rid of the negativity? And what does it mean that the positivity is gathered into the barn? (v 30)

The parable only seems to make sense to me when interpreted as referring to people.

[MapleLeaf]

While I certainly do not see this as a negative change, I do see it as presenting a potential conflict with the fourth article of faith written by Joseph Smith. “Third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…” Will this change now validate baptism by sprinkling, as is commonly practiced in the Roman Catholic Church?

The Community of Christ seems to have made a few changes which align it more with the protestant denominations, and this one appears to do likewise. Many protestant denominations view baptism as a symbolic but non-essential ordinance. I’m with you, Brian, in predicting that the LDS will not make such a change, based on their deeply-entrenched doctrines of baptism as an essential ordinance. Baptism for the dead would be out of business!

[MapleLeaf]

Sorry if I mistook your analogy, Ray. I look forward to your post on the “blood oaths”! Definitely a tricky issue for a lot of people, myself included.

Some of my thoughts about the restoration:

In the First Vision, JS says God told him to join none of the churches because they were all corrupt. (More specifically, the churches were all “wrong”, their professors “corrupt”, and their creeds an “abomination” – but you get the point). Instead he was to be an instrument in restoring the true church. Did he succeed? Is it fair to say that the church he started/”restored” was/is free from such corruption? What about the “restoration” was successful?

[MapleLeaf]

Old-Timer wrote:

Some people might say that the factory settings are best, but others would rather restore to a later point after the addition of enhancements and specific programs.

I’m not sure if the analogy makes much sense in relation to Wallace’s premise. The “restoration” would have been made with the addition of things that “cometh of evil”. It would be like restoring a computer to original conditions with the addition of a few new viruses, wouldn’t it?

[MapleLeaf]

Good post, Poppyseed!

One good thing about Jesus’ teachings is that he tends to explain the same things over and over again in different ways. This particular concept is taught at least one other time – in Matthew 25 with the parable of the Goats and the Sheep. And there’s a verse in Revelation that also comes to mind. Based on these two comparisons, I am convinced that the wheat and tares represent people, not merely ideas or practices.

Matthew 25:32-34 “32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

Ideas and practices certainly cannot “inherit the kingdom” – these verses are talking about the final judgement of people.

Revelation 18:2,4, “…Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen… And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

This verse indicates that some of God’s people are currently in Babylon. To me, this is comparable to the wheat growing together with the tares. But they are not to be that way forever – there is a point at the very end when God calls his people out of Babylon, divides the sheep from the goats, and gathers the harvest.

Matthew 13:30, “Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”

[MapleLeaf]

diamondback wrote:

This behavior has really hurt me at a very deep level. I am so tired of a PR spin machine that rivals anything we see in “the world” we are supposed to be in but not of. I just want to know why telling the truth, the whole truth, seems to be so hard for our leaders.

Thank you for your post, diamondback. I think it sums up what a lot of us have felt as well, myself at least. I am one who has come to the conclusion that our leaders are simply not divinely inspired – whatever ties I maintain with the LDS church are due to family and familiarity rather than continued acceptance that it’s the true church. I think church leaders have come a long way from JS and BY to the point where they sometimes appear more like corporate PR men than religious leaders. In some ways that’s a good thing, of course, but it’s frustrating to some members when they whitewash the issues and hide our history.

[MapleLeaf]

I think some scriptures are clearly meant to be taken as metaphor, such as the book of Revelation. In the very first chapter it is made clear that it is a vision featuring metaphorical elements (many of which whose meanings are interpreted right there in the same book). With others it is uncertain – Jonah and the big fish is an unbelievable story, but it makes no indication that it is metaphorical. Adam and Even in a garden with a talking snake seems unbelievable, yet geneaologies in the Old and New Testament are traced back to Adam as though he were a real person. How can a literal person decend from a figurative person?

It seems that many such stories are meant to be taken literally, whether I believe them or not. Unless we have a reliable indicator to suggest a figurative reading, we should probably assume that literalness was intended. Otherwise it’s an arbitrary “I believe this actually happened, but this didn’t” kind of scenario based solely on opinion.

Intended literalness should be the default, imo, because the texts read like historical accounts, giving times and specific places and names.

Brian Johnston wrote:

Once we are on this path, each of us travel alone, deciding at what level we think these things are literal or historical.

…

I resonate a lot with your ideas to place high value on the practical, spiritual effects for you, above the questions of history, archeology and the literal nature of the stories. While those are all fascinating topics, the key really is enlightenment and spiritual progress from these stories, whatever their source and origin.

Some may solely be interested in their own personal benefit from the stories, but other people are also interested in what is true and what is false (history, archeology, etc). Little red riding hood may have a good moral to it, which I will happily glean, but I am also interested in whether or not it actually happened – or at least I would be if it had any significant consequence in my life, lol.

[MapleLeaf]

Uther wrote:

Wherever I end this is my focus:

1. My wife and kids must be happy.

2. When I face death at the appointed time, I must be comfortable with my choises, and not fear and regret.

I totally relate with these desires. Sometimes they seem conflicting, and it’s a challenge sometimes to try to attain one without completely botching the other.

At first I resolved to do and speak up for what I thought was right no matter what (goal #2). I ended up hurting people in the process without meaning to. Truth must always be accompanied by Love and patience, I found.

Jesus seems to suggest that we should make the right choices regardless of whether our family approve or not (Matthew 10:34-37), but at the same time it should always be done with care and patience.

[MapleLeaf]

I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the subject to refute most of your quotes, but I would be interested in more evidence if you’d like to supply more. I assume that the scholars you quote have reasons for the dates they provide? Just a couple of notes on the dates I could find:

Rix wrote:

“We now know that Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the early second century (Mack, 1995, p. 45).”

I would like to hear the reasons for that. Scholars have been able to date the Acts partially based on what the text mentions and what it does not mention. There are several crucial first century events that anyone writing about early Christian history would have included had they already occurred: The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD), the death of Paul (about 66 AD), the death of Peter (about 64 AD), and the persecution of the Christians under Nero (beginning 64 AD). Events that it does mention include Paul being brought before Proconsul Gallio (Acts 18)(an inscription in Delphi dates Gallio’s time in office to around 52 AD), the High Priest Ananias (High Priest from 46-52 AD) making accusations against Paul (Acts 24), etc. These factors seem to indicate a dating of about 55-64 AD based purely on textual analysis. But I would be interested in alternative evidence.

Rix wrote:

The first [factor] was the evolution of a canon of New Testament writings. Although oral tradition continued to be important right up till the end of the second century, most traditions had found written form by its early decades…” (Johnson, 1976, p. 54)

This quote does not indicate that the gospels/epistles/acts were all written in the 2nd century, just that “most traditions have found written form by its [2nd century’s] early decades.”

Quote:

“What, then, are my reasons for putting Mark as 90 instead of, with most theologians, at about 70? (Wells, 1988, p. 107)

“140-150 AD is the most likely time for the writing of Mark’s Gospel – by Cerinthius.” (Humphreys, 2005, p. 188)

The quote indicates that the majority of scholars date Mark to 70 AD, but if either scholar has any reason to suggest a later date, I would be interested in it.

Quote:

“The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians… dates to about 200 C.E.” (Ehrman, 2006, p. 60)

Is Ehrman implying that Galatians was written in 200 or simply that the earliest full copy dates back to 200? This quote does not seem to imply late authorship, but merely late dating of the most complete copy.

Quote:

None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 A.D.

This is false. Note the following: “J.C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as follows (op. cit., p. 11): The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel [Matthew] are probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome. Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized, and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel (12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was written before A.D. 110.”

Quote:

Archeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125 AD (Funk & Hoover, 1993, p. 9).

As many apologists are quick to point out, there are many texts that we assume to be accurate which have a relatively HUGE gap between the copy and the original. The fact that we have a copy of the gospel of John dating back to 125 AD is quite astounding. Here are some examples:

-Plato (written 427-347 B.C.) – Earliest copy = 900 A.D. (A difference of 1200 yrs) (# of copies = 7)

-Herodotus (written 480-425 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 900 A.D. (A difference of 1300 yrs) (# of copies =

-Caesar (written 100-44 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 900 A.D. (A difference of 1000 yrs) (# of copies = 10)

-Aristotle (written 384-322 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 1100 A.D. (A difference of 1400 yrs) (# of copies = 49)

-Homer (Iliad) (written 900 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 400 B.C. (A difference of 500 yrs) (# of copies = 643)

-New Testament (written 50-100 AD) -Earliest copy = 130 AD (A difference of less than 100 yrs) (# of copies = 5600)

Of course, it would be beneficial to check these figures rather than take the apologists’ word for it. I do not have time for that right now, but if you find any evidence to the contrary I would be interested in hearing it. I plan to do some fact-checking on this later. Needless to say though that if it’s correct, the differences are astounding. Suddenly an earliest copy of 125 AD doesn’t look so bad!

Rix wrote:

As I studied this over a few years, I did find scholars that had very conflicting conclusions on most of these issues, but most leaned this way…and again, I found that most of the “Christian agenda” sources used Christian scholars.

But, I’m the first to admit that I could be wrong…just has been my experience so far…

I appreciate the openness, Rix. I too would be willing to admit it if I felt I was wrong. I certainly don’t have a “Christian agenda” – just trying to understand truth wherever it comes from, like yourself. I just happen to be as suspicious about a “New Age” agenda (at least in the case of the Jesus-was-a-pagan-legend theory) as you are of a Christian one. Just as Christian scholars may feel duty-bound to protect their faith, many other scholars are after the next theory that will shake up the world and give them notoriety and book sales. I don’t think we should dismiss either group on the basis of their convictions, but rather, follow the facts. As you said earlier, I’m not here with the assumption that I have the facts and everyone else has to follow them – it works both ways and I will “follow the facts” that you present as well!

Ah, religious dialogue. Is there a greater joy?

[MapleLeaf]

Tom Haws wrote:

MapleLeaf wrote:

Based on chronology, the Pauline “version” of Christianity seems to have history on its side as the “correct” or more original view of Jesus.

So are you a Pauline then?

I’m not sure all the details that the label implies. I do accept the notion that Paul of Tarsus existed and was active in the early Christian movement not long after Jesus’ death. Also, accepting his writings as reliable primary sources (consistently dated by scholars as early as the 50’s AD, see the link I provided earlier in this thread), we have interesting first-hand accounts of what the Christian movement was like at the time, including major beliefs about who Jesus was. Since they were written so early on, I accept these as a more reliable view about “original” Christianity than say the gnostic gospels, which were written centuries later.

Once you understand that Paul’s writings are reliable as a primary source from the time, it is fascinating to read Paul’s epistles to see what Christians believed about Jesus so soon after his ministry. Take a look at Corinthians, Romans, etc, and see what they believed about the virgin birth, death and resurrection, and so forth. Although alternative views were held by the end of the first century, this was clearly the dominant group in which first-hand witnesses such as Peter were claimed to have been actively involved. Whether you believe what they believed is a different matter, but the fact is that this is what they believed. I’m quite convinced of that much at least.

Would you say that makes me a Pauline? Better than a Deborah or a Suzie, perhaps? 😆

[MapleLeaf]

Old-Timer wrote:

I believe this applies to “new” insight that can be revealed through them, but I also believe it applies to the over-turning of “old” ideas that were all that previous people (including previous prophets) could see, understand and follow. Iow, I believe Prophets generally can’t lead people to places they (the prophets AND the people) don’t want to go.

Ray, could you explain how this view would apply to seemingly contradictory revelations? For example, in 1886 John Taylor received what is known as the Centerville Revelation in which he claimed God told him to continue practicing polygamy and that it would never be revoked. Four years later, Wilford Woodruff announced The Manifesto that the Church would no longer practice polygamy. Were we, as a church, simply unable to follow it, so God allowed it to be retracted?

Also, how would your views apply to the following example that I gave in another thread?

MapleLeaf wrote: If you were LDS in the late 19th Century (particularly 1852-1877) you would have been led to believe in a cosmology in which Michael (Adam) was the identity of our Heavenly Father and the literal father of Jesus. It would have been sung about (see “Sons of Michael”) and preached about in Sacrament meeting, and if you believed otherwise you may be threatened with disfellowship (see Orson Pratt). Today, only a few generations later, the understanding that our great great grandparents had is considered false doctrine.

—

I do not understand how we can blame “us” more than the prophets for this one. The only options I can really see are that either the prophet received false information, or our leaders today have led us astray when it comes to these matters.

[MapleLeaf]

Orson and Ray,

I may be approaching this issue with more of a “left-brain” mentality, so forgive me if I sound a little formulated in my thinking. You both appear to be abandoning the notion that empirical truth exists or is important, and are more concerned with the experience that the religion brings:

Orson wrote:

MapleLeaf, what if one of the “errors” has to do with a common conception of the level of perfection regarding “truth”? Can we still take the good and the worthwhile, leave what appears to be human and perhaps misguided, and travel/serve with our tribe as we try to lift each other in love to higher connections with the “divine”?

Old-Timer wrote:

I have been touched by certain things that certain prophets have said (inside and outside Mormonism) in ways that made my entire soul vibrate in a way that is beautiful and essentially indescribable. The overall theology taught by Joseph Smith does that for me, for example.

Perhaps we should distinguish between the goodness of the religious experience vs the truth of the religion. Because if you are only concerned with the goodness of the experience (“connections with the divine”, rewarding participation in church, soul vibrating), contradictory claims or whatever else will not matter. You will be at home with whatever organization provides that experience for you, regardless of the truth of their claims. But if you are more concerned with the correctness or falseness of the religion, claims do matter.

Old-Timer wrote:

I understand the desire to have God’s pure word flow from His mouth through a Prophet’s mouth to our ears. I really do. I would love that. I just don’t think it happens more often than with one person here and there – and one moment here and there – mixed up with lots of best guesses and intuitions and “through the glass darkly” impressions most of the time.

I think seeing “through a glass darkly” (ie, not having the full picture/understanding) is one thing. Providing contradictory revelation to your followers is a completely different matter. Two examples:

If you were Roman Catholic a generation ago, you would have grown up with the idea that an unbaptized infant who died in your family would have gone to a post-mortal realm called “Limbo”. Today the RCC affirms that there is no such place.

If you were LDS in the late 19th Century (particularly 1852-1877) you would have been led to believe in a cosmology in which Michael (Adam) was the identity of our Heavenly Father and the literal father of Jesus. It would have been sung about (see “Sons of Michael”) and preached about in Sacrament meeting, and if you believed otherwise you may be threatened with disfellowship (see Orson Pratt). Today, only a few generations later, the understanding that our great great grandparents had is considered false doctrine.

If you define “truth” by the goodness of the religious experience – then it is both true that Limbo exists and does not exist, and both true that Adam is our Heavenly Father and that his father Elohim is our Heavenly Father (depending on the people and the time). Each of these “truths” can bring someone closer to the “divine”, perhaps, and provide feelings of comfort. But when we seek to understand “truth” as something that is not objective or changing, then it becomes important to peg down the answers to questions like “Does Limbo exist?” And “What is the identity of God the Father in LDS theology?”

I’m not attacking the notion of staying in a religion because you appreciate the experience – that’s what this site is all about. But I am saying that we should distinguish between the goodness of the experience and whether or not the doctrinal claims are sound.

[Author]

Posts