Are Mormons Christians? (Latter Day Saints)

[th1b.taylor]

That's called posturing, because you have no good reply. The Dead Sea Scrolls, some texts from 200 BC, show that the Hebrew in the Modern Theology Old Testament in our Bibles that came from the Masora (Traditional) text, given to St. Jerome to make the Latin Vulgate, had been altered by the Masoretic Jews after 70 AD, (in the destruction of Jerusalem and ascendancy of Christian) removing details and references to the Messiah's coming and the Sons of God, with a clear agenda to de-legitimize Christianity. That should be great news for all Christians, but bad news for anyone teaching the Bible is complete or inerrant

Book of Enoch was in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was commonly referred to throughout the New Testament, the Jews lied to us and burned all the Hebrew copies. Now the only argument for the Bible being complete is just a hollow argument from providence, you are just born so special, God preserved your Bible by chance and not any other Bibles, like the Ethiopian Bible which has the Book of Enoch. The reason Enoch is not in your Bible was not the will of God, it was the will of man, of anti-Christian propagandists Jews. They likely hated the all the angels and a preincarnate Jesus-like character call "the Son of Man" in it.

Experts place the Book of Enoch as being compiled by several authors during the period of 300 BC through the birth of Yashuah and that alone makes it unreliable. I did not posture, I refused to answer because the post is not worthy of an answer. Sometimes I get tired of educated stupidity and refuse to reply. I am not required to reply at all.

 

[SavedInHim]

Don't ask if Mormons are Christians. There's a better question and one that's very easy to answer. The question is: Is Mormonism based on ridiculous nonsense and lies from start to finish? Simple, of course it is.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Don't ask if Mormons are Christians. There's a better question and one that's very easy to answer. The question is: Is Mormonism based on ridiculous nonsense and lies from start to finish? Simple, of course it is.

The best question is about salvation, because salvation is the most important topic anyone can talk about.

 

[RedFan]

The Dead Sea Scrolls, some texts from 200 BC, show that the Hebrew in the Modern Theology Old Testament in our Bibles that came from the Masora (Traditional) text, given to St. Jerome to make the Latin Vulgate, had been altered by the Masoretic Jews after 70 AD, (in the destruction of Jerusalem and ascendancy of Christian) removing details and references to the Messiah's coming and the Sons of God, with a clear agenda to de-legitimize Christianity.

The Masoretes, well after Jerome penned the Latin Vulgate, did indeed remove references to "the Sons of God" -- but as a nod to Jewish monotheism rather than as an anti-Christian measure. See my OP on the subject.

I suspect that this removal predated the Masoretes.

 

[Pyreaux]

Experts place the Book of Enoch as being compiled by several authors during the period of 300 BC through the birth of Yashuah and that alone makes it unreliable. I did not posture, I refused to answer because the post is not worthy of an answer. Sometimes I get tired of educated stupidity and refuse to reply. I am not required to reply at all.

Enoch was orally transmitted before then. Jude and Paul seemed to think it was authoritative enough to quote from as scripture. You have no good reply. Your posts are incoherent.

The Masoretes, well after Jerome penned the Latin Vulgate, did indeed remove references to "the Sons of God" -- but as a nod to Jewish monotheism rather than as an anti-Christian measure. See my OP on the subject.

I suspect that this removal predated the Masoretes.

Jerome wanted to translate the Hebrew Old Testament, which they didn't have, into Latin, but not from the Greek Septuagint they did have. Jerome's purpose was to end the great differences between texts. The Latin Vulgate reflects the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Tanakh) in 383 AD, the deletions in the Masoretic texts likely started in 70 AD. The earliest books we have are in Qumran, they are different in several places, deleting several prooftexts about Jesus that are used throughout the New Testament. Deleting the Suffering Servant is an anointed one/Messiah, or the Angel that God made his Son and demanded the other angels worship him as a God, or that El Elyon is Yahweh's Father.

 

[RedFan]

deletions in the Masoretic texts likely started in 70 AD

Why do you think so?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Enoch was orally transmitted before then. Jude and Paul seemed to think it was authoritative enough to quote from as scripture. You have no good reply. Your posts are incoherent.



Jerome wanted to translate the Hebrew Old Testament, which they didn't have, into Latin, but not from the Greek Septuagint they did have. Jerome's purpose was to end the great differences between texts. The Latin Vulgate reflects the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Tanakh) in 383 AD, the deletions in the Masoretic texts likely started in 70 AD. The earliest books we have are in Qumran, they are different in several places, deleting several prooftexts about Jesus that are used throughout the New Testament. Deleting the Suffering Servant is an anointed one/Messiah, or the Angel that God made his Son and demanded the other angels worship him as a God, or that El Elyon is Yahweh's Father.

And all this pointless verbiage has what to do with Mormons or Christ Followers?

 

[Pyreaux]

And all this pointless verbiage has what to do with Mormons or Christ Followers?

You objected to the Christian bona-fides of Mormonism on the basis of adding other extra-Biblical books. That is not a valid criteria.

Why do you think so?

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jewish texts underwent constant charge in response to Christianity at the hands of copyists, until there was a Christian demand for a pure text, so they manufactured a new fixed text for them, claiming to be from "old manuscripts saved from the Temple of Jerusalem", the Masora (Traditional) texts became the new standardized canon, and it disagreed with the Septuagint in several places, and so the Septuagint "was declared to be the work of Satan" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 138-139). Every Jewish copy of the Septuagint or Greek scriptures was being systematically destroyed, while they toiled to fix the Hebrew text for the Christians (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 86, 108, 118, 127). Jews forbid the reading of "the outside books" (Mishnah, m. Sanhedrin 10:1) and they were all burned (Talmud, b. Gitten 45b). They hid, burned and replaced any and all documents that seemed to support the ancient origins of the ascending Christians, whom they hated above all other Gentile pagans (Origen, Psalms Homily 1).

The Old Testament was manipulated by the Jewish Masoretes when Tiberius conquered Jerusalem, Jacob ben Chiyim, "was convinced there was only one correct Masora - the Masora compiled by himself and that the text which had been established by the great Masoretic authorities of Tiberius" (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 71, 77; 2nd Ed 130). After they thought they had destroyed all older variants of the Hebrew texts and established their new one as an original. The Masoretic texts went unchanged for years, and this was taken as proof of being an original, but only because we didn't know they successfully suppressed and destroyed all others. It became accepted as "the only authoritative text up to the present day" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 71-72; 2 Ed 131) The Romans Catholics also began to destroy and archive away all of their variants and claimed their texts as the oldest ones (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 85).

Even when there appeared discoveries of older manuscripts proving it was wrong, the scholars still wouldn't accept them, because they already possessed a preestablished system they 'know' is correct, so they'd correct the manuscripts instead, believing they needed to control and conform these discoveries to their own. Academia is a conservative world, it doesn't like things that makes their life's work appear to be the useless guess work it really is. Even when scholars accept a new discovery, they play it off to save face and make it appear it is as to be expected; hence the only thing they say about what the Dead Sea Scrolls show is that it proves the Bible is 'mostly' translated correctly. But do they bother to tell you about what things are not correct?

Despite that the Christians were accusing the Jews of altering the texts to hide Christian proof texts, Jerome operated under the belief that the Jews possessed a singular original text, even when though there were parts that were very significant to the Christians missing from it. All so they can reach a consensus with the Jews on what is recognized as scripture. They were played. The Bible is not, as we supposed, accounts preserved by dutiful scribes.

 

[RedFan]

You objected to the Christian bona-fides of Mormonism on the basis of adding other extra-Biblical books. That is not a valid criteria.



Via the Cairo Genzia. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jewish texts underwent constant charge in response to Christianity at the hands of copyists, until there was a Christian demand for a pure text, so they manufactured a new fixed text for them, claiming to be from "old manuscripts saved from the Temple of Jerusalem", the Masora (Traditional) texts became the new standardized canon, and it disagreed with the Septuagint in several places, and so the Septuagint "was declared to be the work of Satan" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 138-139). Every Jewish copy of the Septuagint or Greek scriptures was being systematically destroyed, while they toiled to fix the Hebrew text for the Christians (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 86, 108, 118, 127). Jews forbid the reading of "the outside books" (Mishnah, m. Sanhedrin 10:1) and they were all burned (Talmud, b. Gitten 45b). They hid, burned and replaced any and all documents that seemed to support the ancient origins of the ascending Christians, whom they hated above all other Gentile pagans (Origen, Psalms Homily 1).

Today we know that the Old Testament was manipulated by the Jewish Masoretes, and in the 6th century Jacob ben Chiyim, "he was convinced there was only one correct Masora - the Masora compiled by himself and that the text which had been established by the great Masoretic authorities of Tiberius" (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 71, 77; 2nd Ed 130). After they thought they had destroyed all older variants of the Hebrew texts and established their new one as an original. The Masoretic texts went unchanged for years, and this was taken as proof of being an original, but only because we didn't know they successfully suppressed and destroyed all others. It became accepted as "the only authoritative text up to the present day" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 71-72; 2 Ed 131) The Romans Catholics also began to destroy and archive away all of their variants and claimed their texts as the oldest ones (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 85).

Even when there appeared discoveries of older manuscripts proving Jacob ben Chiyim was wrong, the scholars still wouldn't accept them, because they already possessed a preestablished system they 'know' is correct, so they'd correct the manuscripts instead, believing they needed to control and conform these discoveries to their own. Academia is a conservative world, it doesn't like things that makes their life's work appear to be the useless guess work it really is. Even when scholars accept a new discovery, they play it off to save face and make it appear it is as to be expected; hence the only thing they say about what the Dead Sea Scrolls show is that it proves the Bible is 'mostly' translated correctly. Do they bother to tell you about what things are not correct?

Despite that the Christians were accusing the Jews of altering the texts to hide Christian proof texts, Jerome operated under the belief that the Jews possessed a singular original text, even when though there were parts that were very significant to the Christians missing from it. All so they can reach a consensus with the Jews on what is recognized as scripture. They were played. The Bible is not, as we supposed, accounts preserved by dutiful scribes.

But nothing in the Cairo Geniza dates from the first century. Nothing in its contents suggests a first century --or even a second century -- reworking of OT texts.

Today we know that the Old Testament was manipulated by the Jewish Masoretes, and in the 6th century Jacob ben Chiyim, "he was convinced there was only one correct Masora - the Masora compiled by himself and that the text which had been established by the great Masoretic authorities of Tiberius" (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 71, 77; 2nd Ed 130).

You have your centuries mixed up in mentioning ben Chiyim in the 6th century. He actually lived in the 16th century. What Kahle actually said (2nd ed. p. 130) was "He was convinced that there was only one correct Masora -- the one he had added to the Bible text and that the Bible text on the margins of which he had added the Masora was in the main the text as fixed by the great Masoretic authorities in Tiberias, particularly Aaron b. Asher in the first half of the tenth century." So obviously ben Chiyim could not have been alive four centuries earlier.

 

[th1b.taylor]

You objected to the Christian bona-fides of Mormonism on the basis of adding other extra-Biblical books. That is not a valid criteria.



Via the Cairo Genzia. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jewish texts underwent constant charge in response to Christianity at the hands of copyists, until there was a Christian demand for a pure text, so they manufactured a new fixed text for them, claiming to be from "old manuscripts saved from the Temple of Jerusalem", the Masora (Traditional) texts became the new standardized canon, and it disagreed with the Septuagint in several places, and so the Septuagint "was declared to be the work of Satan" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 138-139). Every Jewish copy of the Septuagint or Greek scriptures was being systematically destroyed, while they toiled to fix the Hebrew text for the Christians (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 86, 108, 118, 127). Jews forbid the reading of "the outside books" (Mishnah, m. Sanhedrin 10:1) and they were all burned (Talmud, b. Gitten 45b). They hid, burned and replaced any and all documents that seemed to support the ancient origins of the ascending Christians, whom they hated above all other Gentile pagans (Origen, Psalms Homily 1).

Today we know that the Old Testament was manipulated by the Jewish Masoretes, and in the 6th century Jacob ben Chiyim, "he was convinced there was only one correct Masora - the Masora compiled by himself and that the text which had been established by the great Masoretic authorities of Tiberius" (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 71, 77; 2nd Ed 130). After they thought they had destroyed all older variants of the Hebrew texts and established their new one as an original. The Masoretic texts went unchanged for years, and this was taken as proof of being an original, but only because we didn't know they successfully suppressed and destroyed all others. It became accepted as "the only authoritative text up to the present day" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 71-72; 2 Ed 131) The Romans Catholics also began to destroy and archive away all of their variants and claimed their texts as the oldest ones (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 85).

Even when there appeared discoveries of older manuscripts proving Jacob ben Chiyim was wrong, the scholars still wouldn't accept them, because they already possessed a preestablished system they 'know' is correct, so they'd correct the manuscripts instead, believing they needed to control and conform these discoveries to their own. Academia is a conservative world, it doesn't like things that makes their life's work appear to be the useless guess work it really is. Even when scholars accept a new discovery, they play it off to save face and make it appear it is as to be expected; hence the only thing they say about what the Dead Sea Scrolls show is that it proves the Bible is 'mostly' translated correctly. Do they bother to tell you about what things are not correct?

Despite that the Christians were accusing the Jews of altering the texts to hide Christian proof texts, Jerome operated under the belief that the Jews possessed a singular original text, even when though there were parts that were very significant to the Christians missing from it. All so they can reach a consensus with the Jews on what is recognized as scripture. They were played. The Bible is not, as we supposed, accounts preserved by dutiful scribes.

That is a pointless accusation... what books did I add? FYI, all 18 versions I study from have 66 letters from Yehovah.

 

[The Learner]

Actual LDS Christian clarifying here:

Alcohol, coffee, tobacco, and tea (tea-plant tea) are the no-go's. Nothing wrong with soda from a doctrinal standpoint, though obviously it's not healthy for you.

Being prepared from doctrinal standpoint: be a good steward of Earthly things. Like if possible have a savings account and some extra food so if the roads are closed due to blizzard you're not going hungry. It's really nice when my family get's the flu or whatever to not have to go shopping for a week. But nothing doctrinally about guns, bunkers, or that extreme prepping - that's actually been called out over the pulpit as wrong.

Polygamy: nope. That's an express ticket to excommunication.

Robo dialars and spam calls? Also nope.

why in my day LDS missionaries poured coke on hamburger to prove it was bad for you?

Coke, Rum Cake, and President McKay - Mormon Matters

I just started reading Greg Prince's book, David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. It's been a great read so far. Prince tells some interesting stories about President McKay and the Word of Wisdom. BYU has banned caffeinated soft drinks on campus for years. I work for a few large...

www.mormonmatters.org

 

[The Learner]

I am not keeping up. What does the Word of Wisdom teach about food?

 

[th1b.taylor]

You objected to the Christian bona-fides of Mormonism on the basis of adding other extra-Biblical books. That is not a valid criteria.

So says you, a completely unknown teacher to me. I'll stay with the original authoritative source.

 

[Pyreaux]

That is a pointless accusation... what books did I add? FYI, all 18 versions I study from have 66 letters from Yehovah.

Not you personally, but do you still have the Comma Johanneum, a trinitarian prooftext added to the Bible? Do you not have the Book of Tobit, a book taken away from the Bible, which is in the Dead Sea Scrolls and referenced by Jesus as scripture?

So says you, a completely unknown teacher to me. I'll stay with the original authoritative source.

The original source is the very mouth of the oracles themselves; do you know of any such oracles? Your source doesn't trump true authority, so says your very source.

 

[Pyreaux]

why in my day LDS missionaries poured coke on hamburger to prove it was bad for you?

I am not keeping up. What does the Word of Wisdom teach about food?

The "Word of Wisdom" is a revised policy that specifically prohibits alcohol, tobacco, coffee (any "ccinos") and tea (camellia sinensis, most certainly black tea, if not also green and white tea), and illegal drugs (marijuana, etc) without a medical reason.

It's based on an original revelation that has other details, like eating meat sparingly, etc. and at the time was considered mere virtues, not prohibitions. It originally was against "hot drinks", later defined as "coffee and tea" (not herbal teas, hot cider, hot coco, broths, soup). But no information about what exactly is in coffee and tea that is to be avoided. We now know caffeine is in both, except caffeine is not what Is prohibited. Therefore, LDS can and do drink caffeinated soft drinks but not decaffeinated coffee.

On occasion, usually Utahans' cultural tick is to mix up "no coffee or tea" with "no caffein" interchangeably. Your young missionaries sometimes misunderstand.

 

[The Learner]

The "Word of Wisdom" is a revised policy that specifically prohibits alcohol, tobacco, coffee (any "ccinos") and tea (camellia sinensis, most certainly black tea, if not also green and white tea), and illegal drugs (marijuana, etc) without a medical reason.

It's based on an original revelation that has other details, like eating meat sparingly, etc. and at the time was considered mere virtues, not prohibitions. It originally was against "hot drinks", later defined as "coffee and tea" (not herbal teas, hot cider, hot coco, broths, soup). But no information about what exactly is in coffee and tea that is to be avoided. We now know caffeine is in both, except caffeine is not what Is prohibited. Therefore, LDS can and do drink caffeinated soft drinks but not decaffeinated coffee.

On occasion, usually Utahans' cultural tick is to mix up "no coffee or tea" with "no caffein" interchangeably. Your young missionaries sometimes misunderstand.