A single Biblical passage to undermine all of mormonism.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chazemataz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why doesn’t the LDS church use the Joseph Smith “inspired” version if it really does correct mistranslations?

I have a hard time with the LDS habit of quoting “prophets”, scriptures, Apostles, etc. when convenient and then distancing from those same sources when that doesn’t work. (mistranslated, Prophets personal opinion vs. revelation, Apostles opinion rather than doctrine)

I have seen everything from personal diaries to Journal of Discourses, Joseph Smith version of Bible to the Ensign used as source material for LDS lesson manuals yet when discussing “contraversial” elements from these sources we are told that they aren’t doctrine.

Is there truly no documented source of “official” LDS doctrine? (yes I know you have your “standard works” but they do NOT address all areas of current LDS teachings and/or practice)
 
40.png
majick275:
Why doesn’t the LDS church use the Joseph Smith “inspired” version if it really does correct mistranslations?
Click to expand...
Because the RLDS church holds the copyright on it?
40.png
majick275:
Is there truly no documented source of “official” LDS doctrine? (yes I know you have your “standard works” but they do NOT address all areas of current LDS teachings and/or practice)
Click to expand...
No, unfortunately. Trying to pin down LDS doctrine is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.
 
40.png
arieh0310:
How could God inspire JS to insert a contradition in the Bible as my example clearly illustrates?
Click to expand...
I believe God knows what he said originally better than the translators or you, and would say what he means to say, even if it contradicts what the translators say he said. I know you don’t believe, but that is why you are Catholic and I am LDS. This is what we believe and if it contradicts what the translators say after many men spent years trying to decipher what God said, I believe they could have been mistaken. After all they are not infallible, and God is infallible.
So I prefer to believe God over you or anyone else. Joseph Smith was His servant through whom he talked directly and what He said is direct from the mouth of God. How can you get any more correct than that? BJ
 
Even though this verse should prove troublesome to the LDS, I think the better argument would be to argue the great apostacy. Show proof of the great apostacy and you give credibilty to the LDS…however, show proof against the great apostacy, then the CoJCoLDS have no foundation whatsoever.

My stance would be that the great apostacy is neither historical nor biblical. Please show some evidence otherwise.
 
BJ Colbert:
Joseph Smith was His servant through whom he talked directly and what He said is direct from the mouth of God. How can you get any more correct than that? BJ
Click to expand...
My point seems to be illuding you so I think it best to get back to the main issue: Is the only LDS rebuttal to Isaiah 43:10 that the Bible is corrupt?
 
I’ve said this so many times that I feel like a broken record but I’ll say it again. If LDS held their own church to the same standard they hold to the Catholic Church their very own church would fail the test! If you really believe that Joseph Smith restored the true church back in 1830, if that church was the real deal, then why has it changed so much in almost every conceivable way? What has changed you ask? Only the most important things.

Ordinances (temple ordinances)
Scriptures (BOM…changes that affect doctrine)
Doctrines on matters of faith and morals (dozens)

If substantially changing these things, which are the backbone of any real faith tradition, doesn’t constitute evidence of an apostasy then I don’t know what does. If Joseph Smith did indeed restore the gospel, and the LDS Church once had the authority, then by their own standards they have long since lost it and are themselves in a state of apostasy. Either that, or they cannot claim the Catholic church(which has deviated far less from apostolic tradition than the LDS from the teachings of JS and BY) has lost it’s authority. That’s the view from this side of the aisle where ex-LDS sit.
 
Vidar said:
Get a copy of the BOC and read it for yourself.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how this refers to the OP, however your offering of evidence is not precise enough to responded to. Perhaps you could give and an example in both which corresponds to each other, and we can go from there.
(and Tom and the rest of the LDS “missionaries” in here)
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that any LDS person on this board uses this privilege as a spring board for the purpose of missionary work. Instead it is to answer the many misunderstandings of our belief.
When it comes to Catholicism you strain out a gnat. But with regards to your own religion you are perfectly willing to swallow a camel.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
So let’s go back to the beginning here. The prevailing belief among the Catholics here is that Isaiah is a very important book of scripture that completely contradicts the LDS doctrine of eternal progression, the LDS doctrine on the creation, and the LDS view of the pre-existence.

The LDS response has so far resulted in more confusion (not an accusation just stating my observance that there is a misunderstanding) because we seem to be struggling in our efforts to clearly define just what LDS doctrine on this is.

So let’s try to answer some basic questions (some with follow ups) so that we can all reach greater understanding:
  1. Does Heavenly Father have a Father? (and if so is He a God as well?)
  2. Will mortals from this Earth who reach the highest degree of Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom continue to have Children in the Celestial Kingdom? (if so will these children need to come down to earth or some other planet to receive physical bodies and work out their own salvation? if yes, who will be there savior? who will tempt them so that there is “opposition in all things”?)
  3. is(are) there (a) heavenly mother(s)? (if yes, is she a God/Goddess?)
I believe that if we have definitive answers to these questions then it will become obvious wehter or not this scripture invalidates LDS doctrine. THEN, we can debate if this scripture is correctly translated, interpreted, etc.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
I’ve said this so many times that I feel like a broken record but I’ll say it again. If LDS held their own church to the same standard they hold to the Catholic Church their very own church would fail the test! If you really believe that Joseph Smith restored the true church back in 1830, if that church was the real deal, then why has it changed so much in almost every conceivable way? What has changed you ask? Only the most important things.

Ordinances (temple ordinances)
Scriptures (BOM…changes that affect doctrine)
Doctrines on matters of faith and morals (dozens)

If substantially changing these things, which are the backbone of any real faith tradition, doesn’t constitute evidence of an apostasy then I don’t know what does. If Joseph Smith did indeed restore the gospel, and the LDS Church once had the authority, then by their own standards they have long since lost it and are themselves in a state of apostasy. Either that, or they cannot claim the Catholic church(which has deviated far less from apostolic tradition than the LDS from the teachings of JS and BY) has lost it’s authority. That’s the view from this side of the aisle where ex-LDS sit.
Click to expand...
I think we have already determined that the Mormon Church is in itself apostate according to it’s radical offshoots who uphold the original teachings of Joseph Smith. But isn’t this what happens when one begins to throw stones? First it claims that the Catholic Church is apostate, and then gets boulders thrown at itself from it’s own offshoots.
 
40.png
arieh0310:
My point seems to be illuding you so I think it best to get back to the main issue: Is the only LDS rebuttal to Isaiah 43:10 that the Bible is corrupt?
Click to expand...
Why are LDS supposed to have a problem with this verse? What rebuttal are you looking for? What problem are we supposed to have with Isaiah? Like give me a hint at what the rebuttal should say. I guess your point is very much illuding me.

LDS believe in one supreme God. He is God the Father. Associated with the Father are his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. These three constitute the Godhead, the governing council of the universe. The personages in the Trinity are distinct personalities, but they are as one because they are united in all things of faith and action. It is a mystery to you, but it is very clear to us, how three can act as one God.
BJ
 
If we can get my questions answered then we can have an informed discussion.

The reasons why Catholics think this scripture is not compatible with Mormonism is what most of us believe the LDS church teaches on those subjects. If we have a mutual understanding of the “official” doctrine of the LDS church on this then we can have meaningful dialogue on this.
 
BJ Colbert:
Why are LDS supposed to have a problem with this verse? What rebuttal are you looking for? What problem are we supposed to have with Isaiah? Like give me a hint at what the rebuttal should say. I guess your point is very much illuding me.

LDS believe in one supreme God. He is God the Father. Associated with the Father are his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. These three constitute the Godhead, the governing council of the universe. The personages in the Trinity are distinct personalities, but they are as one because they are united in all things of faith and action. It is a mystery to you, but it is very clear to us, how three can act as one God.
BJ
Click to expand...
BJ,

What is sought with this verse is a response to the notion that God is an eternal unchanging being. Is this what LDS now believe or do they still hold to the doctrine as Joseph Smith taught??..this is a quote from the King Follett Sermon:

“It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth”

Here’s my question in a nutshell: Is the first principle of the LDS gospel to know that God was once a mortal man, just like us, who was born, sinned, lived and died, worshipped his God, was resurrected and eventually exalted? Is it still the first principle of the LDS Gospel?

I agree with Joseph Smith that it’s very important that we understand the character of God. What is LDS doctrine on this issue?
 
Paul G:
I don’t know how this refers to the OP, however your offering of evidence is not precise enough to responded to. Perhaps you could give and an example in both which corresponds to each other, and we can go from there.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I already have:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=822708#post822708

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=822976#post822976

Tertullian vs. David Whitmer

Doctrinal development vs Doctrinal development 🙂

Vidar
Click to expand...
 
I can’t just give up on this one. This goes to the entire purpose of human existence. “this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality of man.” (LDS scriptural viewpoint of why we are here)

Eternal Progression, Exaltation… these are given as the reward for obedience to the commandments in LDS doctrine. The “goal” of the gospel if you will. (at least as far as LDS folks have explained it to me)

So once again… Can we please get LDS answers to my questions on this thread?
 
So, here is my dilemma and maybe this is not the right thread to post in, yet, here I go. For argument sake let us say that Mormonism is completely doctrinally wrong (and for most of you this will not be too much of a stretch for your imagination). For this argument I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. In this particularly situation I am an active, good standing Mormon who does within all his power to do what he feels is right. Whether this be due to my fuzzy feelings inside or my doctrinal convictions. Now let say my neighbor is Roman Catholic and though he believes in the Church and her traditions he rarely lives a life that one would say is outstanding in righteousness. He is not a bad man but he really isn’t a good man either. Tonight as both my neighbor and I go to sleep we die. Now as I try to get into heaven I am stopped and told that I chose the wrong religion. Due to my choice I am damned to a world of suffering. Whereas, my neighbor, who lived a mediocre life is allowed to be adopted into God’s presence and live a life of eternal bliss and happiness.

I am sure that you can see where I am going with this. How is this unchanging God that you speak of fair and just with this understanding? As a Mormon I try to truly live a life that I feel is in harmony with God. I worship the Savior to the best of my understanding; I try to have charity; and to be fair in my actions. On top of this, I willingly sacrifice 10 percent of my income; I do not drink, smoke, do drugs, or have pre or extra-marital sex. I do not do things to make myself better than others but rather because I sincerely believe that the Divine has lead me to the true Church.

Now let’s go back to my hypothetical situation. In doing all this I have made a truly great error in not believing the way my neighbor did. Yet, how can a God who is an all loving Father in Heaven send me to an existence of misery, particularly when I tried so desperately to do what I thought was His will? You can argue and say it is because I believed in the wrong Jesus. Yet, when I was alive I truly did not believe that I was being misled. If I did then I would have left the Mormon Church and sought out the truth.

I would be most interested in how you address this question. If God is not a respecter of men than this argument should fit not just for Mormons, but Muslims, Hindus, and even Wiccans.

Thanks for your comments and convictions on this matter.

BYU-BOY
 
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
–Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1257
Click to expand...
Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
– Ibid. paragraph 1260
Click to expand...
This may surprise you, but we don’t believe all non-Catholics will go to hell, nor that all Catholics (even those whom we consider “not bad”) will go to heaven. God judges us by how much we return what He’s given us.

This isn’t to say that nobody needs to worry about becoming Catholic. It is of grave concern, especially for those who don’t have a valid baptism. However, if it is truly through no fault of your own that you haven’t received a valid baptism and believed truths about God (such as that there’s only one of Him, or that He is the source of all that exists and of all that we should seek), and you have lived as the sheep in Christ’s parable, you will receive your just reward.

Still, I invite you to study the Catholic Church with all the intensity you can muster. It’s much better to have an assurance of sanctifying grace in your soul than a hope that you have it when you die.
 
40.png
majick275:
So once again… Can we please get LDS answers to my questions on this thread? majick275 the thing that you and many others consistently attack with Isaiah 43:10-16 is the Mormon doctrine of theogony. Being that LDS doctrine belongs to the family of open theology, whereas, RC doctrine belongs to the family of closed theology it is no wonder why it is difficult for us to see eye to eye. However here is an attempt to help you understand why this scripture of Isaiah doesn’t refute our faith. I don’t offer this explanation as a means to convince you because it seems quite clear where your convictions are and for this I commend you and all others that have your similar convictions.

As Latter-day Saint we do believe that “Before me there was no God formed: and after me there shall be none.” Yet, what you do not understand is that this concept of God to us is not just an entity, power, or being, but rather a status. God has always been and will always be but who holds that title of God does change. An example of this would be the President of the United States. There has always been a President since the beginning of the formation of the States. However, who has been President has changed every four to eight years.

I know for many on this forum this ideology is heretical and I do not fault you for your opinion. Yet, I hope that it does help you understand why the whole Mormon Church doesn’t collapse when you offer this scripture as an attack. My answer may not comfort your disbelief and contempt for my faith but again, you and I are wear different glasses when we view what we hold to be truth.

Cheers!

BYU-BOY
 
Brad- Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate your words. I do have one question though. If what you share is true and that God is the judge, why is there so much contempt found on these boards concerning other faiths?

Cheers!
BYU-BOY
 
Another question:

Why is it that God is “not bound by his sacraments”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top