An interesting approach to the Book of Mormon

[twopekinguys]

jsfellowship.com/

This person says that Joseph Smith was only called to translate the Book of Mormon and nothing more based on Book of Commandments:

Very interesting, I must say.

 

[pinay]

The link in post #1 shows how they are true

Okay… so… tell me by which authority that article in post #1 is considered the end all be all of truth?

Because, I’m fairly certain, if not 100% certain, that you don’t believe every anti-Pope-<insert pope’s name here> article you read as true.

 

[pinay]

:clapping: Yours is even better Pinay! You made my Army day. You do know I have a soft spot and a great love for my Mormon friends. Peace and prayers for you and yours. I hope you took no offence. If you did, I know some great Catholic jokes I can p.m. you.

Oh no, I didn’t think it was offensive. I just thought it was funny…

I was gonna use the…

Hey <soldier’s name here>… I wiped out all these Christians in these parts, let me see if there are more Christians I can catch in that road yonder… I wonder if I would find anything interesting amongst the snakes and scorpions…

But, I can’t think of a good soldier’s name.

My dad is the king of Catholic jokes. The funny thing is… I can replace Catholic with Mormons and the joke is still funny!

 

[pinay]

We have had several Popes who I am sure lost favor with God. But none of them spoke ex cathedra, bringing error into Catholic doctrine. It is the office of the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, when speaking from the official “chair of Peter” that is protected from error.

I can concur.

There’s a difference between doctrine and practice. Saying the mass in Latin while facing away from the Congregation may not have been the most correct of practices - especially in the later era - therefore was corrected, but that change doesn’t signify that the doctrine was in error.

Interestingly, I believe the same is true for the LDS side of things…

 

[Stephen168]

Okay… so… tell me by which authority that article in post #1 is considered the end all be all of truth?

The changes the author claims were made to the original “revelations” of Joseph Smith between the Book of Commandments, and Doctrine and Convents are verifiable, and true. Therefore:

1. Joseph Smith claims God gave him one job and one job only. (Book of Commandments)
2. Joseph Smith claims God gave him another job.(D&C)

If one is true, then two is false. Joseph Smith either lied about his first claim, his second claim, or both. Joseph Smith was either never a prophet, or a fallen prophet.

 

[ParkerD]

That doesn’t seem to be what Joseph Smith’s original revelations taught until they were changed (seemingly at the behest of Sidney Rigdon of all people).

Bart,

I’ve never considered Sidney Rigdon as much of a historical figure in LDS history–more of an “all talk and not much courage or deep faith”–so any time I read comments about him I realize that more is made of him by those outside the church than by any inside the church.

As for Joseph Smith and the concept of revelation, I like that he showed that receiving revelation from God is not like receiving “dictation” from a “dictator”–it is exactly like having a conversation wherein there really is two-way communication, so as he learned more, I would expect that he would put into more complete words the revelations he had received. Life with ongoing revelation is that way–a conversation with God, asking for answers and receiving them and adjusting and growing based on the answers, but always being willing to ask questions and grow.

 

[pinay]

The changes the author claims were made to the original “revelations” of Joseph Smith between the Book of Commandments, and Doctrine and Convents are verifiable, and true. Therefore:

1. Joseph Smith claims God gave him one job and one job only. (Book of Commandments)
2. Joseph Smith claims God gave him another job.(D&C)

If one is true, then two is false. Joseph Smith either lied about his first claim, his second claim, or both. Joseph Smith was either never a prophet, or a fallen prophet.

Okay, I’ll bite.

You either believe that He saw God or you don’t.

If you can accept the fact that he saw God, then you accept the fact that God gave him instructions.

If you accept that God gave him instructions, then there is NO REASON for you to think that this is a one and only one time event.

So, Joseph Smith was given the first instruction. He wrote it as he understood it. The instruction was - Do not join any church for “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”.

That was IT… he was 15. And for years after he told that account he suffered persecution. There was NO MENTION of the Book of Mormon at all. This account was gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments.

When he was about 18, he again received a vision, this time from a heavenly messenger named Moroni with a new instruction to retrieve the plates from which the fullness of the gospel was contained. Remember, there was never a mention of this on his visit from God when he was 15.

From the time he was 18 all the way to he was 24, his sole instruction was to retrieve the plates and translate it.

Again, he wrote this account. So, how is this now acceptable when his first account was only that he should not join any other church? And why would he think that he had more instruction after this one? This account was also gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments.

When he was 24, he received further instruction from another heavenly messenger - he was conferred the Aaronic Priesthood Authority and was asked to baptize Oliver Cowdery. This account was also gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments…

And on and on is the progression as he received more and more instructions all of which are gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments and now officially compiled in the Doctrine and Covenants.

As he learned more, his understanding grew, sometimes having to go back and clarify a previous account.

Line upon line, precept upon precept. The exact same way everybody in Church History from the time of Adam has always learned… all of which are in the Holy Bible. And if one should apply this type of splitting hairs in the manner of truth devoid of context, then yes, you will find a gazillion contradictory instructions in the Bible itself.

 

[benidict]

Oh no, I didn’t think it was offensive. I just thought it was funny…

I was gonna use the…

Hey <soldier’s name here>… I wiped out all these Christians in these parts, let me see if there are more Christians I can catch in that road yonder… I wonder if I would find anything interesting amongst the snakes and scorpions…

But, I can’t think of a good soldier’s name.

My dad is the king of Catholic jokes. The funny thing is… I can replace Catholic with Mormons and the joke is still funny!

 

[Stephen168]

Okay, I’ll bite.

Interesting attitude to defending your faith.

You either believe that He saw God or you don’t.

True

If you can accept the fact that he saw God, then you accept the fact that God gave him instructions.

True

If you accept that God gave him instructions, then there is NO REASON for you to think that this is a one and only one time event.

True

So, Joseph Smith was given the first instruction. He wrote it as he understood it. The instruction was - Do not join any church for “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”.

That was IT… he was 15. And for years after he told that account he suffered persecution. There was NO MENTION of the Book of Mormon at all. This account was gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments.

When he was about 18, he again received a vision, this time from a heavenly messenger named Moroni with a new instruction to retrieve the plates from which the fullness of the gospel was contained. Remember, there was never a mention of this on his visit from God when he was 15.

From the time he was 18 all the way to he was 24, his sole instruction was to retrieve the plates and translate it.

Again, he wrote this account. So, how is this now acceptable when his first account was only that he should not join any other church? And why would he think that he had more instruction after this one? This account was also gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments.

When he was 24, he received further instruction from another heavenly messenger - he was conferred the Aaronic Priesthood Authority and was asked to baptize Oliver Cowdery. This account was also gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments…

Being told to “not join another church,” “your only job is to translate the Book of Mormon,” and “being given a jewish priesthood;” do not conflict with each other. But claiming he was told he will only have one job, then being told he has another job; conflict. You can’t be limited to one job and do two jobs. Joseph Smith or God is not being truthful.

on and on is the progression as he received more and more instructions all of which are gathered and compiled into the Book of Commandments and now officially compiled in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Published two years apart but VERY different.

he learned more, his understanding grew, sometimes having to go back and clarify a previous account.

They were more than clarifications; within two years they were contradictions.

 

[pinay]

Interesting attitude to defending your faith.

I don’t make the habit of defending my faith in a manner of debate, especially ones that are in danger of being contentious. I only clarify mis-statements and the like, offering information that may be helpful in providing a different understanding of the matter at hand. I learned that in Catholic school.

Religion/Faith is a personal matter that can neither be proven/unproven. You can’t change a mind that is already made up or one cannot fill a cup that is already full, as the saying goes. Any attempt to do so only drives the Spirit further away.

Now, there are some threads where the tone of discussion is for knowledge (not necessarily to agree… but to understand better where the other person is coming from)… and there are those that, from the opening statement, one can already feel that it is not intended for knowledge but for attack. Putting one group of people down, judged and juried.

This thread is the latter. And I usually don’t join in on it. This time, I bit. And, now I regret it.

Because, whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or not cannot be proven/disproven by “a quote here and a quote there”. Just like the authority of the Pope cannot be proven/disproven by reciting the entire Apostolic succession or perusing every utterance of Pope Benedict for contradictions. Just like the truth of the Bible cannot be disproven by picking a verse here and picking a verse there and saying, “see, Jesus said you should pray in private and not in any public place, yet Paul told everybody to pray in Churches”.

It is a futile attempt and nothing good can come out of it.

 

[SteveVH]

I can concur.

There’s a difference between doctrine and practice. Saying the mass in Latin while facing away from the Congregation may not have been the most correct of practices - especially in the later era - therefore was corrected, but that change doesn’t signify that the doctrine was in error.

Interestingly, I believe the same is true for the LDS side of things…

Not to nit pick this, but the pre-Vatican II Masses are not considered incorrect and are still allowed. The change was made in order to invite greater participation among the congregants. But I am happy that you understand the difference between doctrine and discipline or practice.

God bless.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t make the habit of defending my faith in a manner of debate, especially ones that are in danger of being contentious. I only clarify mis-statements and the like, offering information that may be helpful in providing a different understanding of the matter at hand.

You asked two questions which I think you believed were rhetorical; I was just demonstrating they were not. There is an answer if one chooses to pursue it. I can understand why you would choose not to.

 

[pinay]

You asked two questions which I think you believed were rhetorical; I was just demonstrating they were not. There is an answer if one chooses to pursue it. I can understand why you would choose not to.

I’m not sure I follow what you’re trying to say…

Do you mean these questions?

That’s what I’m trying to say… Who gets to decide that the prophet fell?

Okay, let me rephrase in Catholic terms… Who gets to decide that the pope lost favor with God?

They were answered completely by benedict here:

God. And God would deal with the issue, in a very visible way…I will give you 3 guesses what would happen to a Pope if he erred on either doctrines or dogma. If a prophet falls and is found to be false, The people in the O.T. were instructed very clearly on how to deal with such a person. This however does not happen today. Peace

Which I then acknowledged here:

EXACTLY!

And that’s what’s missing in that article.

Which pretty much concluded that part of the exercise.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which pretty much concluded that part of the exercise.

It pretty much concluded that part of the exercise

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not to nit pick this, but the pre-Vatican II Masses are not considered incorrect and are still allowed. The change was made in order to invite greater participation among the congregants. But I am happy that you understand the difference between doctrine and discipline or practice.

God bless.

You know I grew up pre Vatican II so I obviously I’m familiar with both. What was ironic though was the Ash Wednesday Mass. At my parish it was a complete mass with Communion the whole mass, entire hour. But a seriously seriously nice Mass. They handed out Mass Cards with Christ carrying the cross. With “Our Lenten Journey” on the back. Just well done.

My wife shot over to Holy Rosary which I do like to go for confession, I get on fabulously with the father their. Anyway she went their and was back in 10-minutes, no communion just Ash’s 10-minutes and done.

Its all good. I have to suffer, I wouldn’t feel right if their wasn’t a significant amount of kneeling

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not sure I follow what you’re trying to say…

Do you mean these questions?

No, these questions.

Now, who gets to decide that one is true while the other isn’t?

… Who gets to decide that the prophet fell?

Reason gets to decide.

1. Joseph Smith claims God gave him one job and one job only.
2. Joseph Smith claims God gave him another job.
   If one is true, then two is false. Joseph Smith either lied about his first claim, his second claim, or both. Joseph Smith was either never a prophet, or a fallen prophet.

 

[pinay]

No, these questions.

Yeah, but I didn’t agree that REASON ALONE gets to decide.

The Church - Catholic or LDS - do not rise and fall by REASON. It rises and falls by the Power of God.

Because, if you really think about it through REASONING, there is no way you can conclude that a church - any church - holds any authority and even further to conclude that the Holy Bible - whichever version of it - is true, or even that Pope Benedict or Prophet Monson are not just CEOs of a lucrative business enterprise.

Going by reason alone, the only belief that makes sense is Agnosticism.

But, I went ahead and “bit” anyway to see if I can make you see the “reason” why I don’t consider #1 and #2 true.

But, of course, I can’t make you see reason. I can try to get you to see my perspective, but ultimately, you can only see what makes sense to you. That’s understandable and completely natural.

No harm no foul. Peace.

 

[Stephen168]

Yeah, but I didn’t agree that REASON ALONE gets to decide.

I’ve already shown you how it does.

The Church - Catholic or LDS - do not rise and fall by REASON. It rises and falls by the Power of God.

Because, if you really think about it through REASONING, there is no way you can conclude that a church - any church - holds any authority and even further to conclude that the Holy Bible - whichever version of it - is true, or even that Pope Benedict or Prophet Monson are not just CEOs of a lucrative business enterprise.

Going by reason alone, the only belief that makes sense is Agnosticism.

We are not talking about the Catholic or Mormon Church. We are talking about two claims made by Joseph Smith that contradict each other as pointed out in the link provided by the OP.

But, I went ahead and “bit” anyway to see if I can make you see the “reason” why I don’t consider #1 and #2 true.

Claims 1 and 2 are facts. Smith made them. They are true. What you attempted to do was explain why they are not contradiction by listing other times Smith claimed he talked with God. But you never addressed these two claims made within two years of each other.

Reason tells use that two opposite things cannot both be true at the same time. A light cannot be both on and off at the same time. If some one makes two opposing claims, reason tells us that one or both are false. It applies to everyone, even Joseph Smith.

 

[pinay]

I’ve already shown you how it does.

And your reason doesn’t hold water.

Look, Simon (Peter), denied Christ 3 times. No, not once. THREE TIMES. So, If I go by your way of reasoning… that’s the end of Peter. He’s a liar.

But. We both know it is not. Because, that’s not the end of the story.

And so it is with Joseph Smith. You can’t look at his ministry by 2 lines from different books. Because, I can give you at least 10 out of the top of my head where the gospels of Matthew and John do not match so that a man without faith can point their fingers to every one of these lines and say - LIE!

Therefore, your reasoning may be valid to you, it is not for me. No, not because I can reason better… but because I do not use reason alone to determine truth. I can debate either side of any story - people do it all the time - they even have a word for it - SPIN, I think is the official term. I appeal to God for understanding. So that, in the end, it is not taking one verse of the gospel of Matthew here, and one verse of the gospel of John here and pitting them up against each other through puny reasoning - it is what God tells me (or those He has given the authority to speak for Him) what it means.

And this concludes my contribution to this discussion - because… it is not going anywhere.

 

[pinay]

You know I grew up pre Vatican II so I obviously I’m familiar with both. What was ironic though was the Ash Wednesday Mass. At my parish it was a complete mass with Communion the whole mass, entire hour. But a seriously seriously nice Mass. They handed out Mass Cards with Christ carrying the cross. With “Our Lenten Journey” on the back. Just well done.

My wife shot over to Holy Rosary which I do like to go for confession, I get on fabulously with the father their. Anyway she went their and was back in 10-minutes, no communion just Ash’s 10-minutes and done.

Its all good. I have to suffer, I wouldn’t feel right if their wasn’t a significant amount of kneeling

Oooh! I have to share… in my Catholic days in the Philippines, Ash Wednesday mass was always a full, very subdued mass. It usually goes well over an hour because there are so many people lining up for the ash, and then another line for communion.

I moved to the US, and the Ash Wednesday mass was very short. I was a few minutes late so I almost missed the ash! But, what was very wierd about it is… the ash was put on my forehead using some kind of a stamp. It was almost like a cross was tattooed on my forehead. It felt very wierd to me because I always associate the ash with the priest making the sign of the cross over me. I don’t know - I mean, it looked really cool and I got a lot of questions/compliments on it at work but it just didn’t feel right to me. I guess I wasn’t the only one who felt that way because that was the one and only time I’ve ever seen the stamp used in that church.