Angel Moroni

[flyonthewall]

You are walking in some obscure Mormon beliefs of which I have only a limited understanding. Mormons believe in the doctrine of Translation as taught in Hebrews 11:5 as you have stated above. All those who did not taste death and live were Translated such as Henoch (Enoch), James, Elijah, Three Nephites, etc. This seems to be a very select, small group. All others go through the process death and transition to the afterlife.

The concept of the First Resurrection or the fruits there of I am not sure about. Maybe a Mormon could explain, but I think this is an event at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. I am not sure of those few who have been resurrected; maybe they are the first fruits, but were not resurrected, obviously, at the event.

It is my understanding that Translation is only a temporary state and that they will be changed into resurrected beings at the direction of God.

I have often thought what a Mormon thinks when they are in Santiago de Compostela in Spain at the wonderful Cathedral there where St. James is buried?

You have some great insight to our beliefs.
From lds.org:
Translated beings are persons who are changed so that they do not experience pain or death until their resurrection to immortality.

This is a link to our Guide to the Scriptures on the topic of resurrection:
lds.org/scriptures/gs/resurrection?lang=eng&query=resurrected+beings

As far as the Cathedral where St. James is buried, I could not tell you as I have never been there. I am unfamiliar with the building or the story behind it.

 

[flyonthewall]

Not at all, but I don’t see the word Testament in it. And if it did, it would not change my point.

What is a testament? How are you using the word?
Here is what I pull from the dictionary:
World English Dictionary
testament (ˈtɛstəmənt)

— n

1. law a will setting out the disposition of personal property (esp in the phrase last will and testament )
   **2. a proof, attestation, or tribute: his success was a testament to his skills **
2. a. a covenant instituted between God and man, esp the covenant of Moses or that instituted by Christ
   b. a copy of either the Old or the New Testament, or of the complete Bible

This is what the page is saying…a proof or attestation, a witness of Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon IS a history. You and JeanMichel are saying that Smith claimed its PURPOSE was to be a witness of Jesus Christ. The deception you and JeanMichel are engaged in is to equate Smith’s claim of PURPOSE for Smith’s claim of what it IS. That is why JeanMichel left out the IS part of the Intro to the Book of Mormon.

Just like the Bible is a history, yet the Bible is not used in any history classes.
You are being deceptive to try and claim that Joseph Smith states that the Book of Mormon is a History book. It is not.
From the Introduction of the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

Does the Book of Mormonn contain some history in it? yes. But the purpose of the Book of Mormon is not to be a History book, but a record of God’s dealings with a people.

You have made up your own conclusions about the Book of Mormon and what it is, and are trying to sell it to us. We know better. It is time you stop telling us what you think we believe and listen to what we actually believe. I don’t expect you to agree with it, but if you are goin to criticize our beleifs, it is better to understand what they are. Reminds me of Rosanna Rosana Dana.

The reason the Book of Mormon is not used in SnakeMauler’s history class is because it is a work of fiction; it is not history as Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Is the Bible a text book used in history classes? Perhaps religious history classes but not a normal history class. Does that mean the Bible is a work of fiction too?

 

[stormy99]

Consider this:

When I was granted an annulment of marriage (a recognition by the Catholic Church that a sacramental marriage never existed) from the Mormon woman I attempted to marry, the main reason cited was “disparity of cult”. Disparity of cult means that the imputed spouse worships a different deity from the One worshipped by Catholics.

That to me says that Mormons are non-Christians in the view of the Catholic Church.

**I was told that my ex husband’s Mormon baptism was not Christian and not recognized by the Catholic Church. The invalidity of our marriage decree so stated.

stormy**

 

[stormy99]

You guys take that seriously? As a history major, I know for a fact that there was no Judaism or Christianity in 5th century America. To say anything different means I’m wasting thousands of dollars on college tuition.

**That’s just what they say…history says no not true…you aren’t wasting your money…you have it right.

stormy**

 

[stormy99]

Yes they do. All of them subscribe to the Trinitarian view of God. Three persons, One God. Through whom all things were made. With Jesus Christ as the Savior.

And yes, they are all embraced by Catholics as Christians… sometimes to the point where Catholics prefer to be labeled Catholics instead of Christians to differentiate themselves from the Protestants.

**I’m one of them…I am a Roman Catholic and I am a Christian…but I am not a Protestant. I was before but no longer. I don’t wish to be labeled as a Protestant…ever.

stormy**

 

[stormy99]

So the very front of the Book of Mormon, a book which Joseph Smith translated, is not good enough for you?

**No not at all. Having read the BOM before marrying my Mormon husband, it just freaked me out…here’s something from the Bible I knew and then where did the rest of this come from? Who had such a good imagination? Why do you need a stone and a hat? It was contrived from the beginning…my husband and I agree to disagree and he will become Catholic soon…the history of the LDS church caught up to him…

stormy**

 

[GTNJNightingale]

**No not at all. Having read the BOM before marrying my Mormon husband, it just freaked me out…here’s something from the Bible I knew and then where did the rest of this come from? Who had such a good imagination? Why do you need a stone and a hat? It was contrived from the beginning…my husband and I agree to disagree and he will become Catholic soon…the history of the LDS church caught up to him…

stormy**

have to say, if every LDS person would open there eyes and actutally want to hear the truth then that would be all they need. but they are so trained up on how to counteract things and the bigger portion of what they say are with half truths. im glad your husband was able to see the truth. that takes so much for an LDS to do because not only are they trained that everything thats out side of there faith or contrary to it comes from the devil but also ifand when they reach a point ok questioning it…there threatened with there salvation and told that they wont be able to be with there familys in heaven and all kinds of threats. its so sad because thats not the way GOD works. Catholics dont believe that . and would never threaten someone who wasnt catholic and say you can not be saved. because its simply not true. GOD is merciful and if someone lived there whole life outside of the catholic church…and right befor death said i love you God i believe in you and i want to know you. they CAN be saved. its not for us to say if they were or not thats for the man but we know that they can be saved and can be with there familys and loved ones and all that.

 

[Publisher]

You are walking in some obscure Mormon beliefs of which I have only a limited understanding. Mormons believe in the doctrine of Translation as taught in Hebrews 11:5 as you have stated above. All those who did not taste death and live were Translated such as Henoch (Enoch), James, Elijah, Three Nephites, etc. This seems to be a very select, small group. All others go through the process death and transition to the afterlife.

The concept of the First Resurrection or the fruits there of I am not sure about. Maybe a Mormon could explain, but I think this is an event at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. I am not sure of those few who have been resurrected; maybe they are the first fruits, but were not resurrected, obviously, at the event.

It is my understanding that Translation is only a temporary state and that they will be changed into resurrected beings at the direction of God.

I have often thought what a Mormon thinks when they are in Santiago de Compostela in Spain at the wonderful Cathedral there where St. James is buried?

Remember there is an obscure passage in one of the gospels that state “many saints of long ago came from their graves…”…These were among the “might host of captives” that Christ led into paradise in some faith traditions…I understood their “translation” into the “celestial body” IS the same type of body those of us who make it to the “First Resurrection”…and passages from the D&C kind of give the Mormon understanding…it’s been a long time since I’ve read the D&C…it’s the section which speaks of the celestial, terrestrial and telestial kingdoms of the after life/apocylypse/New Jerusalem/New Heavens and New Earth…

 

[Stephen168]

Snake, of course you should not. The Mormon Church and the Book of Mormon are topics of faith and have nothing to do with history.

Just like the Bible is a history, yet the Bible is not used in any history classes.

No not like the Bible is history
"Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith – History 1:34:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was a history book. A history of where the american aborigines came from. There is no scientific support for that history.

 

[Peter_John]

You guys take that seriously? As a history major, I know for a fact that there was no Judaism or Christianity in 5th century America. To say anything different means I’m wasting thousands of dollars on college tuition.

The Book of Mormon also claims that there was no Christianity in 5th Century America, but for a few scatteered followers left after the major war.

We cannot really “prove” what wasn’t here, as the scientific method does not accomodate negative theses. One problem is that the Mississipian Civilization centered in Cahokia was wiped out by disease early, and its relics unscientifically excavated by contemporary Archaeological standards, so there was no data to draw from them.

 

[rmcmullan]

It was contrived from the beginning…my husband and I agree to disagree and he will become Catholic soon…the history of the LDS church caught up to him…
stormy

Stormy99, I don’t know you or your husband so I’m probably way out of line here. But that’s never stopped me from posting before! The thing I was going to say is that sometimes people do things and claim motivation that is different from what they are really thinking.

It’s way easier to be Catholic than a Mormon. No early morning seminary every day for the high-school aged kids. No callings. No home teaching. No monthly temple nights. Sacrament meetings are three hours versus the one hour Mass on Saturday evening or Sunday morning. No tithing. No dragging the kids of to Primary activities on Saturday morning or to mutual on Wednesday nights. And no expensive full time missions when your boys turn 19. You can drink booze, smoke cigarettes, hang around Starbucks all day guzzling lattes. Plus Catholics just have a better rep than Mormons. Mostly. There has been some historical persecution in the eastern US but that’s mostly behind us now.

So yea, it would be nice to be a Catholic again, my problem is I just don’t believe it. I believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s prophesies. Even though they are demanding, I follow my priesthood leaders.

Like I said before, I speak without knowing your husband’s heart and mind and if I spoke out of ignorance, I apologize. Please take this as a general comment that was triggered by a situation like yours but which does not apply.