Conflicted Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tweedle_Dee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
xixxvmcm85 said:
It varies.

I usually feel warm, fulfilled, satiated, like I do after a good meal.

Sometimes I feel grogy and irritable because I worked til 3am the night before.

Sometimes I feel giddy because this girl I’ve been trying to muster up the courage to ask for her number chose to sit next to ME in the pew 😃

Sometimes I feel inspired by the homily, other times I feel turned off.

The thing is, I don’t assess the truth or the meaning of things based on my feelings. I’ve felt that same burning in the bosom during one of my priest’s very famous homilies. It turns out it was so famous that the Bishop got word of it and asked him to apologize and correct himself for teaching error the following Sunday!

My emotions have often failed me.
Click to expand...
The problem comes with the holy ghost/holy spirit and just how he testifies to us when we are in church or throughout our daily life. I do believe that the holy spirit is more than just a feeling. If he is the comforter, his pressence is can be powerful. As the verses I supplied above state, people who have his pressence have much to be thankful for because he gives joy, peace and hope and much more.
 
Of course FAIR’s response is that this is all up to the artist, and that is their fault if they don’t get everything accurately, however does not the LDS Church control its own documents, teaching and priesthood manuals, etc.? It can easily commission someone to have Joseph Smith with his face in a hat with the seer stone inside. Of course, there have been talks that acknowledge it (one from 1993 is always referenced), however there seems to be a much greater emphasis on showing Smith studying the plates than putting his face in a hat in official LDS Church documents.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Not that I know of.

Every artist’s rendition I’ve seen in church looked something like this
Click to expand...
There have been articles in the lds magazine about the hat translation and other aspects of the translation process:

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20january%201988.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

And here we have the church magazine Ensign writing about the hat translation:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1977.htm/ensign%20september%201977.htm/by%20the%20gift%20and%20power%20of%20god%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

David Whitmer’s idea of translation is similar to Samuel Richards’s. Yet this view does not appear until 1875, nearly a half-century after Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery worked in David Whitmer’s home. His many statements on translation harmonize with his Address to All Believers In Christ, published in 1887 to supersede second-hand reports. There he gave his most detailed view of “the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated”:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. And in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe. And when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man. The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated.” 11

When one reads the articles we can see there were many ways the translation process was described.
 
why_me said:
The problem comes with the holy ghost/holy spirit and just how he testifies to us when we are in church or throughout our daily life. I do believe that the holy spirit is more than just a feeling. If he is the comforter, his pressence is can be powerful. As the verses I supplied above state, people who have his pressence have much to be thankful for because he gives joy, peace and hope and much more.
Click to expand...
Faith is an encounter why me, with Christ who is Present in the world. The world was given the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The Advocate, who searches hearts, and brings all to Him.

The feeling that Paul speaks of is not one of assigning spiritual definitions to every emotion. It is knowledge and understanding. Such an understanding includes the comfort of knowing that even in our darkest hours, God is there, holding us up, and never abandons us. It is the comfort of knowing that we have a sure hope in Jesus Christ. The absolute understanding that He has not left us orphans.

To reduce the gifts of the Spirit to emotional feeling, and this idea that one can’t make a decision in their life that does not feel good emotionally, has nothing to do with what Jesus or St. Paul taught.
 
here’s a question I’ve been wondering…if Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and they use the Old Testament to prove that God has a body of flesh and bones, how is that possible, if Jesus did not incarnate yet? So, if the belief is that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, and they use the OT to prove that, but Jesus is Jehovah, then how are the proof texts referring to the Father? Do they all refer to “Elohim”?
 
The teacher used the word “feelings” but meant it as “feeling the spirit”. I was a little upset because of the downplaying of knowledge.

I’ll bet 99% of Mormons have never heard that Joseph put his face into a hat to translate. I know my wife and I never heard that up until a few years ago.

I’ve heard there are references to Mary adoration and the real presence in the writings of the early church fathers. Can anyone produce a good solid example? Earlier the better since we Mormons reject anything too late as being after the apostacy.
 
ricko said:
Common sense and logic. Two things the Mormon church can stand. Common sense and logic is the light of the candle that overcame the darkness.

Jesus established His Church 2,000 years ago. It is to last till the end of the world to teach mankind the Truth.
Click to expand...
You are quite right, Ricko, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can indeed ‘stand’ for common sense and logic.

I love Freudian slips…
 
ThuriferAcolyte said:
We do. The poster asked how Catholics see Mormon beliefs, and we have posted websites that support our views of Mormonism. If someone asked how non-Catholics view the Catholic Church, you can post that website.

Thanks for proving the point.
Click to expand...
Actually, since the claim was:“The best information on the mormon “religion” can be found here.”

Please note: there is nothing in that sentence to say that this site was supposed to be the Catholic viewpoint of Mormonism. The site itself clearly states that it is devoted to the opinion of ex-Mormons of Mormonism, and that it does not 'advocate any religion."

Exactly as the site I gave is the opinion of ex-Catholics of Catholicism.

Please note the quotes around the word 'religion." This is clearly dismissive; quotes around a word in such a context indicate a disagreement on the part of the writer that the word is appropriate, and in fact is an indication of disapproval; a sort of literary holding of the nose. The writer is clearly not interested in any ‘best information,’ or objective information. Your rather condescending claim that it was the opinion of Catholics of Mormonism is inaccurate, insulting, and dismissive of the intelligence of everybody here. You must really think we are all truly stupid.

Now I can understand that you might think all Mormons are stupid…but your claim here seems to indicate that you believe everybody else is, as well.

Not a good idea.
 
dianaiad said:
Actually, since the claim was:“The best information on the mormon “religion” can be found here.”

Please note: there is nothing in that sentence to say that this site was supposed to be the Catholic viewpoint of Mormonism. The site itself clearly states that it is devoted to the opinion of ex-Mormons of Mormonism, and that it does not 'advocate any religion."

Exactly as the site I gave is the opinion of ex-Catholics of Catholicism.

Please note the quotes around the word 'religion." This is clearly dismissive; quotes around a word in such a context indicate a disagreement on the part of the writer that the word is appropriate, and in fact is an indication of disapproval; a sort of literary holding of the nose. The writer is clearly not interested in any ‘best information,’ or objective information. Your rather condescending claim that it was the opinion of Catholics of Mormonism is inaccurate, insulting, and dismissive of the intelligence of everybody here. You must really think we are all truly stupid.

Now I can understand that you might think all Mormons are stupid…but your claim here seems to indicate that you believe everybody else is, as well.

Not a good idea.
Click to expand...
Dianaiad, you are hilarious. Where did I say that the Ex-Mormon site was the opinion of Catholics? What I DID say was:
The poster asked how Catholics see Mormon beliefs, and we have posted websites that support our views of Mormonism.
Click to expand...
Websites that support our views of Mormonism does not mean that they are written by Catholics, nor do they have to be. They are websites that we agree with.

Sorry diana, no one, including myself, ever claimed that that website was the Catholic opinion of Mormons.
 
ThuriferAcolyte said:
Dianaiad, you are hilarious. Where did I say that the Ex-Mormon site was the opinion of Catholics? What I DID say was:

Websites that support our views of Mormonism does not mean that they are written by Catholics, nor do they have to be. They are websites that we agree with.

Sorry diana, no one, including myself, ever claimed that that website was the Catholic opinion of Mormons.
Click to expand...
Don’t look now, bub, but you just, uh, *did. *

If you agree with them, then they are the same as yours.

You do know what the first rule of holes is, don’t you?

When you get in over your head, stop digging?
 
dianaiad said:
Don’t look now, bub, but you just, uh, *did. *

If you agree with them, then they are the same as yours.

You do know what the first rule of holes is, don’t you?

When you get in over your head, stop digging?
Click to expand...
So this is what the Mormons do, derail the conversations further…nice.

The Ex-Mormon site has information that Catholics agree with on Mormonism. As I said “we have posted websites that support our views of Mormonism.”. That’s the fact of the matter.

But feel free to post more ex-Catholic websites if you’d like to further derail, it’s okay if you want to.
 
ThuriferAcolyte said:
So this is what the Mormons do, derail the conversations further…nice.

The Ex-Mormon site has information that Catholics agree with on Mormonism. As I said “we have posted websites that support our views of Mormonism.”. That’s the fact of the matter.

But feel free to post more ex-Catholic websites if you’d like to further derail, it’s okay if you want to.
Click to expand...
No, actually, posting the one makes my point; if you honestly believe that the best information about Mormonism can be found in an ex-Mormon anti Mormon web site, and claim that this site represents what Catholics think of Mormonism, then by the very same logic, the very best information one can get about Catholicism is the website I gave you; which is, of course, a website of ex-Catholic opinions of Catholicism.

By the same logic you use, this anti-Catholic website must be the best source of information about Catholicism.

Or, if it isn’t, then perhaps that anti-Mormon website isn’t a good choice, for the same reason.

The only difference, of course, is that unlike you, I don’t claim that this anti-Catholic website represents LDS opinions of Catholicism…since, of course, it does not.
 
dianaiad said:
No, actually, posting the one makes my point; if you honestly believe that the best information about Mormonism can be found in an ex-Mormon anti Mormon web site, and claim that this site represents what Catholics think of Mormonism, then by the very same logic, the very best information one can get about Catholicism is the website I gave you; which is, of course, a website of ex-Catholic opinions of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Ask StLawrenceFan what he meant by best information. What I have repeatedly said, to you and to Why Me, is this:

“we have posted websites that support our views of Mormonism.”
By the same logic you use, this anti-Catholic website must be the best source of information about Catholicism.
Click to expand...
And going along the same logic that I have clearly posted, that ex-Catholic website clearly shows views of those that are NOT Catholic. If someone asked for what non-Catholics thought of Catholicism, sure, post that website. It really doesn’t matter if you don’t like the websites we’ve posted here. We believe that they show information on the other side. Feel free to make a thread about the sort of websites we should post. :rolleyes:
Or, if it isn’t, then perhaps that anti-Mormon website isn’t a good choice, for the same reason.
Click to expand...
The only difference, of course, is that unlike you, I don’t claim that this anti-Catholic website represents LDS opinions of Catholicism…since, of course, it does not.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is your opinion. Thanks for it. My opinion is that the ex-Mormon website has great information on what non-Mormons think of it, including us. Deal with it. I’m not arguing anymore about what one should or should not post.

What was Dee asking for again? Right.
 
Tweedle_Dee said:
The teacher used the word “feelings” but meant it as “feeling the spirit”. I was a little upset because of the downplaying of knowledge.

I’ll bet 99% of Mormons have never heard that Joseph put his face into a hat to translate. I know my wife and I never heard that up until a few years ago.

I’ve heard there are references to Mary adoration and the real presence in the writings of the early church fathers. Can anyone produce a good solid example? Earlier the better since we Mormons reject anything too late as being after the apostacy.
Click to expand...
Hi Dee,

The interesting thing about the Apostasy that I have noticed is that because there is no actual date for it (since it’s seen as a gradual process. But is there a date when it was complete?), so in my discussions with Mormons, while they may even use the early Church Fathers to discuss how their own beliefs are found in the early Church, if we point out something specific from that very same Father that contradicts Mormon teaching (such as one Church Father saying that it’s false to believe that there was pre-existing matter), they will say “well that’s okay, the Apostasy was already in effect”, so it’s really a fluid entity that can be invoked whenever there is a doctrine contradicting Mormon doctrine, even if the Mormon is using the same Church Father to prove their own belief. Tertullian is especially important in this.

However, the links that RebeccaJ gave you are great. It is clear from the early Church Fathers that they not only believed in the Real Presence, but they also greatly revered Mary. You should know that there is another Church that is also ancient that also reveres Mary and believes in the Real Presence, and that is the Orthodox Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top