Conversation with a Mormon

[ParkerD]

Religio71,
I have no idea whether the primitive Church believed in a “Heavenly Mother”. It is important to realize that anyone who had any knowledge about this kind of subject, understood that they were strictly forbidden to talk about it or write about it, because of its sacredness and because God only reveals knowledge “line upon line, precept upon precept,” not carte blanche. (I personally am far more offended and guarded when someone acts disrespectfully to my wife, as opposed to acting disrespectfully to me personally. Maybe there is a lesson there.)

Genesis 1 says
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

That is pretty clear language. No uncertainty about it, although of course it is a translation and the Hebrew would be the better source.

 

[mormonboy]

False, as they are.

Are you going to show us where they are or just state they are?

 

[LDSGuy]

False, as they are.

the terminology is not found in the Bible.

 

[NewSeeker]

the terminology is not found in the Bible.

So, if Pope, Trinity, The Prophet, Celestial Kingdom, and eternal marriage are not found in the Bible, what else can we rely on to determine which church today looks most like the original Christians? I think it’s telling that in the most ancient documents we do clearly see the gradual development of a hierarchical church with bishops and deacons at the helm, with liturgical worship and references to the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, all by the middle of the second century. Where’s the references to a church organized along the lines of Mormonism by that time? We hear nothing about a First Presidency, a Quorum of Twelve Apostles, or a prophet receiving revelation for a church that believes in three degrees of glory, heavenly mother and temple marriage, until the 19th century. The most ancient evidence supports the Catholic view, not the Mormon view.

NS

 

[kevangreen]

your rite the pope is not mentioned in the bible,
but neither is a president or “LIVING” apostles now that just sounds like it is made up

 

[NewSeeker]

I also think it’s telling that, despite efforts by the Church to stamp out heresies like Gnosticism, evidence of that sect’s beliefs exist in the writings of the early church fathers (e.g. Iraneaus) and fragments of their scriptures existed, all before complete texts of their scriptures were found at Nag Hammadi in 1948. If the very first Christians were Mormons in their belief and practice, then the Church must have been victorious in its effort to stamp out the proto-Mormon heresy - since there is not a shred of evidence from the period that mentions key Mormon concepts like eternal marriage, celestial kingdom, and “The Prophet”. Whereas, even before Nag Hammadi, it was well known in Catholic writings that the Gnostics existed and they believed in archons and the demiurge. But interestingly, there’s no reference in Catholic texts to proto-Mormons and their unique concepts. Which is easier to believe? 1) Unlike the campaign against the gnostics, the Catholic Church was successful in completely eradicating the proto-Mormons and their teachings on plural marriage, temples, and the celestial kingdom; or 2) proto-Mormons simply didn’t exist? I choose number 2.

NS

 

[kevangreen]

the catholic church has blood on its hands yes, but that was too preserve a message that cost the blood of many followers before they ever crusaded into other countries, for instance the odd teachings that mormons teach pollutes the true message of god by a self proclaimed prophet

 

[LDSGuy]

the catholic church has blood on its hands yes, but that was too preserve a message that cost the blood of many followers before they ever crusaded into other countries, for instance the odd teachings that mormons teach pollutes the true message of god by a self proclaimed prophet

so ends justify means is what you’re saying.

 

[Jerusha]

Don’t mind Kevan. His work here undermines the true image of Catholicism.

 

[kevangreen]

undermines the problem is that the American catholic church has Americans in it and Americans are taught to accept everything and everyone, but real catholic are much different say ones from italy so the american catholic church kinds cripples the real way of it
the ends justify the means cuz in order to be respected you have to be feared and understood so it was for about 1000 that the christian ( catholic) church fought heretics to keep the word whole that is why there is ONE catholic church not thousands ( protestants)

 

[dianaiad]

True, but the heart must be balanced by the brain. Both must be relied upon to find truth. Anything you ‘feel’ might have been spoken to your heart by the Spirit must be tested against logic, reason, and the evidence. The heart is not enough. Lots of people hold contradictory views, all of whom believe the Spirit told them their view is correct. Only by consulting logic, reason, and the evidence can a seeker sort through the contradicting heart-based claims. Reliance on the heart is not enough.

NS

It is. True, you have to have someTHING or some idea in mind for which you need that confirmation, but let’s face it; ‘reason’ in religion is circular. You can’t use reason IN it until you accept as a premise that religion is about something real; Deity. No reason can confirm THAT to you.

Ask any atheist. In fact, using history, science and reason alone will make atheists of all of us.

Remember the old story about the blind men and the elephant? Sure, each man felt, or smelled, or heard something about the animal in front of him, but since they did not use the sense of sight, which would have given them the ‘whole picture’ in which those tactile, olfactory and auditory evidences fit, none of it would have added up to one entire animal that all could agree on.

In fact, if I remember the story right, the men disagreed upon whether they each touched the same animal.

Those who deny that the basis for religious faith is first and only the witness of the Holy Ghost (which is mostly described as ‘feelings’ for lack of a proper English word) are putting blindfolds on.

 

[dianaiad]

thanks but does that mean that the Prophets were above the Apostles? Is this historical/biblical evidence that Peter was not only an Apostle, but a Prophet? Also what about the Heavenly Mother, is there evidence that the early Church believed in the Heavenly Mother?

the apostles were ALL prophets, by definition. Any person who has been given a message via direct revelation for the purpose of sharing it with others is a prophet. Paul was an apostle and a prophet, Peter was. All of 'em were.

A man does not become a prophet and then receive revelation for the purpose of leading a people. He receives that revelation…and that is what MAKES him a prophet.

 

[dianaiad]

False, as they are.

What…Trinity, pope and the early prophets are false?

Ordinarily I would understand that you were referring only to the modern day prophets as 'false," Rebecca, but when you specifically add ‘as they are,’ the only thing there is in your post for ‘they’ to refer to is “Trinity, Pope, etc.,”

Be careful with your syntax. Someone could consider it Freudian slippage…

(yeah, yeah, I know better. I’m just sayin’, is all…)

 

[NewSeeker]

It is. True, you have to have someTHING or some idea in mind for which you need that confirmation, but let’s face it; ‘reason’ in religion is circular. You can’t use reason IN it until you accept as a premise that religion is about something real; Deity. No reason can confirm THAT to you.

Ask any atheist. In fact, using history, science and reason alone will make atheists of all of us.

Remember the old story about the blind men and the elephant? Sure, each man felt, or smelled, or heard something about the animal in front of him, but since they did not use the sense of sight, which would have given them the ‘whole picture’ in which those tactile, olfactory and auditory evidences fit, none of it would have added up to one entire animal that all could agree on.

In fact, if I remember the story right, the men disagreed upon whether they each touched the same animal.

Those who deny that the basis for religious faith is first and only the witness of the Holy Ghost (which is mostly described as ‘feelings’ for lack of a proper English word) are putting blindfolds on.

Well I agree that God’s existence cannot be proved, but all religions make historical claims that can be tested against the evidence and such tests can be used to determine whether a church is more or less likely to be true. The heart begins the quest for God, but the head must enter in an accompany the heart on that journey or you remain one of those blind men handling one part of the elephant. It’s not enough to simply pray and ask God whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or whether Catholicism is true. You have to examine the external evidence. To cite one example., what does the discovery of the Book of Abraham papyri say about Joseph Smith? The fact that those papyri were rediscovered, translated, and have nothing to do with Abraham is a huge problem for LDS claims. That fact cannot be ignored (assuming it’s accepted as a fact and not explained away) and you must alter accordingly what your heart tells you is true or else you are just practicing a blind faith.

NS

 

[ParkerD]

New Seeker,
I suppose you realize that the Book of Abraham was not taken from the papyrus that have been examined by more recent scholars. The major portion of what Joseph Smith bought was evidently destroyed in a fire. (You will say, “isn’t that convenient.”)

I personally believe the Book of Abraham because it rings true. Some people such as yourself need external evidence. I love the truth because it rings true.

As far as funerary texts and Egyptian scholars, have you read any scholar who has been able to verify without doubt when funerary texts first originated in Egypt, and how and by whom they were introduced into the society? Abraham definitely visited Egypt, no? You may or may not believe in the concept of apostasy, but have you ever played the game “rumor” or some version of it?

At a certain point in time, a papyrus could be translated to mean “x” based on comparison to other historical evidence at that particular point in time. But from several hundred years earlier, “y” could have been in the minds of the people who created a similar piece of writing, especially with pictorial languages. But no doubt you will believe what you want to believe, and what strengthens your pre-conceived belief system. That is totally fine with me. Have a good day.

 

[Stephen168]

Those who deny that the basis for religious faith is first and only the witness of the Holy Ghost (which is mostly described as ‘feelings’ for lack of a proper English word) are putting blindfolds on.

Feelings are all Mormonism has. No science and No reason.

 

[NewSeeker]

But no doubt you will believe what you want to believe, and what strengthens your pre-conceived belief system.

We both operate from pre-conceived belief systems. Who doesn’t? I operated with a staunchly LDS pre-conceived belief system when I first stumbled across the fact that some of the original papyri on which the BoA was based were rediscovered and translated and had nothing to do with Abraham. Since I lacked a feelings-based spiritual witness, there was nothing to insulate me from the shock of learning that Facsimile #1 in the BoA is also located in the rediscovered papyri. Your pre-conceived belief system requires to to multiply ingenious ad hoc hypotheses to explain away the evidence, but it’s enough for me to observe that Facsimile 1 in the BoA and the picture in the papyri are the same, and that hieroglyphics right next to the picture on the papyrus sheet are found in Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. That’s simple and clear evidence that the papyrus sheet was unquestionably one of those that Joseph Smith used to produce his “translation”. That, and the fact that the papyrus sheet in question was mounted on a hard paper backing with a drawing of 1830s Kirtland, Ohio on the back, is simple and clear evidence that the picture in the papyrus was the exact same one that Joseph Smith used to reproduce the image as Facsimile #1 in the BoA. Your pre-conceived belief system is blinding you to the evidence right before your eyes.

NS

 

[Stephen168]

What has been proven about the “Book of Abraham” :

1. The fragments we have were the fragments that Joseph Smith had.
2. We have about 1/3 of the fragments that Smith had.
3. The fragments we have are dated 1700 years after the time of Abraham.
4. The fragments we have been identified as a funeral text.

So for the Book of Abraham to be a translation as Joseph Smith claims; 1/3 of it would have to be a funeral text and it could not have been written by Abraham. My understanding is the Book of Abraham claims to be written by Abraham and none of it is a funeral text.

 

[NewSeeker]

At a certain point in time, a papyrus could be translated to mean “x” based on comparison to other historical evidence at that particular point in time. But from several hundred years earlier, “y” could have been in the minds of the people who created a similar piece of writing, especially with pictorial languages.

Are you suggesting that the way Egyptologists interpret hieroglyphics today is different from what was in the minds of those who formed the hieroglyphics, particularly in light of the Rosetta Stone? That’s just silly. “We think ‘x’; maybe the ancient mind meant ‘y’; who can say?” Do you apply that same “logic” to everything consistently or just to claims that challenge your beliefs? If what you say is true, then we might as well close all university departments of linguistics, anthropology, archeology, and history since ancient minds were and will always remain inscrutable to us.

NS

 

[ParkerD]

Are you suggesting that the way Egyptologists interpret hieroglyphics today is different from what was in the minds of those who formed the hieroglyphics, particularly in light of the Rosetta Stone? That’s just silly. “We think ‘x’; maybe the ancient mind meant ‘y’; who can say?” Do you apply that same “logic” to everything consistently or just to claims that challenge your beliefs? If what you say is true, then we might as well close all university departments of linguistics, anthropology, archeology, and history since ancient minds were and will always remain inscrutable to us.

NS

Good point. Personally, I don’t care much about studies in those areas. I think a lot of “scholars” jump to conclusions. I don’t trust their findings, generally, but I don’t spend time studying them. I don’t consider it worth my time, nor interest. To each their own.