Conversation with a Mormon

[NewSeeker]

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.

Lots of people once believed that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun orbited our planet, and that the lights in the sky at night weren’t stars, but were holes poked in the canopy of the sky allowing heavenly light to shine through. Those people also loved truth and believed such things because they rang true.

Just because something “rings true” doesn’t mean it is true. You always need to evaluate what “rings true” to you against the external evidence. Just as surely as our earth orbits the sun, the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith purported it to be.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

This conversation illustrates one of the reasons why I became a Catholic when I left the LDS church. I believe that God created us and endowed us all with reason. Reason and the life of the mind are gifts from God and is what separates us from other animals, since only we were created in God’s image. That is one of the central teachings of Catholicism and helps explain why it was the Catholic Church that created the university system. If reason and its progeny (the scientific and historical method) are threatening to someone’s faith, then perhaps that faith is misplaced.

NS

 

[mormonboy]

This conversation illustrates one of the reasons why I became a Catholic when I left the LDS church. I believe that God created us and endowed us all with reason. Reason and the life of the mind are gifts from God and is what separates us from other animals, since only we were created in God’s image. That is one of the central teachings of Catholicism and helps explain why it was the Catholic Church that created the university system. If reason and its progeny (the scientific and historical method) are threatening to someone’s faith, then perhaps that faith is misplaced.

NS

You had every right to doubt the church as a member of the LDS church, but you probably didn’t have a testimony and weren’t truly converted. God truly did allow us to have a mind of our own… D&C does call us ‘intelligences.’ I know that God’s power outweighs any opposition or any science no matter what the proof is. I don’t know that God’s intention was to have science try to disprove his ways. I am reminded of the scripture that says, “My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts.” It is normal to doubt but once one gains a testimony there is no denial. You must have come in contact with anti propaganda or read stuff on the internet…

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

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

Only to a person with an agenda to bend everything to their own POV.

 

[Stephen168]

I know that God’s power outweighs any opposition or any science no matter what the proof is.

Science is the study of God’s creation. Science and God do not conflict. Science has shown the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon to be works of fiction.

 

[NewSeeker]

It is normal to doubt but once one gains a testimony there is no denial. You must have come in contact with anti propaganda or read stuff on the internet…

That is the Mormon mantra, bandied about regularly in discussions during priesthood and relief society to explain people like me who were sincere in their efforts to gain a testimony. No…I never received that all-important witness of the spirit that the BoM is true. Are you now going to assume that you know my inner-most thoughts and motivations and say that I wasn’t sincere, wasn’t listening, lacked faith, didn’t want to live up to the standards of the church, had some unrepented sin in my past, received the witness but didn’t recognize it? The simple fact was I was sincere and spent years in prayer and faithful church service seeking a testimony. While patiently praying and hoping for a testimony, I attended and graduated from four-years of seminary; served an honorable two-year mission; married my bride in the SLC temple; paid tithes; and magnified my callings to the best of my ability. But yet, to my complete dismay and surprise and shock, no testimony from God whatsoever, no confirmations, no whisperings of the spirit, no sense of peace, no promptings, nothing at all whatsoever but the screaming silence of the Void despite my years of faithful service in the Church. So no…I did not come in contact with anti-propaganda or read something on the internet. Yes, I lacked a testimony. But lacking that, the entire Mormon house of cards came tumbling down once I applied my research skills to Mormon history and doctrine and did the unthinkable: I ignored the church manuals and books from BYU or Deseret Book and, like a good researcher, consulted the original documents on which all of those sources are based.

But go ahead and believe what you want. I’m satisfied that the LDS church is not what it claims to be.

NS

 

[mormonboy]

That is the Mormon mantra, bandied about regularly in discussions during priesthood and relief society to explain people like me who were sincere in their efforts to gain a testimony. No…I never received that all-important witness of the spirit that the BoM is true. Are you now going to assume that you know my inner-most thoughts and motivations and say that I wasn’t sincere, wasn’t listening, lacked faith, didn’t want to live up to the standards of the church, had some unrepented sin in my past, received the witness but didn’t recognize it? The simple fact was I was sincere and spent years in prayer and faithful church service seeking a testimony. While patiently praying and hoping for a testimony, I attended and graduated from four-years of seminary; served an honorable two-year mission; married my bride in the SLC temple; paid tithes; and magnified my callings to the best of my ability. But yet, to my complete dismay and surprise and shock, no testimony from God whatsoever, no confirmations, no whisperings of the spirit, no sense of peace, no promptings, nothing at all whatsoever but the screaming silence of the Void despite my years of faithful service in the Church. So no…I did not come in contact with anti-propaganda or read something on the internet. Yes, I lacked a testimony. But lacking that, the entire Mormon house of cards came tumbling down once I applied my research skills to Mormon history and doctrine and did the unthinkable: I ignored the church manuals and books from BYU or Deseret Book and, like a good researcher, consulted the original documents on which all of those sources are based.

But go ahead and believe what you want. I’m satisfied that the LDS church is not what it claims to be.

NS

I am not going to attempt to find our your innermost feelings… I was simply stating there are many people out there who are dying to pull the members of the LDS away from their beliefs, and there is no denial about that.

I do not believe the LDS church is for everyone, I say that sincerely. I decided before I recieved my testimony(note ‘before’) I would continue to follow the Mormon lifestyle because nobody can disagree with the principles of lifestyle they teach. Can we at least agree to that point?

Can u truly say the Catholic faith has provided you with answers you were looking for?

 

[NewSeeker]

I am not going to attempt to find our your innermost feelings… I was simply stating there are many people out there who are dying to pull the members of the LDS away from their beliefs, and there is no denial about that.

I do not believe the LDS church is for everyone, I say that sincerely. I decided before I recieved my testimony(note ‘before’) I would continue to follow the Mormon lifestyle because nobody can disagree with the principles of lifestyle they teach. Can we at least agree to that point?

Can u truly say the Catholic faith has provided you with answers you were looking for?

I agree with you that Mormon lifestyle principals are highly moral. But that’s not the issue for me. Mormonism, Catholicism, Christianity do not monopolize moral truths and people from every conceivable background can and do live highly moral lives. Rather, I am interested in theological truth, which explains why I left the Mormon church. I have never experienced God’s presence in a recognizable way. But only Catholicism answers the key theological and philosophical issues regarding God’s existence and nature to my satisfaction. So yes, if I choose to believe in God, then I must be Catholic. In my mind, nothing else compares. The fact that Catholic lifestyle principles are desirable is a bonus. But even if no Catholics lived morally, I would still associate with the Catholic Church, even if only Mormons lived moral lives. I am convinced on theological, philosophical, and historical grounds that Mormonism is false. The righteousness of Mormons and its moral code has nothing to do with whether it is true.

NS

 

[majick275]

I am not going to attempt to find our your innermost feelings… I was simply stating there are many people out there who are dying to pull the members of the LDS away from their beliefs, and there is no denial about that.

agreed but that isn’t bad in and of itself. In fact one could certainly say that teh LDS are dying to pull the members of all other faiths away from THEIR beliefs. So let us ask why this is so? I wish to pull LDS away from what i see as a harmful cult and I want to pull any and all non-christians towards Jesus and thus the Catholic church.

I do not believe the LDS church is for everyone, I say that sincerely. I decided before I recieved my testimony(note ‘before’) I would continue to follow the Mormon lifestyle because nobody can disagree with the principles of lifestyle they teach. Can we at least agree to that point?

I agree the LDS chuch isn’t for everyone. LDS doctrine says it is though and claims that the only other church out there is the Devil’s. I think MANY can and DI in fact disagree with the principles of lifestyle that the mormons teach. the physical/medical is pretty easy and the mental/emotional is quite compelling.

Can u truly say the Catholic faith has provided you with answers you were looking for?

YES! I CAN!!!

 

[ParkerD]

agreed but that isn’t bad in and of itself. In fact one could certainly say that teh LDS are dying to pull the members of all other faiths away from THEIR beliefs. So let us ask why this is so? I wish to pull LDS away from what i see as a harmful cult and I want to pull any and all non-christians towards Jesus and thus the Catholic church.

I agree the LDS chuch isn’t for everyone. LDS doctrine says it is though and claims that the only other church out there is the Devil’s. I think MANY can and DI in fact disagree with the principles of lifestyle that the mormons teach. the physical/medical is pretty easy and the mental/emotional is quite compelling.

YES! I CAN!!!

Majick,
You have a common mis-perception in your statement about churches. The point of Nephi’s teaching on that topic was that what counts is what is in people’s hearts, and that is what they will be judged by including what they do because of what is in their heart. They will have the fruits in their life that show whom they are really following, and what is really in their heart–love, kindness, forgiveness, meekness, humility, reverence, patience, faith, hope, desire to build people up not tear them down? or means of control, dominion, compulsion, making fun of people, mocking, scorning, lack of faith, unforgiving.

 

[majick275]

Majick,
You have a common mis-perception in your statement about churches. The point of Nephi’s teaching on that topic was that what counts is what is in people’s hearts, and that is what they will be judged by including what they do because of what is in their heart. They will have the fruits in their life that show whom they are really following, and what is really in their heart–love, kindness, forgiveness, meekness, humility, reverence, patience, faith, hope, desire to build people up not tear them down? or means of control, dominion, compulsion, making fun of people, mocking, scorning, lack of faith, unforgiving.

I disagree with you. while that is an admirable sentiment it is not in harmony with well established Mormon doctrine by numerous LDS leaders. Mormons are no more relativists than true catholics. we each see that Christ established one church on this earth and did that for a purpose. where we differ is in the amount of sacramental recognized in other churches (mormons recognize none, Catholics recognize baptism and marriage for most, confirmation for some, Eucharist/holy orders/anointing of the sick/reconciliation for a few) and in which church that is/was. (catholics see our won church as being that one all along, LDS believe there was a “proto-mormon” church that was comprised of both an israeli based church structure and a pre-columbian american one in parallel, both of which apostatized and thus ceased to exist as sacramentally valid extensions of God’s kingdom. LDs believe this to have been “restored” in modern america but with numerous innovations making it “new and improved” versus the early christian church)

you cannot tell me that official LDS doctrine states that “good” non-mormons will achieve the highest levels of exaltation in the celestial kingdom…as to the subtle shot about “…making fun of people, mocking, scorning, lack of faith…” you might want to reread JS-H and think about what that means to non-LDS people. I would also ask if you had been to the Temple prior to 1990. if so then you have no room to talk. if not then i suggest that next time you go there you ask someone who has about the earlier endowment ceremony’s portrayal of non-mormon religions. it was quite explicit.

 

[mormonboy]

the physical/medical is pretty easy and the mental/emotional is quite compelling.

I would ask you to exound upon that please…

 

[kevangreen]

Jehovah’s witnesses also show horrific ends time fates for all non witnesses it is just a scare tactic for mind control

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

But it seems that that is how it works in the LDS church, you choose a prophet and then wait for revelation from him.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Why do I not find that surprising

 

[dianaiad]

Only to a person with an agenda to bend everything to their own POV.

Oh, dear.

Imagine someone in a religious debate forum who actually holds to, and interprets things, in terms of her own POV!

(shaking head…)

What can the world be coming to?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh, dear.

Imagine someone in a religious debate forum who actually holds to, and interprets things, in terms of her own POV!

(shaking head…)

What can the world be coming to?

Sarcasm noted, and also your inability to understand that what I say, is not what you mean.

 

[dianaiad]

But it seems that that is how it works in the LDS church, you choose a prophet and then wait for revelation from him.

Not exactly. Members of the Quorum of the twelve are all prophets. All of 'em. Having one become president of the church isn’t that much of a difference for him, save for scope of responsibilities.

It’s certainly better than appointing a leader who, by your own beliefs, comes to office having never received such revelation–and never actually expecting to do so.

 

[dianaiad]

Sarcasm noted, and also your inability to understand that what I say, is not what you mean.

That wasn’t sarcasm. That was wry irony…or didn’t you get the part about the above post applying to all participants in religious debate, not simply you or me?

Lighten up, Rebecca. You are being particularly heavy handed here. Perhaps you should read your own words; what I write is not what you mean.

 

[mormonpro]

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.

Actually all of Parkers writing on papyrus here is his own daydream that keeps him comfortable. He is contradicted by the LDS church itself. The facts are the LDS church has identified the remaining fragments of Papyrus to be the actual fragment of papyrus from which Joseph Smith 'translated" the Book of Abraham. This was made possible by comparing it with handwritten manuscripts from Joseph Smiths scribes. Dr. James R Clark, of Brigham Young University, proves this using the original manuscripts kept on record by the LDS church: “…there are in existence today in the Church Historian’s Office two separate manuscripts of Joseph Smith’s translations from the papyrus rolls… One manuscript is the Alphabet and Grammar… Within this Alphabet and Grammar there is a copy of the characters, together with their translation of Abraham 1:4-28…” (The Story of the Pearl of Great Price, 1962, pp. 172-73) In the publication, Pearl of Great Price Conference, Dec. 10, 1960, 1964 ed., pp. 60-61, Dr. Clark referred to a longer manuscript: “I have in my possession a photostatic copy of the manuscript of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of Abraham 1:1 to 2:18… The characters from which our present book of Abraham was translated are down the left-hand column and Joseph Smith’s translation opposite, so we know approximately how much material was translated from each character.”
Locations where the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, Kirtland Egyptian Manuscripts may be viewed, are as follows: Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. Microfilm copies also at Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah and at the Library and Archives of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Independence, Missouri.
ALL OF THE FIRST TWO ROWS OF CHARACTERS ON THE REMAINING PAPYRUS FRAGMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM THAT IS PUBLISHED IN JOSEPH SMITH’S EGYPTIAN ALPHABET AND GRAMMAR.
Joseph Smith is clearly proved a fraud because all experts even the LDS churches Michael Rhodes states that Joseph Smiths translation is incorrect…