Conversation with a Mormon

[ParkerD]

MormonPro,
The fairlds.org website has several good articles on the latest scholarly findings about the papyrus and the Book of Abraham. I realize you won’t trust those articles, but I think they are accurate. A conclusion of one is as follows:

If we were to give the complete KEPE, the Joseph Smith Papyri, and the sequence of hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA to someone and then ask that person to recreate the Book of Abraham from those materials, he could not do it. The KEPE reflect a half-dozen phrases from the Book of Abraham, isolated and without context. But the Book of Abraham is a coherent and readily understood English text, while the KEPE is a mishmash of linguistic gobbledygook. It is completely unclear how one could possibly get the one from the other.

So what is the source of the English Book of Abraham? It would appear that the English text is a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, whatever he thought he was doing in the KEP project. There is ample precedent for the Prophet receiving such coherent revelations before that did not require him to wrestle with deciphering the ancient language of the source text. For example, Joseph translated the Book of Mormon almost entirely without reference to the gold plates themselves, and Doctrine and Covenants 7 is a revealed translation of ancient parchment that was never physically given to Joseph.

The coherent words of the Book of Abraham did not really come from an analysis of the Egyptian materials before Joseph or his scribes; rather, they were uttered by the Prophet and recorded by his scribes in much the same way that all of his revelatory translation projects were done. To the critic, this simply means that Joseph made up the coherent text and dictated it; to the believer, it means that Joseph received the text by revelation and dictated it. The difference between these two points of view is a matter of faith, and not something that any amount of wrangling with the KEP can resolve definitively one way or the other.

But, again, if it gives you the out you want (along with all the others), then you have what you want. That is totally fine with me. Enjoy the Catholic church or whatever your heart leads you to.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Somehow I don’t see anyone coming to SLC saying they received a revelation and were to be a member of the Quorum of the twelve. And selecting the President by FIFO?

 

[Stephen168]

…selecting the President by FIFO?

THAT is the funniest thing I’ve read all week!!!

 

[ParkerD]

Stephen and Zaffiro,
Here is a good opportunity given your good mood and all, to ask a question I wondered the other day as I read about the pope’s Easter message and noted his age:
What are your predictions about who will be the next pope when he passes away (not that I think that will be any time soon. I assume he is in quite good health and all.)? Do you ever think about that? I notice the newspapers are quick to come up with “projections” after the passing of a pope. Do they have some basis in reality?

 

[ParkerD]

Jharek,
I left that quote “as is” knowing it would lead to a jibe. It is commonly understood by current LDS scholars that Joseph Smith didn’t look at every page of the gold plates as he continued in the dictation process to Oliver Cowdery. He used a “seer stone” because he had developed sufficient faith. But that doesn’t mean the prophets in the Book of Mormon were wasting their time by engraving their writings onto the plates. They needed to record those writings in a physical way to “record on earth” that which could later be re-transcribed into a modern language for modern people. That process happened also within the time frame of the Book of Mormon itself, when the people of Zarahemla learned about an earlier “Jaredite” nation through a seer who translated an ancient set of writings also.

It gets better than that. Some day, perhaps in our lifetime, other records of the “lost ten tribes” will be forthcoming, and we (if we’re lucky) will be able to read those accounts of Christ’s dealings with them, in a modern language. Think of it. Christ had more than the Jews in mind when He came to this world to save all mankind, and He communicated through the Holy Spirit or through actual appearances, with all who were seeking knowledge of Him–particularly all of the House of Israel who were scattered all over the earth as prophesied throughout the Old Testament.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jharek,
I left that quote “as is” knowing it would lead to a jibe. It is commonly understood by current LDS scholars that Joseph Smith didn’t look at every page of the gold plates as he continued in the dictation process to Oliver Cowdery

Please show me the primary documentation that shows this as fact, not as FAIR manfactured nonsense.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen and Zaffiro,
Here is a good opportunity given your good mood and all, to ask a question I wondered the other day as I read about the pope’s Easter message and noted his age:
What are your predictions about who will be the next pope when he passes away (not that I think that will be any time soon. I assume he is in quite good health and all.)? Do you ever think about that?

I believe when the current Pope passes, the Holy Spirit with pick his replacement thru the College of Cardinals.

I notice the newspapers are quick to come up with “projections” after the passing of a pope. Do they have some basis in reality?

I think most newspapers are based in reality, but their projections are not.

 

[ParkerD]

I believe when the current Pope passes, the Holy Spirit with pick his replacement thru the College of Cardinals.

I think most newspapers are based in reality, but their projections are not.

Stephen,
So every pope since 100 AD has been picked by the Holy Spirit, who would of course have known exactly what each one was going to do while in that office?

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
So every pope since 100 AD has been picked by the Holy Spirit, who would of course have known exactly what each one was going to do while in that office?

The second Bishop of Rome was selected about 67AD. Bishops are human and given as much free will as the rest of us. The Spirit has always been with his Church (John15:26)

 

[ParkerD]

The second Bishop of Rome was selected about 67AD. Bishops are human and given as much free will as the rest of us. The Spirit has always been with his Church (John15:26)

Stephen,
Then why does the Holy Spirit get involved in picking a pope? What would it matter who is picked?

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
Then why does the Holy Spirit get involved in picking a pope?

The Spirit has always been with **his Church **(John15:26)

 

[NewSeeker]

Stephen,
Then why does the Holy Spirit get involved in picking a pope? What would it matter who is picked?

You’re getting into deep waters here. Why does the Holy Spirit get involved in anything, since God is “outside” time and space, is omniscient, and sees every moment of time in one eternal now (or so say theologians who are a lot smarter than me). The same question can be asked of your prayers and the outcomes you hope for. If God already knows what you’re going to ask him before you ask him, and as already given it to you before you ask, then why does God get involved in your life and you to pray and ask him for guidance? If you can answer that question in regards to your own personal prayers, you can apply the same answer to why the College of Cardinals seeks the Spirit’s guidance when selecting a Pope.

NS

 

[ParkerD]

You’re getting into deep waters here. Why does the Holy Spirit get involved in anything, since God is “outside” time and space, is omniscient, and sees every moment of time in one eternal now (or so say theologians who are a lot smarter than me). The same question can be asked of your prayers and the outcomes you hope for. If God already knows what you’re going to ask him before you ask him, and as already given it to you before you ask, then why does God get involved in your life and you to pray and ask him for guidance? If you can answer that question in regards to your own personal prayers, you can apply the same answer to why the College of Cardinals seeks the Spirit’s guidance when selecting a Pope.

NS

NS,
I think they should do that. I’m glad to know they do that. But I also think Catholics ought to hold each pope to a pretty high standard, including all the past ones, for them to really deeply trust in the Holy Spirit’s omniscience.

I am comfortable praying and getting answers to my prayers, sometimes differently than I would have hoped or expected.

 

[RebeccaJ]

NS,
I think they should do that. I’m glad to know they do that. But I also think Catholics ought to hold each pope to a pretty high standard, including all the past ones, for them to really deeply trust in the Holy Spirit’s omniscience.

I am comfortable praying and getting answers to my prayers, sometimes differently than I would have hoped or expected.

This is your mormon belief showing, that somehow the “bretheren” are not capable of sin. You are not even allowed to speak ill against your leaders. It is you, putting people on a pedastal.

We have no such belief in Catholicism. We understand that we are all poor sinners in need of Salvation. This includes the Pope, who does in fact confess every day.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of light. He guides the Church. You seem to understand, or be on the verge of understanding, the mystical aspect of Catholicism. “Church”, to us is many things, this includes the mystical Body of Jesus Christ. The Church is Christ, and by our baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit, so are we (the Church). The Church is just as Jesus is, fully human, and fully divine. It is not the divine that is screwing up, it is the human.

 

[NewSeeker]

NS,
I also think Catholics ought to hold each pope to a pretty high standard, including all the past ones, for them to really deeply trust in the Holy Spirit’s omniscience.

It’s true, there were some bad popes, but there were only a handful out of the hundreds in the 2000 years of church history. I’m still a new Catholic, so someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that none of those bad popes are ever mentioned in the prayers of the church; only those who were righteous/beatified/canonized.

NS

 

[majick275]

NS,
I think they should do that. I’m glad to know they do that. But I also think Catholics ought to hold each pope to a pretty high standard, including all the past ones, for them to really deeply trust in the Holy Spirit’s omniscience.

I am comfortable praying and getting answers to my prayers, sometimes differently than I would have hoped or expected.

and the Holy Spirit ensured that no matter how bad a pope chose to be, the DOGMA never changed! thus the true teachings of Christ were always present.

Jesus gives us an excellent example here. he chose Judas as an apostle. We can hold Judas to whatever standard we want. Jesus chose him and he betrayed him. that’s part of Christian history that didn’t thwart Gods plan at all.

I would also bring up the glass houses argument regarding LDS leaders. much like earlier catholic leaders, early LDS leaders failed to live up the standards we expect today quite often. the biggest difference i see is that the LDs leaders claimed to be speaking Gods own words as they literally changed doctrine and practices multiple times back and forth over the years.

 

[RebeccaJ]

and the Holy Spirit ensured that no matter how bad a pope chose to be, the DOGMA never changed! thus the true teachings of Christ were always present.

Jesus gives us an excellent example here. he chose Judas as an apostle. We can hold Judas to whatever standard we want. Jesus chose him and he betrayed him. that’s part of Christian history that didn’t thwart Gods plan at all.

I would also bring up the glass houses argument regarding LDS leaders. much like earlier catholic leaders, early LDS leaders failed to live up the standards we expect today quite often. the biggest difference i see is that the LDs leaders claimed to be speaking Gods own words as they literally changed doctrine and practices multiple times back and forth over the years.

St. Peter is also an example. He denied Our Lord three times, which thing, Jesus prophesied. HE KNEW. Jesus did not tell Peter what a great failure he was going to be and remove from him the keys that he had been given.

“The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”

For the handful of bad Popes, we don’t know exactly how willing their spirits were. Only God knows this. We can certainly list their weakness, some of which, were .

 

[NewSeeker]

and the Holy Spirit ensured that no matter how bad a pope chose to be, the DOGMA never changed! thus the true teachings of Christ were always present.

…and in the era when the separation of church and state were unthinkable (an idea that did not exist until the 18th century), it is not surprising that state-sponsored violence, intended to eliminate external and internal threats to the social order, would implicate the church, since church and state were virtually identical. We see the same intermingling of church and state, sometimes with bad consequences, in ancient Israel; yet God did not abandon Israel and select some other group to be his new chosen people. Israel remained (and still remain) God’s chosen people, even though from time to time the highest leaders (king, high priest) were exceptionally wicked. It’s no different for the medieval era in Europe. God did not abandon His Church, even though some popes were bad. Even though some imperfect men have behaved very imperfectly, for 2,000 years God has continued to bring men and women His salvation through the body of authentic Christian teaching and the Divine Liturgy that are only available in their fullness in the Catholic Church.

Jesus gives us an excellent example here. he chose Judas as an apostle. We can hold Judas to whatever standard we want. Jesus chose him and he betrayed him. that’s part of Christian history that didn’t thwart Gods plan at all.

I would also bring up the glass houses argument regarding LDS leaders. much like earlier catholic leaders, early LDS leaders failed to live up the standards we expect today quite often. the biggest difference i see is that the LDs leaders claimed to be speaking Gods own words as they literally changed doctrine and practices multiple times back and forth over the years.

Exactly. Brigham Young is perhaps the most obvious example. He is famous for spouting silliness and declaring it to be from God and therefore doctrinal. The modern Mormon Church has declared much that Brigham Young taught to be false.

NS

 

[StevieD]

NS,
I think they should do that. I’m glad to know they do that. But I also think Catholics ought to hold each pope to a pretty high standard, including all the past ones, for them to really deeply trust in the Holy Spirit’s omniscience.

I am comfortable praying and getting answers to my prayers, sometimes differently than I would have hoped or expected.

Your prophets are (it is claimed) endowed with much greater powers than the Popes. Brigham Young (whose claims to the succession were tenuous to say the least) said some appalling things about slavery and blacks, married numerous women and died a dollar millionaire (in the 19th century!! Madoff cry your heart out!) which the ‘church’ had to try to reclaim, the Mountain Meadow Massacre involved the murder of childeren and women as well as men (all innocent of any crime). These proven facts do not shake your faith even though your church is in its infancy historically and YET you wonder that ours is not shaken by bad things in a 2000 year history. Wow!

 

[dianaiad]

Your prophets are (it is claimed) endowed with much greater powers than the Popes. Brigham Young (whose claims to the succession were tenuous to say the least) said some appalling things about slavery and blacks, married numerous women and died a dollar millionaire (in the 19th century!! Madoff cry your heart out!) which the ‘church’ had to try to reclaim, the Mountain Meadow Massacre involved the murder of childeren and women as well as men (all innocent of any crime). These proven facts do not shake your faith even though your church is in its infancy historically and YET you wonder that ours is not shaken by bad things in a 2000 year history. Wow!

(shrug)

Well, the wholesale murder of innocents by the Catholic hierarchy, the selling of indulgences and the wealth-building of the church and the rampant nepotism that sometimes reigned in the church (nice trick, I thought, given that priests were supposed to be celibate…) hasn’t destroyed your faith in that. Why are you imposing a different standard upon us?

We claim that God is guiding us, through the priesthood and our leaders. If you don’t claim the same thing for your own belief system, then it begs the question of exactly who IS guiding it.

Double standards, there. Mote and beam. You know the drill…