Did Joseph Smith ever quote from the Book of Mormon?

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you find peace and comfort in the catholic church, then the catholic church is for you. Likewise for myself. As I have said, I have found more joy in the catholic faith at this moment. The nuns and priests are very nice and supportive and going to Mass takes me back to my boyhood.

And so, if I find more peace and joy in catholicism than in mormonism, I will keep attending mass and also the mormon church to be with my daughters.

Be where god calls you to be.

I believe peace and joy are good things after which to seek. However, peace and joy are not good determiners of truth.

One example is a person suffering from alcoholism or an addition to some drug like Meth. For such a person, to come to the knowledge that she has an addiction and needs help will give her neither peace nor joy. She will be anxious and saddened by the truth of how enslaved she has become to her destructive sin.

In this example, anxiety and sadness point to the truth, and peace and joy lead to a lie.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It seems to me, WhyMe, that the wise path is to seek truth first, and then find joy and peace in the truth of which you are convinced afterword.



In the example i gave, swallowing the truth that she is an addict might result in rehab, and the result might be a life free from the walking death of addiction. This freedom will result in a better peace and a more wonderful joy, feelings more worthy than those found in the lie.

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”–Jesus (John 8:32)

 

[why_me]

In this example, anxiety and sadness point to the truth, and peace and joy lead to a lie.

Except in being at peace and joy in one’s religious faith. I see no reason to get worked up over what religion may be true if catholicism is a person’s truth. A person should just enjoy the closeness to god that they may feel in catholicism or in whatever faith they may belong to.

That was my point.

 

[RAR]

I don’t think anyone needs to rail. It is uncharitable and leads nowhere. I can understand why those of us on the site who have left the LDS church can hold the positions they do in some respects… I have myself been frustrated by missionaries who only care to follow their agenda and not have a sincere dialogue with me. I find it disingenuous and disrespectful. I have since made it clear to those who come to my door that if they do not answer my questions, as I respectfully answer theirs, then our conversation is over and they are no longer welcome until they have the Christian charity to dialogue with me.

And again, there is no need to rail on the LDS church. I think this is a misunderstanding… people like to think that they are persecuted. In fact, it is not persecution or railing to point out to our brothers that they have been deceived.

The tragedy of the Mormon faithful is that they have accepted an “authority” in err and have in fact overlooked the very church and authority they’ve been seeking. There was no Great Apostasy. History does not bear it out. The burden of proof is on those who conjecture it.

 

[RAR]

TS:

I find no sin in a person saying what he sincerely believes to be the truth. If Zer believes the Catholic church is apostate, and if he believes that all Protestant churches are also apostate, perhaps the most sinful thing he might do is to not point this out, when appropriate.

I do not doubt Zer’s sincerity, i’m just not convinced as to whether or not he is sincere, yet sincerely wrong. If he is right, the Spirit of God will make this clear enough. If he is wrong, the Spirit of God will reveal this. I have nothing to fear from the Truth.

Right on again Soc. I just made a similar point myself. I’m not intimidated by someone believing they are right. In fact, I’d question their sincerity if they didn’t believe the whole world should be Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic. If we sincerely believe our brothers to be in err, then it is our responsibility to carefully and charitably correct them… and tactfully, too.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Except in being at peace and joy in one’s religious faith. I see no reason to get worked up over what religion may be true if catholicism is a person’s truth. A person should just enjoy the closeness to god that they may feel in catholicism or in whatever faith they may belong to.

That was my point.

Point taken, WhyMe. I think Paul’s words might be helpful:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

(Philippians 4:8)

Paul says we should think about whatever is true. Now, you might say that the LDS church is true for Zer and the Catholic church is true for you. Yet, if only one of those churches is the only way to heaven, well, it would make sense for me to find out which one that is.

It cannot be true that the LDS church is the only way to heaven and the Roman Catholic church is the only way to heaven. If there is only one way, then there cannot be two.

Now, you might say they are both ways to heaven. My response is that Evangelicals tell me they are both ways to hell. So, it cannot be true that the LDS and RC churches are ways to heaven and ways to hell. Therefore, it still makes sense to me to determine the truth about where both will lead me before i get on board. For, either train might result in a train wreck.

That’s one reason why figuring out what the true religion is, is so important to me–my eternal destiny is at stake.

 

[RAR]

Hmmm, I see I’m a bit behind the current conversation… well, a point… truth is not subjective and it is certainly not relative. There does exist “objective” truth. This might mean that the Mormons or the Catholics or anybody else might be right, but it might also mean that they are all wrong. Anyway, one person’s truth is not separate from anothers… truth is a constant and is objective, whether we know it or not.

Q: I’ve read JS History in the BoM or the compilation of the D&C, BoM, and PoGP (don’t know what it’s called)… I thought it was interesting that when JS was beginning to question and mentioned all the various religions that he didn’t mention Catholicism… can anyone tell me why not? Were there no nearby churches?

I’m not being sarcastic.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hmmm, I see I’m a bit behind the current conversation… well, a point… truth is not subjective and it is certainly not relative. There does exist “objective” truth. This might mean that the Mormons or the Catholics or anybody else might be right, but it might also mean that they are all wrong. Anyway, one person’s truth is not separate from anothers… truth is a constant and is objective, whether we know it or not.
…

Agreed, RAR. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie even if every body believes it. The trick is to figure out which is which.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Right on again Soc. I just made a similar point myself. I’m not intimidated by someone believing they are right. In fact, I’d question their sincerity if they didn’t believe the whole world should be Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic. If we sincerely believe our brothers to be in err, then it is our responsibility to carefully and charitably correct them… and tactfully, too.

True, that!

 

[PaulDupre]

RAR:

Q: I’ve read JS History in the BoM or the compilation of the D&C, BoM, and PoGP (don’t know what it’s called)… I thought it was interesting that when JS was beginning to question and mentioned all the various religions that he didn’t mention Catholicism… can anyone tell me why not? Were there no nearby churches?

I’m not being sarcastic.

The early 1800’s was prior to the large influxes of Irish, Italian, Polish and other Catholic immigrants from Europe. Outside of Maryland, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana, there were few Catholic churches in the US at that time. Joseph in New York was probably never exposed to Catholicism other than what he heard about it from Protestants.

Paul

 

[Jerusha]

You forgot the French Catholics of Canada-- Outside the country, but very close. “Adieu”-- what a word. We then have another possibility. So many!!! And all very human in their origin.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The early 1800’s was prior to the large influxes of Irish, Italian, Polish and other Catholic immigrants from Europe. Outside of Maryland, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana, there were few Catholic churches in the US at that time. Joseph in New York was probably never exposed to Catholicism other than what he heard about it from Protestants.

Paul

In the 1800s Alexis de Tocqueville visited America from France and wrote a great deal about the Roman Catholic church in America. So, i’m not certain your premise about Joseph Smith not knowing about the Roman Catholic church is true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

I do agree that Roman Catholics were in the minority.

 

[Jerusha]

And later, at Nauvoo, Joseph was an acquaintance with Fr. John George Alleman, who passed through the town quite frequently from Ft. Madison.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hmmm, I see I’m a bit behind the current conversation… well, a point… truth is not subjective and it is certainly not relative. There does exist “objective” truth. This might mean that the Mormons or the Catholics or anybody else might be right, but it might also mean that they are all wrong. Anyway, one person’s truth is not separate from anothers… truth is a constant and is objective, whether we know it or not.

Q: I’ve read JS History in the BoM or the compilation of the D&C, BoM, and PoGP (don’t know what it’s called)… I thought it was interesting that when JS was beginning to question and mentioned all the various religions that he didn’t mention Catholicism… can anyone tell me why not? Were there no nearby churches?

I’m not being sarcastic.

JS was in an area that is referred to as the “burned out area”. It is a historical term for the religious fervor of the time and place. And it was completely, 100%, Protestanism. He investigated Protestant faiths only. He joined the Methodist church for a while.

Then he started following the “restoration movement” and was involved with the Campbellites for a while. As was Sidney Rigdon.

All of these religions, at the time, were extremely anti-Catholic. The anti-Catholic rhetoric seen in Smith and other early leaders of the LDS church are unmistakeable. So, in essence, they believed what they were being taught by these Protestant and restorationist religions, and incorporated these beliefs into the early mormon church.

These beliefs stuck. I was taught in the 70’s that Catholicism is the “whore of Babylon”. That the Catholic creeds are “abominable”. Over the last 20 years or so the mormon church has made a real effort to remove this anti-Catholic language from their religion, but they still have very anti-Catholic views. Their leaders sometimes include references to Catholicism in their speeches that are full of error and misrepresentations of the Catholic faith.

 

[Jerusha]

There are quite a few books which describe anti-Catholicism in the United States in the 1800’s It was quite virulent. Obviously a factor in the writing of the Book of Mormon.

 

[RAR]

Zerinus?

I hope you haven’t left us… I’m interested in your comments to my earlier post. I suppose it is Saturday afterall, so you might be busy with other things… I myself am about to check out for a while.

RAR

Zerinus,

I’ve spent the past several hours (including last night) catching up on this thread… and trust me, it’s taken some time. A quick background on me before I ask my question… I’m an orthodox Catholic living in Utah County. I’ve been impressed by many of my LDS neighbors and enjoy sharing many common values. In honesty though, I also feel a responsibility as I see them as sincerely “misguided.”

I am not so interested in discrediting the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith as I am in beginning a discussion on the early Christian church. My main concern is the Great Apostasy… and the necessary Restoration.

I admire your vigor, but I believe it to be misplaced. I understand your dogged urging that we read prayerfully the Book of Mormon and ask for God’s guidance and I respect your excitement you’ve taken from it and that has spread to the Bible… but, I don’t think our prayerful consideration of the written word is the only measuring stick…

I also think it is important to look at a church’s beginnings. In order for the LDS church to have a valid claim to authority, the Great Apostasy would have had to truly occur and a restoration been necessary…

I believe this to be impossible.

That is a strong word, but I mean it sincerely. For the Great Apostasy to have happened, it would have had to be “total” and “complete.” This could simply not be the case. The only explanations I’ve heard for the Great Apostasy are references to a few Bible verses (Thessalonians for example) that seem minor in comparison to Christ’s words in Matthew: You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. At least on the surface it seems the LDS church gives more credence to verses, whose interpretations are less than clear, than it does to Christ’s own very literal words. In fact, to believe that Christ meant anything else, does disservice to the scriptures and to the Apostles who heard His words.

I think just as crucial to my point, is that Christ also promised he would not leave us, that he would always be with us. If Christ is God incarnate and he established his church on Peter, his rock (as He said), it would seem almost silly to me to believe that He would let His church fall into apostasy. Interestingly, the same manner in which the LDS church confers it’s priesthood, namely the laying on of hands, was also used (and still is today) in the early church to do the same. This is partly why the Church could not have fallen away. The others are the Church magisterium and Apostolic succession, but that is for another discussion.

Again, I understand and appreciate your urging for us to prayerfully approach the Book of Mormon, but I also urge you to prayerfully consider the early Christian church… you might start with reading the early church fathers where you’ll see that the church was still very much intact and is mirrored to this day.

Sincerely,
RAR

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Zerinus?

I hope you haven’t left us… I’m interested in your comments to my earlier post. I suppose it is Saturday afterall, so you might be busy with other things… I myself am about to check out for a while.

RAR

Zer has other commitments, but he has not yet failed to post replies when he has time. I’m sure he won’t let you down!

 

[truthsilence]

TS:

I find no sin in a person saying what he sincerely believes to be the truth. If Zer believes the Catholic church is apostate, and if he believes that all Protestant churches are also apostate, perhaps the most sinful thing he might do is to not point this out, when appropriate.

I find no sin in that at all either, Soc. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, Zerinus made the statement that he has never spoken disrespectfully of the Catholic Church. I was simply pointing out to him that what he writes about the Catholic Church itself, (and not just “apostates” from mormonism, like myself) is indeed disrespectful. Words like “corrupted” “perverted”, “dead”, and “the antithesis of true Christianity” don’t strike me as respectful at all. Perhaps you might look at what he’s written and see it differently. My point is, Zerinus said he only speaks disrespectfully of apostates from other faiths, and not of the Catholic Church itself. I see that as a bold faced* lie*. Why he feels the need to deny what he clearly has written, is a mystery to me.

In addition, I don’t believe I’ve seen any of the people posting here against the Mormon church turn around and make the claim that they haven’t spoken disrespectfully of it. Why should they?

 

[zerinus]

I have just finished watching President Hinckley’s funeral service on the Internet, therefore did not get the chance to reply to many posts.

Yes, that is why i asked. I did not think you actually meant that a person who has never read the Book of Mormon cannot have an interest and appreciation for the Bible.

Yet, i have to ask for clarification one more time: Are you saying that

(1) i do not have as strong a conviction as you that the Bible is true?

or

(2) there are some truths of the Bible in which you trust but in which i am yet unconvinced?

I am saying neither—although both may be true! All I said was that I believe that when the Holy Ghost witnesses to you that the Book of Mormon is true, it will strengthen, or give you added conviction that the Bible is true. That surely is not a difficult concept to understand; nor does it require me to answer your above questions in order to clarify it. You are asking me to read what is in your mind! I am not a mind reader, and never claimed to be!

If you are saying (1) please explain why.

As I said, I don’t need to answer that question in order to clarify my point. But if I had to answer it, the best way to answer it would perhaps be to quote the following verses from the Doctrine and Covenants, in which the Lord Himself testified to the purposes of the Book of Mormon:

D&C 20:

10 Which [Book of Mormon] was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—

11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures * are true,* and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.

That is what the testimony of the Book of Mormon does. It proves to us that the Bible (not just the Book of Mormon) is true, and that God has not changed, and that today as in ancient times He does “inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old”. Surely that knowledge would increase our faith in God, and our testimony of the Bible, not just of the Book of Mormon.

If you are saying (2) please point out a passage of the Bible that has a truth i do not know and trust and explain what that truth is.

Again, I do not need to answer this question either in order to clarify my point. But if I had to answer it, I would say that there are plenty of such passages that could be found. In fact, it would apply to the whole of the Bible. There is no part of the Bible which would not become more meaningful to us as a result of our knowledge and testimony of the modern scriptures of the LDS Church. Every time I read the Bible I gain an added insight into its passages by virtue of my knowledge and testimony of modern LDS scripture. There is no reason why it shouldn’t do for you what it has done for me, if you had the same testimony as I do.

If you want a specific example, I can give you one. Take, for example, the claims made in the Bible concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, and His pre-mortal role as the creator of the universe. John 1:1–5 and Hebrews 1 come to mind. Well, the Book of Mormon records an encounter with the pre-mortal Jesus by an ancient prophet which greatly enhances our knowledge and appreciation of His divinity and creative role in the pre-existent realm. You will find it in Ether 3:6–20. Since it is a fairly long passage, I will not quote it here. You can look it up in your copy of the Book of Mormon, or read it online by clicking on the link.

Okay, if you don’t believe in that passage, maybe it won’t mean much to you. There are also many people who don’t believe in the Bible, and therefore that doesn’t mean much to them. But I happen to know that that passage is true, therefore it has a very profound impact in increasing my knowledge and understanding of the character and person of Jesus Christ in His pre-mortal (and later mortal) state.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

That is what the testimony of the Book of Mormon does. It proves to us that the Bible (not just the Book of Mormon) is true,

and that God has not changed, and that today as in ancient times He does “inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old”.

zerinus

And Zerinus (and other mormons) NEED** the BoM to tell them that the Bible is true !!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Robert