How do the Mormons do it?

[Cowboy_Pete]

Since the BoA is fraudulent,

I understand that you believe that. You understand that I don’t believe that. So it would be silly for you to expect me to have a conversation that assumed the fraudulency of the book of mormon as a premise, as it would be silly if I were to expect you to assume that it was revealed scripture.

The 1 Corinthians stuff did not come from the Brass Plates.

And no, the 1 Cor and the Isaiah stuff was not “tweaked” to make it seem like JS had come up with them

Nephi said outright that he was quoting Isaiah.

JS did not have the benefit of the dead sea scrolls to see that there were minor differences in how different texts preserved Isaiah’s words. So you’d have to impute prophesy to him for him to know that “tweaks” would make it more credible.

 

[NewSeeker]

I understand that you believe that. You understand that I don’t believe that. So it would be silly for you to expect me to have a conversation that assumed the fraudulency of the book of mormon as a premise, as it would be silly if I were to expect you to assume that it was revealed scripture.

The 1 Corinthians stuff did not come from the Brass Plates.

And no, the 1 Cor and the Isaiah stuff was not “tweaked” to make it seem like JS had come up with them

Nephi said outright that he was quoting Isaiah.

JS did not have the benefit of the dead sea scrolls to see that there were minor differences in how different texts preserved Isaiah’s words. So you’d have to impute prophesy to him for him to know that “tweaks” would make it more credible.

You’re right about 1 Cor, just typing too fast. Unlike the Isaiah verses and the Brass Plates fable, JS simply forgot to invent and attribute a ‘source’ within the BoM text for Moroni’s ‘borrowings’ (to put it somewhat charitably).

It’s obvious that the BoA is a fake (except to those with warm feelings believed without evidence to have come from God). There’s no need to discuss the historicity of the BoM at all given that fact. Bringing it full circle, when push comes to shove, Mormons are able to “do it” based on the warm/peaceful/still sensations they feel when they pray.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

You’re right about 1 Cor, just typing too fast. Unlike the Isaiah verses and the Brass Plates fable, JS simply forgot to invent and attribute a ‘source’ within the BoM text for Moroni’s ‘borrowings’ (to put it somewhat charitably).
.

Ah, but that’s clearly not true. Because Mormon cites it as a discourse of Moroni’s. So if it was a fraud, then JS did take the trouble to attribute a source… and yet did not bother to cover himself by explaining the obvious and explicit similarity to Paul’s sermon.

If it’s a fraud, then it’s not much of a fraud.

And if it’s true, then any believer should immediately recognize that there’s at least two obvious alternate explanations for the fact that two of Jesus’ disciples could give the same sermon, on different continents and never having heard of each other.

I suspect that you can figure at least one of them out.

 

[NewSeeker]

Ah, but that’s clearly not true. Because Mormon cites it as a discourse of Moroni’s. So if it was a fraud, then JS did take the trouble to attribute a source… and yet did not bother to cover himself by explaining the obvious and explicit similarity to Paul’s sermon.

If it’s a fraud, then it’s not much of a fraud.

And if it’s true, then any believer should immediately recognize that there’s at least two obvious alternate explanations for the fact that two of Jesus’ disciples could give the same sermon, on different continents and never having heard of each other.

I suspect that you can figure at least one of them out.

A dream, a vision, direct revelation, a visitation by Paul, or (more likely) JS just had a copy of the KJV at hand or recited from memory when he put those words in Moroni’s mouth (via Mormon). As I said, JS was a very imaginative storyteller and plagiarist.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

A dream, a vision, direct revelation, a visitation by Paul, or (more likely) JS just had a copy of the KJV at hand or recited from memory when he put those words in Moroni’s mouth (via Mormon). As I said, JS was a very imaginative storyteller and plagiarist.

And yet not imaginative enough to explain the similarity of the sermons?

The explanation I thought you would discern immediately (direct revelation) would be that the words were God’s to begin with, and that Paul and Moroni both spoke under influence of the Holy Ghost.

Another likely explanation would be that both Paul and Moroni were citing an earlier sermon that has not made it into scripture, e.g. a sermon given by Christ during his 40 days after his resurrection in Jerusalem, and again in the New World when he visited there.

 

[truthsave]

**LDS mormons don’t take their doctrine from the book of mormon.
**
The book of mormon it is used to suggest a faulse analogie of the kind: if you have an headacke and two aspirin are good then 10 must be better.

Joseph Smith used the action of translating the book of mormon, wether he did it or not does not have any importance at all at least for me (even though I think it was a fraude), to give credit to his person as a prophet and revelator.
Then when people bought it, he reversed all he wanted to other books he made, where is find the mormon doctrine.

Even if I make something good doesn’t mean the rest is good. Even mormon thinks the devil mix good and bad to bring you to confusion.

It is amazing how an hipothetical translation of the book of mormon gives all this credit to Joseph Smith but he doesn’t loose credit with the evidence of completely fantastic translation of the book of Abraham, that was accepted to be an invention even from other mormons group no LDS, that he made a great fraude starting a bank that should have been the bank that would have made all the other banks to fall (or something like that, in any way of grandious impact to rest coherent with his personality), his thirst of material power (he was running to be president of U.S.A.) and I can go on and on.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

LDS mormons don’t take their doctrine from the book of mormon.

Then you should probably find a different nickname for us.

Seriously, we draw as much or more of our theology from the Book of Mormon as you do from the Bible. The Book of Mormon is the foundation of our church.

Of particular importance are 2 Nephi chapters 2, 9, and 31, Alma chapter 5 and 32, and Moroni chapter 7. Also the amazing sermon by Abinidi in the Book of Mosiah.

Read those 5-6 chapters and you’ll more than quadruple your knowledge about the LDS church. Seriously, what I’m seeing from some people here is the equivalent of someone saying they know everything they need to know about Catholicism from watching Omen II and The Exorcist.

 

[christianley]

Then you should probably find a different nickname for us.

Seriously, we draw as much or more of our theology from the Book of Mormon as you do from the Bible. The Book of Mormon is the foundation of our church.

Of particular importance are 2 Nephi chapters 2, 9, and 31, Alma chapter 5 and 32, and Moroni chapter 7. Also the amazing sermon by Abinidi in the Book of Mosiah.

Read those 5-6 chapters and you’ll more than quadruple your knowledge about the LDS church. Seriously, what I’m seeing from some people here is the equivalent of someone saying they know everything they need to know about Catholicism from watching Omen II and The Exorcist.

About the only doctrine unique to the Book of Mormon is the condemnation of infant baptism. Most unique Mormon doctrine comes from the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham coupled with the sermons of Joseph Smith.

 

[Telstar]

Read my post above; it’s not Parker attempting to soften or dismiss anything, it’s a point of our doctrine and teaching that those terms refer to no specific church or organisation, just the same as in Revelation.

Now that LDS are trying to be recognized and accepted as “Christian”, the church has softened its stance on many of its more embarrassing teachings. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Mormons no longer teach or believe in some of those things. They’re just not “official” teachings, so they’re free to choose.

Why? You’re wrong so bringing it up only makes you look silly and proves you haven’t done your research properly first.

If you did a little of your own research, you’ld find numerous quotes by Mormon elders and prophets that apparently were not as unsure as you are about which church(es) were described in the BoM.

This is certainly not the first time people have told me that I looked silly. Since I usually tend to see myself as a bit of a clown, I might even take it as a compliment.

Really? A 14 year old boy, educated to a level around the same as an average 12 year old might have nowadays? And a farm-boy to boot. You think he possessed the knowledge and understanding of religion and of the world to even consider the idea he could create a religion?

He didn’t create his new church when he was 14. Apparently, you’ve never had much experience with 14 year old boys. They’re not as stupid as you make them out to be. They can also be very stubborn to the point of being vindictive when their tall tales and fantasies are not readily believed by others.

Again, a 14 year old farm-boy? Having been brought up in a religious household, taught sound principles, learned the value of a good day’s work and sincerely explored the various faiths in an attempt to find out which might be true?

His household could not have been very religious if he was considering many different churches in the area at 14. People brought up in a ‘religious household’ usually belong to a specific church and are very firm in their beliefs. Looking for the ‘right one’ would not be something left up to a young teenage boy to decide, would it? If your 14 year old said he wanted to find a new church because he didn’t like the one you went to, would you let him?

He was confused and disappointed when those professing to have religious attachments were not just dismissive, but actually at times vehemently outspoken against him when he shared his vision. But he knew what he had seen, and he knew God knew it, and he could never deny it. Any many more both then and since have learned the truth of this also; by the power of God through His Holy Spirit and the irrefutable testimony of spirit to spirit communication.

He refused to believe what all of those ministers tried to tell him. He was a stubborn teenager that wasn’t willing to take the advice of adults that had much more experience in spiritual matters than he did. But, humility and obedience were never his strong suits.

This alone proves his naivety, and that he was not the con-artist and fraud you paint him to be. Firstly that it had never previously entered his head that the earth did not hold a single church or denomination that taught the full truth of the gospel; andmsecondly that he did not expect the reaction that he actually received from those around him, so set in ther religious ways, that to accept what he was telling them, would be to accept that their own teaching and doctrines were false or incomplete and their own priesthood authority was non-existent. Anyone who had thought through doing what Joseph Smith did as a premeditated and preconceived idea, would have realised this reaction beforehand.

I don’t have to ‘paint him’ as a fraud. He was taken to court in NY for defrauding people with his treasure hunting schemes, that he did using a ‘magic peepstone’ in his hat (an occult practice). He wasn’t 14 when he created his church, but he started doing the peepstone trick with his father around that age.

Thisnis a very interesting statement. You cannot say it was false, as you were not there. You claim it to be so because you refuse to accept Joseph Smith, the Bood of Mormon and LDS teachings, because they do not fit with your existing beliefs and views. You are entirely unprepared to consider that your existing views could be incorrect or incomplete, even if this was the will of the Lord; you aren’t even prepared to ask Him properly. You typify the type of people Joseph Smith had to contend with.

I can say that it was false based on the content of the vision, and by assessing how it contradicts the truth and teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, if it really happened, it was a typical false vision. It’s the type of vision that many other visionaries have described whenever the devil has appeared to try to deceive them and lead them astray. But, as someone else pointed out, you can’t really know for sure because you weren’t there, either. Feelings don’t trump our use of reason, or I could just claim that I know it by the ‘burning in my bosom’ when I prayed for an answer of whether it was true or not.

Again, a 14 year old boy making such plans, uneducated and schooled in religion only so far as his own readings of The Bible, and sermons taught from the pulpit of conflicting religions. I’m astonished that someone apparently intelligent could humour a thought so preposterous.

That’s a fairly scathing description of a young boy that was “brought up in a religious household, taught sound principles”. Like I said, he wasn’t 14 when he started his new religion. It took him a few years between making the decision to ‘build a better church’ and actually making it a reality.

 

[truthsave]

Then you should probably find a different nickname for us.

Seriously, we draw as much or more of our theology from the Book of Mormon as you do from the Bible. The Book of Mormon is the foundation of our church.

Of particular importance are 2 Nephi chapters 2, 9, and 31, Alma chapter 5 and 32, and Moroni chapter 7. Also the amazing sermon by Abinidi in the Book of Mosiah.

Read those 5-6 chapters and you’ll more than quadruple your knowledge about the LDS church. Seriously, what I’m seeing from some people here is the equivalent of someone saying they know everything they need to know about Catholicism from watching Omen II and The Exorcist.

First of all I didn’t say the book of mormon is Christian I said is not blasphematory and this makes a big difference. If LDS believs where only based on the book of mormon the problem with Christianity would have been much, much lesser.
Immagine your mormonism based only in these quotations take away all the other things = big step toward christianity.
But really seriously immagine it! Only what is written in the book of mormon without any dissertations.

For this reason I have a nick name for you I have always used: Smithonians
it depends how this is perceived.

Now sorry I have to pray, for me, for you and for people in need. So for few day I would not answer to this or other posts. Forgive me for this.
Please if some other Christian user will answer in my place I would appreciate it.

 

[Naf623]

you do not understand how God revealed himself slowly to humankind in the OT…slowly, until man was ready.

As far as the Israelites were concerned, yes; because the whole Golden Calf incident proved they were not ready to receive it’s fulness. however, the covenant made with Abraham shows a full and complete understanding of the gospel, in addition to the bit where “The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend”. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God; the city of Enoch was taken straight to heaven implying they were living the fullness of gospel truths.
Throughout the Old Testament it is clear that God revealed Himself in His fulness to prophet after prophet; they understood the fulness of the gospel. I agree that those who were not prepared only received part: precisely the reason that Jesus taught in parables. But the full gospel truth, it’s precepts, ordinances and requirements; as well as the entire glorious plan that God has laid out for us here on earth was well known to the prophets of the Old Testament because God revealed His will to them directly. It is told to us by Amos (3:7) that this is always the way God works, and nowhere is it suggested otherwise.

And that is why the CC declared that there is futher no need for new public revelation after the death of the last Apostle…the revelation of God is complete, and the deposit of faith is complete and is carried by the CC.

Even if I were to agree with you that there is nothing new doctrinally to be received from God, the idea that He would stop conversing with people to give advice and interpretations is absurd.

On the other hand, from what I learned in these forum discussions, it is the LDS God that seem to not make up His mind…cannot decide polygamy allowed or not, black priests not allowed then allowed…changing doctrines…it is all over the place.

So you also complain when reading the OT that only the tribe of Levi were permitted to officiate in Temple ordinances? We are not given God’s reasons for this either, yet you appear to accept that He has them without question. God’s will is what we follow, whatever this is, and wherever it may lead us.
As to polygamy; it was normal in the Old Testament to do this, the major prophets throughout all had many wives and were still counted by the Lord as being righteous and worthy to receive His blessings and commune with Him; continuing to act in their prophetic position. Again, it seems that it is the rest of Christianity that has changed it’s laws to suit, and thus the laws of the land were made in such a way as to forbid it… We believe in following the laws of the land, so far as they still allow us the freedom to worship.

In Scripture, as today, the Church in council sits on the judge’s bench and listens to the testimony of Scripture in light of its Tradition in order to discern how best to define that Tradition more precisely.

So, basically, if I have this right; instead of using the words of scripture, and the words of God to define your doctrine, teaching, ordinances and traditions; you use your existing traditions to decide how to interpret the scriptures. Seems completely topsy-turvy to me.

What I see is possibly the most clever and elaborate scheme of Satan, concocted over centuries and slowly drip-fed to the church from the time of the apostle’s death. The alteration of the simple, clean ordinances with contamination from pagan and Jewish mysticism because the membership found it difficult to adjust to being so simple and non-exclusive. The slow and careful persuasion that no further revelation from God needed to come, and therefore He need not be consulted. The suggestion to rely on ones own wisdom and powers of reasoning above the true gift of irrefutable testimony from God Himself.
I do not doubt the belief and conviction of the people involved in any part of this, believing that things they were doing were in the best interest of the membership of the church. A prime example, to me, is the refusal to allow the Bible to be translated and/or made available to people in general, but should only be available to ‘properly trained’ ministers who could then expound the meaning to the ignorant masses. Satan told the decision-makers the truth about the reasons for not doing this; that in freeing up the manuscripts to people, they would be able to make their own interpretations and it would cause schisms and dissections. What he failed to tell is, probably, much more important; that these schisms and dissections would allow people to see the true nature of the church, and it’s misinterpretations and folly. People would once again have the ability to read the teachings, and find out for themselves the truth; which Satan could not afford if his deceitful purposes to bring down the work of God were to proceed.
Thankfully Satan’s intentions did not come to fruition, the Bible was translated and this paved the way for many good, well intentioned people to try their best to come to correct conclusions, and ultimately allowed a young boy to read the admonition of James that only through sincere prayer could we really discover the will of God.
As prophesied by both Old and New Testament prophets, the church as established by Jesus Christ apostasised, not in that there was a mass exodus of membership, but that the church itself veered from correct principles. And hence a restoration was necessary (as also predicted).

The Book of Mormon is the foundation of our church

Just a note: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, built upon the bedrock of Christ and a foundation of apostles and prophets.

 

[Naf623]

He didn’t create his new church when he was 14. Apparently, you’ve never had much experience with 14 year old boys. They’re not as stupid as you make them out to be. They can also be very stubborn to the point of being vindictive when their tall tales and fantasies are not readily believed by others.

I obviously can’t say “yes, I have lots of experience of 14 year old boys”
But I do have some experience of general teenagers, and while yes they can be vindictive, moody, stubborn etc. their chosen forms of retaliation are still extremely childish and immature. The idea of putting in that much work, over something so easy to avoid (which, let’s face it, even in his time Christianity was easy to avoid, Catholicism even more so) would not give anywhere near the work/reward benefit ratio they would consider reasonable. That is a much more adult concept of patience and premeditation.

His household could not have been very religious if he was considering many different churches in the area at 14. People brought up in a ‘religious household’ usually belong to a specific church and are very firm in their beliefs. Looking for the ‘right one’ would not be something left up to a young teenage boy to decide, would it? If your 14 year old said he wanted to find a new church because he didn’t like the one you went to, would you let him?

His household were divided already; his mother took most of the family to one church, while his father periodically attended elsewhere. The advice he received from various church ministers he spoke to (yes, as a part of his search he did go and speak to those he believed had more experience than he had) was to find the church that taught most closely to what he thought was true.

He refused to believe what all of those ministers tried to tell him. He was a stubborn teenager that wasn’t willing to take the advice of adults that had much more experience in spiritual matters than he did.

He did try to take their advice, but the advice he received was so conflicting dependent on the denomination he would ask. He eventually realised (as you fail to) that it is impossible to discern which church teaches truth based on interpretation of The Bible alone, because each group interprets it differently. One can only discover the truth when we approach God sincerely, with our hearts and minds open to receive His words and apply His will in our lives, even if this completely upturns our entire life and long-held deeply rooted beliefs.

I don’t have to ‘paint him’ as a fraud. He was taken to court in NY for defrauding people with his treasure hunting schemes, that he did using a ‘magic peepstone’ in his hat (an occult practice).

So if I take you to court for theft, that makes you a thief?
Jesus Christ was, effectively, taken to court many times throughout His life; do you also intend to sully His name with the same type of slander? (or is it libel when it’s written down?)

I can say that it was false based on the content of the vision, and by assessing how it contradicts the truth and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Really, which?

That’s a fairly scathing description of a young boy that was “brought up in a religious household, taught sound principles”.

Actually the statement that I find it incredible that someone could entertain the idea was not directed toward Joseph Smith, rather your entire argument against him.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As far as the Israelites were concerned, yes; because the whole Golden Calf incident proved they were not ready to receive it’s fulness. however, the covenant made with Abraham shows a full and complete understanding of the gospel, in addition to the bit where “The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend”. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God; the city of Enoch was taken straight to heaven implying they were living the fullness of gospel truths.
Throughout the Old Testament it is clear that God revealed Himself in His fulness to prophet after prophet; they understood the fulness of the gospel. I agree that those who were not prepared only received part: precisely the reason that Jesus taught in parables. But the full gospel truth, it’s precepts, ordinances and requirements; as well as the entire glorious plan that God has laid out for us here on earth was well known to the prophets of the Old Testament because God revealed His will to them directly. It is told to us by Amos (3:7) that this is always the way God works, and nowhere is it suggested otherwise.

God Reveals Himself as He chooses, a pillar of fire, a burning bush, an angel, three men sharing a meal with Abraham. This is not God seen as He is, as God cannot be seen as He is.

You seem to forget, that Israel are the chosen people of God. God, Saving them in their sins, not waiting for them to perfect themselves before they are saved. Unless you are Jewish, your gentile claim of “Jews not ready” can be applied 10000 times over to you…they were chosen before you. Our need is great, and in our need, we cry out, “Come Lord, Come”. God in His Mercy, hears our prayers, but it was Israel’s prayers for a Messiah that were heard first.

St. Paul teaches us, God Saved us while we were yet sinners. The Law, having been given to the Jews to Perfect them, was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who we (everyone) are Perfected in and through. The Jews, not able to Perfect themselves through the Law, and neither can you.

God became flesh, and dwelt among us. Jesus Christ is the Face of God, the Word of God and God’s Mercy.

Peace.

 

[Telstar]

As far as the Israelites were concerned, yes; because the whole Golden Calf incident proved they were not ready to receive it’s fulness. however, the covenant made with Abraham shows a full and complete understanding of the gospel, in addition to the bit where “The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend”. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God; the city of Enoch was taken straight to heaven implying they were living the fullness of gospel truths.

The Gospel didn’t exist during the times of the Old Testament because the Messiah had not yet come, so to claim that anyone at that point in time fully understood it, is evidence that you really don’t understand it, yourself.

Adam and Eve saw God in Paradise, but after they sinned, they hid their faces from Him. They could no longer look at Him, directly, because of being in the state of sin as a result of their disobedience.

No man has ever seen the Father, except the Son:
John 1:[18] No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Even if I were to agree with you that there is nothing new doctrinally to be received from God, the idea that He would stop conversing with people to give advice and interpretations is absurd.

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that just because we believe that there is never to be new scripture or doctrine, because all has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, that it has to mean that God no longer communes with any of us, or us with Him, at all? (that’s actually a rhetorical question because I’m pretty sure the answer is obvious)

So you also complain when reading the OT that only the tribe of Levi were permitted to officiate in Temple ordinances?

Apples and oranges?

As to polygamy; it was normal in the Old Testament to do this, the major prophets throughout all had many wives and were still counted by the Lord as being righteous and worthy to receive His blessings and commune with Him; continuing to act in their prophetic position.

The Prophets were often punished for this sin that was never ordained by God.

So, basically, if I have this right; instead of using the words of scripture, and the words of God to define your doctrine, teaching, ordinances and traditions; you use your existing traditions to decide how to interpret the scriptures. Seems completely topsy-turvy to me.

Our Sacred Tradition produced the Bible as we know it, today (at least the** entire ** original Bible that was later shortened by the Protestants when they removed some books of the OT). How hard is it to understand that fact?

insults directed at the Catholic Church removed for obvious reasons

I might have to revoke my wish for leniency by the Mods after that diatribe.

Just a note: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, built upon the bedrock of Christ and a foundation of apostles and prophets.

I might be inclined to correct that statement… but I’ll hold my tongue because it would definitely be less than charitable.

 

[zaffiroborant]

, the idea that He would stop conversing with people to give advice and interpretations is absurd.

You should stop right now with this falsehood, I see Mormons parrot this accusation over and over and it is a deliberate mis-characterisation of our beliefs.

 

[Telstar]

I obviously can’t say “yes, I have lots of experience of 14 year old boys”
But I do have some experience of general teenagers, and while yes they can be vindictive, moody, stubborn etc. their chosen forms of retaliation are still extremely childish and immature. The idea of putting in that much work, over something so easy to avoid (which, let’s face it, even in his time Christianity was easy to avoid, Catholicism even more so) would not give anywhere near the work/reward benefit ratio they would consider reasonable. That is a much more adult concept of patience and premeditation.

I have 3 sons, all grown up, so I do have that kind of experience, as far as their attitudes as typical teenage boys go. Once again, JS didn’t create his new church when he was 14, but much later. There’s also the issue of exactly when he supposedly had the ‘vision’, or if it ever really happened at all. The jury is still out on that one.

His household were divided already; his mother took most of the family to one church, while his father periodically attended elsewhere. The advice he received from various church ministers he spoke to (yes, as a part of his search he did go and speak to those he believed had more experience than he had) was to find the church that taught most closely to what he thought was true.

Then, I would hesitate all the more to say that he lived in a “religious household” at all. (And, you didn’t even answer my question about your own ‘hypothetical’ son. I’ll have to take that as a definite, “no”.) Also, I find it quite incredible that you would think that a 14 year old ‘poorly educated’ plowboy, that grew up in marginally religious home, could be someone to believe as a true prophet of God based mainly on that first purported ‘vision’.

He was supposedly told by God that all Christian churches that had come into being over the past 1800 years were dead wrong about everything. He apparently was told more ‘truth’, and did God’s will more fully than anyone else in the whole world of Christian history, including Jesus, Himself? Like I said, you have ‘free agency’ to believe whatever you choose to believe. If you can feel comfortable sleeping at night, while thinking that God could be so utterly incompetent as to allow men to screw things up that badly for so long, because He couldn’t manage to get anyone else to pay any attention to Him for almost 2000 years, then that’s your choice. So, I really I do hope you’re that sure about believing in Joseph Smith’s ‘word’ over the words of Jesus when He said, “John 14:[16] And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. [17] The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. [18] I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.”.

He did try to take their advice, but the advice he received was so conflicting dependent on the denomination he would ask. He eventually realised (as you fail to) that it is impossible to discern which church teaches truth based on interpretation of The Bible alone, because each group interprets it differently. One can only discover the truth when we approach God sincerely, with our hearts and minds open to receive His words and apply His will in our lives, even if this completely upturns our entire life and long-held deeply rooted beliefs.

Perhaps, if he had a better religious upbringing, he would have understood which one was really true. Unfortunately, it’s a grievous problem when those who stand in the pulpit are so busy insulting the beliefs of others around them that they fail to preach the love of the true Word of God, which is found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has been preserved in the one true Church for 2000 years.

So if I take you to court for theft, that makes you a thief?
Jesus Christ was, effectively, taken to court many times throughout His life; do you also intend to sully His name with the same type of slander? (or is it libel when it’s written down?)

I’m pretty sure he was found guilty of that particular crime and had to pay restitution to the plaintiff. There were many other stories about his treasure hunting escapades that were not always popular with his ‘marks’. I won’t even discuss your flippant comparison of JS to the Son of God.

Really, which?

John the Baptist said:“John 1[18] No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
Jesus said:“John 24:[24] God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.”
No man has ever seen the Father because He is pure Spirit. Seeing Him with our own human eyes would kill any of us, immediately. We could not live because we would want to be with Him instead of remaining in this life. He does not have ‘flesh and bones’, and He never did. Not even Moses ever saw Him, “face to face”, but only in the form of Holy Fire that did not consume the bush.

Actually the statement that I find it incredible that someone could entertain the idea was not directed toward Joseph Smith, rather your entire argument against him.

Huh??? Sorry, but I have no clue what you even said in that sentence.

 

[zaffiroborant]

. It is told to us by Amos (3:7) that this is always the way God works, and nowhere is it suggested otherwise.

.

But it is suggested otherwise Hebrews 1:1-2

 

[RebeccaJ]

I might have to revoke my wish for leniency by the Mods after that diatribe.

Just the usual Mormon recitation of anti-Catholic nonsense.

 

[NewSeeker]

He did try to take their advice, but the advice he received was so conflicting dependent on the denomination he would ask. He eventually realised (as you fail to) that it is impossible to discern which church teaches truth based on interpretation of The Bible alone, because each group interprets it differently. One can only discover the truth when we approach God sincerely, with our hearts and minds open to receive His words and apply His will in our lives, even if this completely upturns our entire life and long-held deeply rooted beliefs.

What’s the difference between “truth based on interpretation of The Bible alone” and doing what Mormons do when reading the Bible - approaching “God sincerely, with our hearts and minds open to receive His words and apply His will in our lives, even if this completely upturns our entire life and long-held deeply rooted beliefs”? Every protestant who believes in sola scriptura “appoach[es] God sincerely, with…hearts and minds open to receive his words and apply His will in [their] lives…” They do exactly what you do. What’s missing in protestantism is a recognized final authority where the buck stops, against which all private interpretations must be measured. This is what multiplies the number of churches in protestantism. I agree; it is a confusion.

But there is more to how Mormons approach the Bible. They have a final authority against which your own private interpretation must be measured. Mormons have their scriptural canon and accepted core doctrines, ratified by the whole church. The problem, of course, is that the validity of this final authority of Mormonism stands or falls on the testimony of Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith is not credible, as evidenced by the Book of Abraham debacle, evolving versions of the First Vision account, redacted revelations in the Book of Commandments>Doctrine and Covenants, and his conviction in a court of law as a peepstone-wielding con man.

Fortunately, there is a reliable, authoritative source for correct biblical interpretation. That is Holy Tradition derived directly from the Apostolic witness, the tradition that emerged first and then produced the Bible you read - well, as someone pointed out, not the whole Bible. You Mormons are missing a bunch of books that Martin Luther took out based on his own private opinions.

 

[Naf623]

God Reveals Himself as He chooses, a pillar of fire, a burning bush, an angel, three men sharing a meal with Abraham. This is not God seen as He is, as God cannot be seen as He is.

No man has ever seen the Father, except the Son:
John 1:[18] No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

No man has ever seen the Father because He is pure Spirit. Seeing Him with our own human eyes would kill any of us, immediately. We could not live because we would want to be with Him instead of remaining in this life. He does not have ‘flesh and bones’, and He never did. Not even Moses ever saw Him, “face to face”, but only in the form of Holy Fire that did not consume the bush.

Exodus 33:11
“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend”
Genesis 32:30
“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face”
Exodus 19:21
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish” (Notice only many of them would perish; presumably because “blessed are the pure in heart for the shall see God”)
Exodus 24:10-11
“And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink”
Act 7:56
“And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”

The Gospel didn’t exist during the times of the Old Testament because the Messiah had not yet come, so to claim that anyone at that point in time fully understood it, is evidence that you really don’t understand it, yourself.

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that just because we believe that there is never to be new scripture or doctrine, because all has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ,

The Law of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus Christ; all will not be fulfilled until He returns. The Law was instituted only because the Israelites were not fully prepared yet to live by the full law required for God’s Everlasting Covenant with Abraham. Prior to this the people and prophets lived by the same laws and expectations that God expects of His people in all times.

Apples and oranges?

Hardly; the authority to act in God’s name is controlled by Him alone. The distinction made that the Levites alone could officiate in this office is scriptural precedence that only who God says can hold His priesthood ought to be ordained to it.

The Prophets were often punished for this sin that was never ordained by God.

Really? Where?

I might be inclined to correct that statement… but I’ll hold my tongue because it would definitely be less than charitable.

There’s a first.

Also, I find it quite incredible that you would think that a 14 year old ‘poorly educated’ plowboy, that grew up in marginally religious home, could be someone to believe as a true prophet of God** based mainly on that first purported ‘vision**’.

Hardly.

He was supposedly told by God that all Christian churches that had come into being over the past 1800 years were dead wrong about everything.

Nope. He was told that none of them taught the full gospel truths; that many of them had some correct ideas, but all deviated in some way from correct teachings because they had stopped relying on God to continually reveal His will and correct interpretations of scripture.

But it is suggested otherwise Hebrews 1:1-2

Er, no. All that says is that while Jesus was on earth, His presence was sufficient. It says nothing about God suddenly stopping the way He communicates with us. Because He hasn’t.

But there is more to how Mormons approach the Bible. They have a final authority against which your own private interpretation must be measured. Mormons have their scriptural canon and accepted core doctrines, ratified by the whole church. The problem, of course, is that the validity of this final authority of Mormonism stands or falls on the testimony of Joseph Smith.

Yes, it is true that if Joseph Smith was not the prophet we know him to be, that we have nothing. This is why we do not rely on belief that ‘the church exists’ as being our confirmation of its truth as I remember being suggested of Catholics earlier. I’m comfortable with the logic that because religion exists, that God must exist and that’s the position I began when searching for my own answers. There is not a single true LDS believer who has not approached God about the truth of the church, the Book of Mormon and the divinely appointed prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. It is not ‘just a feeling’ we rely on, it is much, much more. As I believe it was Parker brought up earlier, but appears to have been utterly dismissed;
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow”
When God speaks to us, His word enters into us and gives an irrefutable realisation of truth, and leaves an indelible mark throughout our being that takes great effort working against it to remove.
It is a long way removed from ‘just a feeling’, and given how in tune with the Spirit you claim to be, I’m astonished you do not understand it.