R
rainman10
Guest
This must be another new definition from the Mormon dictionary.
- Status
Stephen168
New member
One of the first times I heard somebody say “trust me” was by someone who was not very trustworthy. When I hear someone start a claim with “trust me” my first thought is ‘why should I trust you?’ The Book of Mormon starts with Nephi claiming to be trustworthy and then basically saying “trust me.” Nephi wants me to believe a story that conflicts with the historical scientific record. I also could not imagine the Bible having witnesses to verify that it was true. I thought the part describing the future of past events included the ‘great abominable’ church was too 19th century America. The whole book was so contrived.Hello again, Parker
I’m glad you had a good day. It was gorgeous, here, too!
I was trying to remember what passage it was, but I’m not really sure. It might have been something in 2 Nephi. I think it was speaking about ‘the inheritance’ or something like that? Maybe? I’ve read quite a few passages from different books in the BoM over the past few years, so it’s hard for me to remember exactly what it was. (I’m getting older, so maybe I suffer from a touch of senility, aka “CRS”. LOL) I have no problem dealing with anything in the Apocalypse, so my feelings of dread were not because of anything in particular that I read about. The Apocalypse is actually one of my favorite books of the Bible. I really get a kick out of trying to figure out some new ‘hidden’ meanings for its strange imagery. It doesn’t scare me at all. I’ve always hoped that I would still be alive at the Second Coming, even though I know that the time leading up to it will literally be like hell on earth for everyone alive during that time.
I do remember that I made the mistake of continuing to read beyond the passages that they had given me to read. I also jumped around to different places in it, to see if my reaction would be any different if I read other parts of it. I remember that I was very disheartened by some passages that I found about the “great and abominable church of the devil”. The descriptions were fairly obvious to me what Church they referred to, by all of ‘trappings’ that it spoke about. There was very little doubt in my mind. Up until that point, I was quite willing to investigate and try to accept something that they seemed to think was so beautiful to read that it would bring them to tears. But, the tears that it ‘inspired’ in me were not quite for the same reasons.
When my friend sent me a Book of Mormon while he was on his mission I tried to read it but I’ve never been able to read fiction and the faux Elizabethan English was a distraction. I got most of the way through the first book and started just thumbing through it. I could say the Spirit told me it was fiction but what it really did was affirm the science I had already been taught. As we know faith and reason do not conflict with each other.
Stephen168
New member
The great abominable church = whore of babylon
whore of Babylon = Nero
Nero (68AD) removed many plain and precious things from the Bible (392AD)
whore of Babylon = Nero
Nero (68AD) removed many plain and precious things from the Bible (392AD)
N
Naf623
Guest
Not really, no.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915-1985); Mormon Doctrine (2nd edition:
Stephen E. Robinson; from a talk entitled "Warring against the Saints of God"; Ensign:
Do your research thoroughly before deciding what we do and don’t believe.
Interesting logic, however, as above, I’m not sure it really fits.
Something else I find interesting, is the fact the the original documents that now comprise the NT have not been seen since the early decades of the Early Church. Sir Frederic Kenyon Commented:
“The originals of the several books have long ago disappeared. They must have perished in the very infancy of the Church; for no allusion is ever made to them by any Christian writer”
I just found it very interesting when people keep referring to the original language, original early records and proof that the current ceremonies etc. are the same. Seems my Chinese Whispers point holds water after all…
T
truthsave
Guest
this is an extremely good point in favour of tradition. Tradition trasmitted from the early apostols to desciples had been of a great importance against any later inventions or suppositions. Even though something would have been lost tradition is never been lost. Even though something could say something has been lost if in tradition we don’t find anything about it, it means it has not been lost, or not of such great importance for the faith.
Thank you for pointing this out that could favour the extreme importance of tradition.
P
pablope
Guest
And this is supposed to shock us Catholics? We know there are no original copies…they have perished…what we have are copies of copies…and were preserved by Tradition.
And this why the pillar and ground of truth is not the Bible…it is the Church…as it says so in 1Tim 3…which is the holder and keeper of the Truth…through our Magisterium.
Source: mark-shea.com/tradition.html
Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
“But doesn’t that mean that the Church believes in continuing revelation like the Mormons?” No. The Church believes in Sacred Tradition, not Sacred New Revelation. It is of the very essence of Sacred Tradition that it is a thing handed down from the apostles, not a thing fadged up later on. And one of the basic truths of Sacred Tradition is that “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 4). And that is the irony. For this dogma, which is at the heart of the Evangelical concern about ongoing revelation, is virtually invisible in Scripture apart from the common teaching, life and worship of the Church. After all, no verse in Scripture says revelation ends with the death of the apostles. Rather, a few verses (such as Paul’s command to Timothy to guard what has been entrusted to him) can be seen to bear an extremely oblique witness to this teaching in light of Sacred Tradition preserved in the Church.
N
Naf623
Guest
I love this bit
Basically, while you accept that God reveals Himself and His laws to men on earth throu revelation in every other time through history, for some reason God changes His mind about working his way in modern times and leaves mortal men to make whatever they think is best through passing on traditions.
To you use your own discussion technique, I pose that the ‘god of the catholics’ is therefore changeable and ceases to be god.
T
Telstar
Guest
Parker,
I realize that you’re offering an alternative meaning to try and soften or dismiss what it says. You might also feel badly about it, or at least be embarrassed that a Catholic would bring it out into the open. But, it’s clear to most people that Joseph Smith knew that he had to make the Catholic Church appear to be evil, in order to justify his proposed ‘restoration’ being because of the ‘great apostasy’ of the Church that he was going to use as an excuse to build a whole new religion. At that point in America, and the Christian world at large, it was no secret that many Protestants also hated the Catholic Church. So, painting it that light would have been something that would more easily draw them into believing in his new religion. It would also appeal to anyone that had left the Church with feelings of animosity toward it. It’s what’s known as a ‘hook’. He was well aware of the best ways to deceive people. His practice of ‘treasure hunting’ for unsuspecting targets that paid him for his ‘services’, required him to spin a good tale in order to fool them into thinking that he had some kind of special gift (aka his ‘magic peepstone’).
It’s a well known fact in the real world of historic record, that Joseph Smith vehemently despised the Catholic Church (most of all), as well as every other Christian church, because they refused to fawn over him when he told them his ‘vision’ story. He was expecting to be lauded and received by everyone as some kind of ‘prophet’, but they were less than impressed by his story. Even if he didn’t make it up and it was a real ‘vision’, then it was a typical false vision that was very familiar to anyone that knew anything about the lives of Catholic Saints and visionaries of the past. He was enraged that what he thought would make him be accepted as someone very special, instead made him the object of ridicule and rejection by the people he was most hoping to impress. I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone wouldn’t realize that he was never the wonderful person depicted in the glossy caricature of him promoted by LDS, that makes him out to be some kind of saint that they clearly worship. He was anything but a saint. I apologize for being so blunt, but it’s the truth. His intent was to make up his own religion as a form of payback against all of Christendom for their rejection of his vision story, because it bruised his enormous ego, so that’s exactly what he did.
Since you brought it up, I’ll tell you a little of how I see it. In the Apocalypse, the ‘whore of Babylon’ and the ‘beast’ are what I believe will be a government entity that will be set up to replace all other governments with a ‘false theocracy’. It will be based on a faulty interpretation of a ‘religion’ that will claim to be from God. I also tend to see it as being set up by someone who will attempt to create ‘the kingdom of god on earth’ as they interpret it should be, to rule the earth in the name of God, but it will definitely not be from God, at all.
Those who will believe that they’re doing the right thing, will be fooled into putting it into place by the false prophet, that was also mentioned. It will actually be led by the inspiration of the devil, even though those who follow it will never realize their error because they’ll be blinded by the false prophet’s empty promises. The whole structure of it, and all who participate in it, will be the true definition of “AntiChrist” (literally interpreted as “against Christ”). It will cause many true believers in Jesus Christ to be martyred, when they refuse to accept the terms of the new ‘religious government’, which will include the demand that they deny the truths of their own churches that they’ve always followed. Anyone that refuses to convert will either be murdered, or forced into brutal slavery to serve those in power who will claim to be God’s representatives. They’ll believe that what they’re doing is right in God’s eyes, but they won’t know the truth until Jesus comes on the clouds to actually set things right. By then, it will be too late for them to ‘repent’ of their evil actions.
That’s mostly my own interpretation of the meaning of that particular part, so I don’t want anyone to jump to any conclusions that it’s in any way completely accurate. It could be way off base. But, like I said before, the Apocalypse has always been one of my favorite books and I’ve spent a lot of time (probably way too much) reading it and looking for hints about what it might mean. Most of the book has been well explained by others in the Church as a vision of the Mass and the spiritual effect that it has on the salvation of the world. But, like all true prophecy, there can be many possible meanings that we might never realize until they unfold. Could the ‘whore’ be a church and the ‘beast’ the ‘religious government’ that it will set up? Possibly, but which one it might be is the bigger question. But, I’ll still stick to the Apocalypse version of the events as written in the true Bible, because I firmly trust in the full authority of its author, St. John the Apostle.
N
Naf623
Guest
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.
Why? You’re wrong so bringing it up only makes you look silly and proves you haven’t done your research properly first.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stephen168
New member
That was my point. Mormon teaching does not ‘fit’ real history
N
Naf623
Guest
Well then it might help if you quoted some of our teaching, not some nonsense set of postulations.
C
C2M2C
Guest
Stephen168
New member
You can’t say it is true because you were not there.
There is no reason to believe it.
There is no reason to change what Christ taught his Catholic Church.
see post #9
Stephen168
New member
Yes, Mormon teaching is nonsense.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Naf623, a 14 year old boy in JS’s century was much better educated and more knowledgeable than a 14 year old today.
P
pablope
Guest
Hmmm…it seems you did not understand fully the article, and you do not understand how God revealed himself slowly to humankind in the OT…slowly, until man was ready…and how God revealed Himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ.I love this bit
Basically, while you accept that God reveals Himself and His laws to men on earth throu revelation in every other time through history, for some reason God changes His mind about working his way in modern times and leaves mortal men to make whatever they think is best through passing on traditions.
To you use your own discussion technique, I pose that the ‘god of the catholics’ is therefore changeable and ceases to be god.
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.
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.
More excerpts…from the same source article…
The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).
*This pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can “see” that Tradition implied in Paul’s commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there. *
*
In summary then, Sacred Tradition is handed down “both by word of mouth and by letter.” In Scripture, as today, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 10) so that the Bible is part, not the whole, of the apostolic paradosis. In Scripture, as today, the Bible is materially, not formally, sufficient to reveal the fullness of the gospel of Christ. In Scripture, as today, both written and unwritten Tradition are from Christ and made by him to stand inseparably united like hydrogen and oxygen that fuse to form living water or like the words and tune of a single song. In Scripture, as today, the unwritten aspect of Sacred Tradition is not some separate, secret and parallel revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church. In Scripture, as today, this Tradition grows like the mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less. 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.*
mark-shea.com/tradition.html
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
What’s with the 14 year old farm boy routine, Joseph Smith was 25 when the BoM was published.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
…and let’s not forget that JS did not write the BoM, he dictated it, the very imaginative dictating of a gifted storyteller, with a copy of his family KJV at hand to fill in the gaps when his fable-weaving mind went blank. Continuing with Z.'s critique of the farm boy routine Mormons engage in, JS crafted his religion as an adult. He was 23 when he ‘received’ his first “Book of Commandments style” revelation in 1828; 26 when he wrote the first of his evolving First Vision accounts in 1832 (originally stating he was 16, not 14, and saw “the Lord”, not the Father and the Son standing side by side); and 29 when he penned the fraudulent Book of Abraham. Regardless of the controversies and apologetics surrounding the First Vision accounts and Book of Commandments redactions, the fraudulent nature of the BoA is all that is needed to undermine Joseph’s credibility as a prophet completely.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
The lengthy quotes from Isaiah don’t fill in “blanks” in the story. That theory makes no sense at all when you think it through.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Since the BoA is fraudulent, it’s reasonable to posit that JS invented and dictated the fabulous tales found within the BoM and that the Isaiah chapters in 2 Nephi (and the Matthew verses in 3 Nephi and 1 Cor verses in Moroni) are KJV-derived filler, tweaked just enough to make it seems like they derived from the fictional Brass Plates.
- Status