How do the Mormons do it?

[mwok]

And I might add, please Naf623, ask the Lord if the eucharist really is His body and blood.

 

[sallybutler]

After reading and participating in this forum, I have an opinion as do how the Mormons do it.

They have reduced God from an all-powerful, everlasting, alpha and omega to person that has achieved a goal that they too can achieve. He is not all-powerful, everlasting, the beginning and the end, he is a mentor.

This means that whatever they ‘feel’ is fact, because, after all they will soon be a ‘god’ themself.

 

[PaulDupre]

After reading and participating in this forum, I have an opinion as do how the Mormons do it.

They have reduced God from an all-powerful, everlasting, alpha and omega to person that has achieved a goal that they too can achieve. He is not all-powerful, everlasting, the beginning and the end, he is a mentor.

This means that whatever they ‘feel’ is fact, because, after all they will soon be a ‘god’ themself.

Ahhhhhh…she understands.

Well done.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

After reading and participating in this forum, I have an opinion as do how the Mormons do it.

They have reduced God from an all-powerful, everlasting, alpha and omega to person that has achieved a goal that they too can achieve. He is not all-powerful, everlasting, the beginning and the end, he is a mentor.

This means that whatever they ‘feel’ is fact, because, after all they will soon be a ‘god’ themself.

After reading your posts and attempting to communicate with you, I have an opinion on how you come to such unkind and unwarranted conclusions.

Can you back up your assertions with actual quotes from LDS participants on this thread, or have you formed these judgments based entirely on gossip?

 

[NewSeeker]

So you would refuse to even pray about something to discover it’s true meaning or value, simply because your human brain sees no possibility that it could be true?

I refuse to even make an attempt to pray about whether 2+2=4 or whether the moon is made of muenster cheese. IMO, anyone who feels the need to pray about such things might be a tad imbalanced. The former is axiomatically true; the latter is contradicted by the weight of the evidence. Whether the BoM is true falls in the latter category. The weight of the evidence is against it (e.g., zero physical evidence of Nephite civilization; no semitic DNA; Joseph Smith’s other ‘translation’, the Book of Abraham, is an obvious fraud).

 

[truthsave]

After reading your posts and attempting to communicate with you, I have an opinion on how you come to such unkind and unwarranted conclusions.

Can you back up your assertions with actual quotes from LDS participants on this thread, or have you formed these judgments based entirely on gossip?

Why he has to back up? I think it is clear. The vision of the Lord is perfectly LDS, though said in a little more obvious way, I would have said, He is now very powerful and eternal but was not always like that and anyway is not perfect since He is still progressing (I can be wrong). As far as what a mormon feel = fact is absolutely true.
But I would add: whatever mormon feel is true is true if what he feels is what tought to be true in LDS doctrine if not is from the devil or not true that is the same thing.

It is for this reason that I always wondered why mormons ask. If they pray to know and they feel the answer to be different from doctrine they don’t accept it, if what they feel is according to doctrine they accept it. So just accept what is doctrine is easy and spare same useless asking prayers.

I remember me and my wife we asked her mother (mormon) to pray to know the truth at any cost and that she could have known in a dream. She dreamnt. Her dream was very clear for everybody non mormon but she contorted the meaning of the dream it to such an incredible way to fit in her beliefs that it has been useless. She did an incredible twisting work do be able to fit it in her belief, and then after she managed to reach a compromise, she accepted that way was the correct one ,since this extremely contorded way, nevertheless globally satisfactory and showing many lacunes and contradictions, could not go against what she wanted to know. And when she managed to do it she said: the Lord gave me the key to correctly interpret the dream.
My wife was in complete desbilief, for me was clear, I was going to end up like that.
I told her her mother should have asked the Lord the grace to have her heart changed and her eyes and mind opened to be able to see the truth if not it would have been useless.

Must say mormon back up their doctrine as it was true. So, like I would do, if something contradict their doctrine must come from the devil to make them doubt.
Me as an Orthodox if I would have a dream or a vision contradicting Christian doctrine would do the same.
So the only thing left for them is just: trying to back up their doctrine historically and trying to find the truth in who Joseph Smith was, how he worked, why many thinks are covered by their organization, why everything in mormon history is not openly clear, why there are always secret things that at the end to be justified become sacred, why mormonism is so material oriented, why no one in mormonism really followed Jesus as their first apostols and left everything for him like did some Christian saints and monks and prefer looking at the OD for these matters ( Jesus came to complete and to "update the OT so if you believe in Him…) and so on.
The must rely on either in two things: a very serious research + the grace of the Lord to open their hearts and eyes if not it is impossible.

I think the Lord leave you always the freedon of interpretation. If not would have been coercitive. He leaves you all the time a space for you to betray Him. He made us free.
If He would come to you in Word and saying: go out from the LDS and you don’t do it, you have always the reason to doubt it was not Him talking to you. So I don’t think the Lord want to take away the freedom from you.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Why he has to back up?

I think that “Sally” is a she.

 

[truthsave]

I think that “Sally” is a she.

I guess I had uncounsciously to revange myself since one here during this endless debate said about me “she” and I am a he.
Sorry Sally

 

[NewSeeker]

Regarding Mormon testimonies and the “warm feelings” they’re associated with, I like what Theophan the Recluse (an Orthodox saint) has to say:

"Warmth of heart, about which you write, is a good condition, which should be guarded and maintained. When it weakens, you must continue to kindle it, gathering yourself together inwardly with all your strength and calling upon God. To prevent it leaving you, you must avoid distraction of thoughts and impressions coming through the senses, which are incompatible with this state. Avoid the attachment of your heart to anything visible, or the absorption of your attention by any worldly care. Let your attention toward God be unwavering, and the tautness of your body unslackened, like a bowstring, or a soldier on parade. But the most important thing is to pray to God and ask Him to prolong this mercy of warmth in the heart.

When the query arises ‘Is this it?’, make it your rule once and for all mercilessly to drive away all such questions as soon as they appear. They originate from the enemy. If you linger over this question the enemy will pronounce the decision without delay, ‘Oh yes, certainly it is - you have done very well!’ From then on you stand on stilts and begin to harbor illusions about yourself and to think that others are good for nothing. Grace will vanish: but the enemy will make you think that grace is still with you. This will mean that you think you possess something, when really you have nothing at all. The Holy Fathers wrote, ‘Do not measure yourself.’ If you think you can decide any question about your progress, it means that you are beginning to measure yourself to see how much you have grown. Please avoid this as you would avoid fire."

 

[RebeccaJ]

I guess I had uncounsciously to revange myself since one here during this endless debate said about me “she” and I am a he.
Sorry Sally

Oh, I did that.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s pretty irrelevant: during the middle ages, translation of scripture was discouraged, the excuse used was misinterpretations, and a couple of groups were labelled as heretics when they did it.

Ummm, the LDS Church teaches that only the King James version should be used for English speakers…some excuse about mistranslations other Bibles being full of errors.

Latin is not the original language of the OT or NT texts, neither is German, French, Armenian, Syriac, etc. But, you shouldn’t let history get in the way of your anti-Catholicism.

Rock on.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Ummm, the LDS Church teaches that only the King James version should be used for English speakers…some excuse about mistranslations other Bibles being full of errors.

No, that’s just some popular mormon folklore; the church itself has never said that, and I’ve seen BYU religion professors use other translations.

But that’s hardly responsive to Naf’s point about historical opposition to any translation of the Bible into the language of the people. I was a little surprised to see some folks on this forum actually defending that history.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, that’s just some popular mormon folklore; the church itself has never said that, and I’ve seen BYU religion professors use other translations.

Mormons have their own translation but don’t use it. I like the KJV, in some respects, but also find it difficult to understand. It is not in modern English, so therefore, not a translation in the language of the people.

It is the official Bible of the Mormon religion, regardless of what individual Mormon professors are using.

But that’s hardly responsive to Naf’s point about historical opposition to any translation of the Bible into the language of the people. I was a little surprised to see some folks on this forum actually defending that history.

Mormonism being a product of Protestantism, it keeps this centuries old propaganda in motion. You’re asking us to respond to something that is like saying, “when are you going to stop beating your wife”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Mormons have their own translation but don’t use it. I like the KJV, in some respects, but also find it difficult to understand. It is not in modern English, so therefore, not a translation in the language of the people.

It is the official Bible of the Mormon religion, regardless of what individual Mormon professors are using.

It’s the Bible that we’ve footnoted for convenience. I daresay you won’t find any modern general authority claiming that it’s more authoritative; it’s just a matter of tradition, which in LDS circles is not as important to us as Catholic Tradition is to you. Perhaps I should say habit.

Mormonism being a product of Protestantism, it keeps this centuries old propaganda in motion.

True enough; that’s where most of the racist doctrines came from, although I daresay that Hyrum’s overzealous scions came up with that ghastly fence-sitters doctrines all on their own.

You’re asking us to respond to something that is like saying, “when are you going to stop beating your wife”.

That’s hardly fair, since you didn’t contradict the Catholics on this forum that argued this week that it was proper for the Catholic Church to oppose translation into the common language, because Jesus had made them the guardians of interpretation. How am I supposed to have known that the story was even disputed? You’re the first person that I’ve seen that’s ever claimed that it wasn’t history.

 

[Telstar]

It’s the Bible that we’ve footnoted for convenience. I daresay you won’t find any modern general authority claiming that it’s more authoritative; it’s just a matter of tradition, which in LDS circles is not as important to us as Catholic Tradition is to you. Perhaps I should say habit.

I hope you’re referring to LDS ‘tradition’ as ‘habit’. I could probably agree with that differentiation. But, I’ve always heard LDS claim the KJV is their ‘official’ Bible.

That’s hardly fair, since you didn’t contradict the Catholics on this forum that argued this week that it was proper for the Catholic Church to oppose translation into the common language, because Jesus had made them the guardians of interpretation. How am I supposed to have known that the story was even disputed? You’re the first person that I’ve seen that’s ever claimed that it wasn’t history.

That would have been this Catholic, and I don’t think Rebecca meant what you’re claiming she meant by her statement, but that’s neither here nor there.

Just because you don’t believe that there is only one Church that was given the authority to interpret/translate the Bible by Jesus Christ, when He gave the keys of Heaven and all true authority to Peter, and that is the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean you’re right. It’s an actual fact. If you want to argue with someone about it, you can always take it up with Jesus. The reason for that policy is to protect the integrity of the meaning of the Word of God, and I’m not talking about letters that are combined together to make ‘words’. I’m talking about Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

The problem LDS have with interpretation, and the reason that they have their own way of doing it, is because they believe that God is bound by any interpretation of His Word, as long as the ‘believer’ understands it as their ‘literal’ translation. The truth is, Jesus Christ is the True Word that we are all required to follow. The only interpretation of scripture that matters is His Own. If you (‘you’ in general, not specific) want to believe in your own or anyone else’s interpretation of Jesus Christ, THE Word of God, then you are free to do so at your own peril, because God will judge us all by the true interpretation that the Catholic Church has been given the Authority to protect. He won’t really care that you might believe you ‘understand’ His meaning. He only cares about the Truth of His Own Word, Jesus Christ.Peter 1:[19] And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
There was a good reason for Peter to say that. He knew that many men would want to interpret the Word of God by their own feeble understandings, that were not inspired by God but by their own ego, and many would deceive and lead others astray by doing it. That’s why we have thousands of churches that all claim to have the ‘true interpretation’, but only one is actually correct. We should all be careful which one we choose to believe. It’s like the scene in “Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade”, when the Nazi was trying to decide which cup was the true Holy Grail. After he disintegrated, the knight says, “He chose… poorly.”.

Any Catholics that would dispute that fact (if you can really find any), also do it at their own peril.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I hope you’re referring to LDS ‘tradition’ as ‘habit’.

Yes. I apologize for being unclear. What I meant is that Catholics value tradition more or less equal to scripture, wheras for the LDS, there’s canonical scripture, then beneath, noncanonical teachings and directives of living prophets, while tradition is valued very low. And our use of the KJV as opposed to other bible translations is more a matter of habit, even lower than tradition, in LDS eyes.

I certainly did not mean to refer to Catholic tradition as “habit” because I know you take tradition very, very seriously.

I could probably agree with that differentiation. But, I’ve always heard LDS claim the KJV is their ‘official’ Bible.

Yes, but not in the sense that you think it means. The church simply has so many footnotes to different books of scripture, etc., that the church has to designate a specific translation to publish. Nearly 1/4 of the LDS-published bible is comprised of footnotes. That doesn’t mean that we devalue other translations. It just means that we really like our footnotes and appendices. Ironically, we probably would not need as many footnotes if we used a more modern translation. But habit is habit. So we study a little harder, but the KJV really is beautiful.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

That would have been this Catholic, and I don’t think Rebecca meant what you’re claiming she meant by her statement, but that’s neither here nor there.

I would like Rebecca to verify that, because this is a recurring theme for me, where I take something that one Catholic said as a premise, just to be told by another Catholic that I’m confusing the issue. I’d rather sort my recurring cultural disconnect with you and Rebecca, rather than trying to do it with folks that I don’t trust. Because although you do sometimes rub me wrong, Telstar, I do respect your kindness and honesty, and I hope that you will eventually come to realize that I have always been honest with you.

So Rebecca, please clarify if you meant what I “claimed” (and actually thought) that you meant:

Pete:

But that’s hardly responsive to Naf’s point about historical opposition to any translation of the Bible into the language of the people. I was a little surprised to see some folks on this forum actually defending that history.

Rebecca:

Mormonism being a product of Protestantism, it keeps this centuries old propaganda in motion. You’re asking us to respond to something that is like saying, “when are you going to stop beating your wife”.

Rebecca, did you or did you not mean that that it was not true (i.e. “centuries old propaganda”) that there was “historical opposition to any translation of the Bible into the language of the people”? Because Telstar seems to think that I’ve misconstrued your meaning.

 

[Naf623]

You suffer from the fallacy of composition. There are no predictions of an apostasy of the Church taking place. Christ promised just the opposite. So no need for a restoration.

I have given plenty of examples, you have failed to adequately disprove a single one with any more than a different spin on the words. Particularly the Revelation prophesy, but don’t let a few scriptures get in the way of your conviction.
Christ promised nothing of the sort: it is unclear if He was referring to Peter himself, or to the testimony that Peter had professed only just before, or to testimony in general.
While on the subject: as LDS, we take Christ’s words at this point very seriously: “flesh and blood hath not revealed it into you, but my Father which is in heaven”. Personal revelation and testimony of the truth of the church and of Jesus Christ forms the very basis of our doctrine. As Jesus went on to say “upon this rock” (revelation and testimony) “will I build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. Satan will never be able to stifle those in sincere search for the truth.
Is also a very odd use of the word ‘prevail’, as gates are stationary and only keep things either out or in, therefore for them to prevail against something, that thing must be contained, or there is an attempt to contain it. The Greek root of the word used for hell actually means ‘Hades’. But this is really a different argument altogether.

The Catholic Church is the foundation of truth that has held fast to its traditions both oral and written for 2000 years.

Jesus Christ was baptised by full immersion, as we’re all the others baptised by John the Baptist.
The NT indicates (quite clearly in my opinion) that baptism for the dead was practised by the early saints, I see no remnant of this left in the catholic church.
Christ instituted a specific organisation to His church; including prophets - another thing I not only find missing, but you are positively arguing against there being any need for.
I’d agree with your statement if you change the 2000 to around 1700-1800 years. And traditions is definitely the word, whereas we rely on doctrine, scripture and the actual words from God.

I don’t think any of my friends would cause me to drop dead when I looked at their face, and, I’ve never claimed to see God, either.

No; so when you speak to your friend, there is no problem. “The lord spake into Moses…as a man speaketh unto his friend”

You’re apparently sticking to your guns in calling God a liar, even though later in that same chapter He clearly says otherwise. Good luck with that. You’ll need it.

And earlier in the chapter it clearly says face to face.
What about Stephen (which I also quoted) who clearly stated that he saw God, with Jesus at His right hand.

The line “blessed are the pure in heart for the shall see God”, might refer to those holy Saints who would see Jesus in visions. There have probably been thousands of them over the centuries. Or, it might just refer to those who will go to Heaven that will see God, then.

Yep, it might. It might not.
Only God can tell us, and He does if we’ll only ask.
I do not understand the catholic insistence that we don’t need to ask, we should just rely on our own powers of reasoning, when this clearly contradicts God’s words: “trust in The Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding”

The Bible passages cited all refer to humankind never having seen God the Father.

What about poor Stephen, why is his testimony constantly being overlooked?

The Father speaks to humankind solely through the Son, His Word.

What about speaking directly from Heaven to all who were present at Jesus baptism?

 

[Naf623]

I refuse to even make an attempt to pray about whether 2+2=4 or whether the moon is made of muenster cheese. IMO, anyone who feels the need to pray about such things might be a tad imbalanced. The former is axiomatically true; the latter is contradicted by the weight of the evidence. Whether the BoM is true falls in the latter category. The weight of the evidence is against it (e.g., zero physical evidence of Nephite civilization; no semitic DNA; Joseph Smith’s other ‘translation’, the Book of Abraham, is an obvious fraud).

But we don’t pray and feel the answer to be different to our doctrine, because our doctrine is true. If we did pray and the answer was different, then we would leave and not be LDS anymore. Either the church is true, and therefore it’s leaders and doctrine are true, authorised and recognised by God, in which case Joseph Smith was exactly who he claimed, the Book of Mormon is true etc.etc.etc. in this scenario, whatever we pray about with regards to the Gospel and LDS teachings, we receive the answer that it is true. Because our belief is based on that personal revelation regarding Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon, and we (just like all of you) know that if these are false, then so is the church; the opposite is also true; that if they are true, so is the church.
The flip side is simply diametrically opposite, that it is entirely untrue, in which case we would never have felt it to be true in the first place, and would never have become (or stayed) LDS.

Regarding Mormon testimonies and the “warm feelings” they’re associated with, I like what Theophan the Recluse (an Orthodox saint) has to say:

"Warmth of heart, about which you write, is a good condition, which should be guarded and maintained. When it weakens, you must continue to kindle it, gathering yourself together inwardly with all your strength and calling upon God. To prevent it leaving you, you must avoid distraction of thoughts and impressions coming through the senses, which are incompatible with this state. Avoid the attachment of your heart to anything visible, or the absorption of your attention by any worldly care. Let your attention toward God be unwavering, and the tautness of your body unslackened, like a bowstring, or a soldier on parade. But the most important thing is to pray to God and ask Him to prolong this mercy of warmth in the heart.

When the query arises ‘Is this it?’, make it your rule once and for all mercilessly to drive away all such questions as soon as they appear. They originate from the enemy. If you linger over this question the enemy will pronounce the decision without delay, ‘Oh yes, certainly it is - you have done very well!’ From then on you stand on stilts and begin to harbor illusions about yourself and to think that others are good for nothing. Grace will vanish: but the enemy will make you think that grace is still with you. This will mean that you think you possess something, when really you have nothing at all. The Holy Fathers wrote, ‘Do not measure yourself.’ If you think you can decide any question about your progress, it means that you are beginning to measure yourself to see how much you have grown. Please avoid this as you would avoid fire

."

I like this, he clearly understands the issue exactly like every LDS member does.

 

[Naf623]

Mormons have their own translation but don’t use it.

What on earth gives you either of those ideas?
Through inspiration and revelation, Joseph Smith read through many passages in The Bible and The Lord prompted him that some of the precious truths and plainness of speaking we’re changed or missing in the available text, therefore these were given to Joseph by the power of God for our benefit in understanding.
The footnotes in the scriptures we use include these ‘Joseph Smith Translataions’, or a reference to them; and they are included in the standard works as printed and distributed by the church.
Believe me, we make good use of them both in our lessons, meetings and personal study as they are extremely useful to ensure the proper, original meaning of the scripture is conveyed.

I like the KJV, in some respects, but also find it difficult to understand. It is not in modern English, so therefore, not a translation in the language of the people.

when did I ever start talking about ‘language of the people’ anyway?
We tend to use the KJV because we believe it is the most correct translation widely available where the Joseph Smith Translation passages are not included or referred to.
We also appreciate the older language, where the use of words like ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thine’ are still used as marks of respect, in a manner missing in modern English (although still preserved in French and other modern languages).
Another thing I have found when using other translations is that the way the text reads can sometimes be very different to my understanding of the meaning of the same scripture. The translations have been done (and this is not entirely untrue about the KJV either) with a particular meaning in mind.

It is the official Bible of the Mormon religion, regardless of what individual Mormon professors are using.

‘Official’ suggests that some statement has been made regarding it and it’s use, which I am not aware of. Possibly it is the one we use because it’s text is not owned by another religious organisation, and we already have the permission to use, print and distribute the text we have.

If you want to argue with someone about it, you can always take it up with Jesus.

the point we keep making (yet you make mockery of it: make up your minds) is that we do exactly this. We cannot understand why on earth you do not, and it just seems like the perfect deception of Satan (that God warns against, as per my previous statements) to tell people to believe instead of asking.