How do the Mormons do it?

[Telstar]

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.

Maybe I was the one that misunderstood her, but I thought she was implying that the ‘myth’ was that the Church didn’t want the Bible translated into ‘the common language of the people’ because (according to the ‘Protestant myth’) they were afraid people would be able to read it for themselves and find all the lies that the Church was teaching. The truth is, that the Church might have been afraid that people would start interpreting it, incorrectly, on their own. When we read the quote from Peter, we understand the reasoning behind those valid fears. Just looking at what has happened to Christianity since Martin Luther, we can easily see the detrimental effect that it’s had on all Christians.

In addition to those concerns, was always the problem of translating it while maintaining the true intended meanings of the authors. Some languages do not translate easily into another, and the true meaning can be twisted or lost (intentionally or unintentionally) because of that problem. The Church’s concerns were all valid reasons, while the accusations of people like Martin Luther and others were just vicious attacks based on lies, because they no longer belonged to the Church (kinda like some of those really nasty ‘exMormon’ websites that LDS complain about).

So, keeping that false accusation in mind, Naf’s statement was like he/she was saying ‘Catholics beat their wives’, then you asking Rebecca about it was like you were saying, ‘when did Catholics stop beating their wives’. At least, that was the way I understood it. Maybe we were both confused.

After all this, I’d have to say that there’s a lot more to the misunderstandings we’ve had than thinking that anyone ‘lies’. I really believe LDS have different meanings to the entire English language because of the strange way they define words, and it must be a nightmare for them to communicate with anyone other than Mormons in the ‘real’ world.

 

[Naf623]

John the Revlator; Revelation 14:6:

An I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.

Some background context:
John the Revelator, writing and speaking after the time of Christ, while an unbroken line of Apostles were still alive, prophesying about a time yet to come in the future (from his perspective)

Summary:
John sees an angel from heaven, carrying the 'everlasting gospel, to the earth so that it can be preached to every person thorough the world.

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the everlasting gospel can refer to nothing but the gospel as taught by Christ and the Apostles; this is the only everlasting covenant God has made with men on earth.
Secondly, the angel is bringing the gospel from heaven: if the gospel were already (or still) on the earth at the time, why would it need to be brought? The angel would only need to come to encourage men to spread the word. Yet John clearly says, prophetically and by inspiration from God, that an angel would need to come to the earth and bring the gospel back with them.
Thirdly, the church that this gospel was restored to would take it to every part of the world; therefore it must be a proselyting and missionary church.

Conclusions:
For there to be any need of the gospel to be brought back to the earth, the gospel cannot have been present on the earth in any form recognised or accepted by God. If it were, He would not need to send an angel, He could simply speak to the prophet, and even if He did choose to send an angel, they would not be bringing to gospel to the earth, merely visiting the saints of God. therefore, sometime after the time of Jesus Christ (and after John the Revelator) there must be an apostasy, absolute and complete, such that the gospel in its fulness, and the authority that goes hand in hand, no longer reside anywhere on the earth. Therefore, any church claiming to have (or that it will have) continuous, unbroken lineage of leaders from Christ’s mortal ministry until His return in glory, is mistaken (at the very least and to put it lightly). Any church that is true must be a restored gospel: it has been prophecied and therefore will come to pass.
While this scripture does not give any way to reference a timescale as to when this might occurr: if one believes that a church that has existed since the time of Christ is true and is unchanged from that time, then one must, logically, accept that that church will fail, will change from true doctrine and lose its communion with God. The only other possible truth is that this has already happened, been covered up by those in authority at the time such that there appear to be records suggesting otherwise, and that the church is already in an apostate state. These are the only two possible, logical deductions that can be made from the prophecy of John, and LDS and Catholics are on diametrically opposing sides of the argument.

 

[Naf623]

The truth is, that the Church might have been afraid that people would start interpreting it, incorrectly, on their own.

but also consider, that if the church (and I am by no means saying this to point fingers, place blame, or question he conviction of anyone either past, present or future) had already lost its grace with God (as prophecied it must before Christ’s return: see my previous post), then this same fear from the clergy of the time could just as easily stem from Satan’s fear that people on their own would start interpreting it correctly. It is a sly and simple, yet insidious method to make people do wrong things for perfectly righteous and valid reasons, believing with utmost conviction they are doing right: and perfectly suited to Satan’s purposes and his methods.

 

[Stephen168]

Some background context:
John the Revelator, writing and speaking after the time of Christ, while an unbroken line of Apostles were still alive, prophesying about a time yet to come in the future (from his perspective)

Summary:
John sees an angel from heaven, carrying the 'everlasting gospel, to the earth so that it can be preached to every person thorough the world.

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the everlasting gospel can refer to nothing but the gospel as taught by Christ and the Apostles; this is the only everlasting covenant God has made with men on earth.
Secondly, the angel is bringing the gospel from heaven: if the gospel were already (or still) on the earth at the time, why would it need to be brought? The angel would only need to come to encourage men to spread the word. Yet John clearly says, prophetically and by inspiration from God, that an angel would need to come to the earth and bring the gospel back with them.
Thirdly, the church that this gospel was restored to would take it to every part of the world; therefore it must be a proselyting and missionary church.

Conclusions:
For there to be any need of the gospel to be brought back to the earth, the gospel cannot have been present on the earth in any form recognised or accepted by God.

1. You assume The Book of Revelation is about a time yet to come; not necessarily. Revelation is making known a previously unknown fact.
2. You assume that ‘an angel’ means literally ‘an angel.’
3. Most English translations call it the ‘eternal (without beginning or end) gospel;’ which means a gospel preceding Christ and the Apostles.
4. St. John never claimed an angel would NEED to come; just that he saw one at the present time.
5. St. John doesn’t say the gospel would be restored, he said that it would be preached to all nations.

Conclusion: St. John said he saw an angel that had the eternal gospel to preach to all nations. The angel said, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”

Catholics give glory to God who made everything from nothing. Mormon’s give glory to a god who was once a man who made nothing. The Catholic Church still preaches the eternal gospel to all nations as we did at the time of St. John.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Maybe I was the one that misunderstood her, but I thought she was implying that the ‘myth’ was that the Church didn’t want the Bible translated into ‘the common language of the people’ because (according to the ‘Protestant myth’) they were afraid people would be able to read it for themselves and find all the lies that the Church was teaching.

But I never said any such thing, so why would Rebecca’s brief reply have signified a response to such an argument?

Note that I didn’t even attribute the suppression of Bible translation to “the Catholic Church” generally. I imagine that a few “priests in black gowns” (I’m fond of William Blake today) wanted to secure their exclusive interpretation of the scriptures. That motive is pretty much what you said, except with a negative spin rather than your positive spin.

You think they had a duty to prevent “private interpretation;” and I would counter that most folks in history that committed atrocities construed some sort of duty to do so. The Bible does warn against private interpretation, but at no point suggests that it needs to be stamped out institutionally. Trying to prevent translation of God’s word is like Uzzah steadying the Ark of the Covenant. Repentance comes from faith, which comes from hearing the word of God. The Holy Spirit testifies of all truth, and will guide the penitent to the truth. If any lack wisdom let him ask of God (James 1:5), God’s sheep know his voice, etc.

 

[Telstar]

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.

Your numerous examples are only proof to you, because of your incorrect interpretations, based on the the word of Joseph Smith, the king of spin. That’s really not a surprise to us.

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.

Peter was actually inspired by God. Jesus said so. Again, your personal interpretations are based on “the Bible according to Joseph Smith”. (Peter means ‘rock’. His real name is Simon. Jesus gave him that nickname for a reason. Jesus was talking to Peter as the Rock.)

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.

‘Gates of hell’ is a euphemism for the devil and all of his unholy horde from hell. That statement means that Satan & his AntiChrist will never defeat the Catholic Church, no matter how hard they try. All AntiChrists, past/present/future, will go straight to hell. The gates will keep them all contained in the fiery pits, forever.

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.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has full Authority to change the methods and practices of the Sacraments whichever way they feel necessary, as long as they never change anything of the Dogma or Doctrine. Baptism is still valid as long as it is administered in the name of the Holy Trinity by pouring water over the recipient. Just because Paul mentioned ‘baptism of the dead’, does not mean that it was ever a practice approved by the Apostles. In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. Jesus visited the dead while He was in the tomb. Everyone that needed to accept Him as the Messiah, did. He certainly didn’t need any help from Mormons to do that. (Can the LDS claim that their ‘doctrine’ never changes because it’s always ‘true’, forever?)

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

I don’t know about you, but whenever I speak (pray) to God (Father, Son ***or ***Holy Spirit), I always speak to Him as I would to any dear friend. That doesn’t mean that I can see Him, or that I expect Him to actually speak to me, directly. On the other hand, He often makes it very clear to me what He expects me to do, without the need for any words.

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.

Stephen was in the process of being martyred at that moment. His extreme faith and holiness allowed him the privilege of seeing Heaven before his actual time of death, in order for him to give a personal witness to all that watched him die, including those that were throwing stones at him. As a result, many of those people were converted on the spot. So, that example is a no-brainer that’s not all that difficult to figure out.

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”

You know, it’s really starting to tick me off whenever Mormons snidely insist that Catholics don’t ask God anything, and “just rely on our own powers of reasoning”. It’s an arrogant and ignorant statement to make considering the deep spirituality of Catholic mysticism that far surpasses that of any other religion in the world. It just shows their complete lack of knowledge and understanding of prayer and spirituality, that is, and always has been, the main focus of the Catholic Faith.

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

See above.

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

That was an affirmation to the whole world that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Messiah, the One and only Savior of the whole world. All other communication to the world, from God, comes from Jesus, alone, because He is the Living Word of God.

 

[Stephen168]

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 wrote and canonized the New Testament. It is our book that you spin. Historically your ‘rock’ rambling means nothing. Christ established a Church and it is Catholic.

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.

1. The New Testament does not say that Christ was baptized by immersion.
2. The Catholic Church baptizes by immersion or pouring as it was taught by the Apostles.
3. St. Paul , a Christian, said THEY baptized for the dead, so someone other than Christians baptized for the dead. Another reason Mormons are not Christian.
4. I don’t see prophets or Presidents in charge of the early Church. This is an invention of 19th century Mormonism.

 

[Telstar]

I’d be quite happy to accept that the moon has a core of Munster cheese, after all there is no direct evidence that would contradict this. It makes no difference to my life if this is the case or not so why would I feel the need to pray about it. But I know that if I did, The Lord would give me the answer if I needed to know it.
As I keep pointing out, God wants us to rely on Him, and not on our own understanding. He gave us the capability to reason so tha we are able to understand the things He asks, not so that we could reason everything out for ourselves and discount the need to rely on Him for it.

You would certainly accept it as ‘gospel’ if Joseph Smith said it was true. After all, he thought his god once lived on Kolob.

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.

I think truthsaves is right. If you ‘felt’ anything that disagreed with Mormonism, you would reject it as false, no matter how strong that ‘feeling’ was. You would just ignore it as the devil trying to deceive you.

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

Then, obviously, you didn’t understand a word he said in that whole paragraph.

 

[Telstar]

What on earth gives you either of those ideas?

I think she might be talking about the JS version that he was writing when he died.

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).

When you bought into the lie that many Protestants used to write the KJV and other versions that actually removed books from the original Bible, even though JS claimed it was the Catholic Church that removed “some of the precious truths and plainness of speaking”.

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.

I rest my case. Although, your ‘understanding’ is mostly due to believing everything that Joseph Smith told you that you should believe.

’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.

I could have sworn JS, himself, is the one that made that statement.

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.

LDS are the only ones that seem to think Catholics don’t pray to know God’s will, and that we’re all deceived by Satan. (although, there may be a lot of other non-Catholics that are also confused about that) But, we also have the good sense to consult those who know more than we do about what’s true and what isn’t. We know who those people are, whether you choose to believe it or not.

 

[Telstar]

Some background context:
John the Revelator, writing and speaking after the time of Christ, while an unbroken line of Apostles were still alive, prophesying about a time yet to come in the future (from his perspective)

Summary:
John sees an angel from heaven, carrying the 'everlasting gospel, to the earth so that it can be preached to every person thorough the world.

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the everlasting gospel can refer to nothing but the gospel as taught by Christ and the Apostles; this is the only everlasting covenant God has made with men on earth.
Secondly, the angel is bringing the gospel from heaven: if the gospel were already (or still) on the earth at the time, why would it need to be brought? The angel would only need to come to encourage men to spread the word. Yet John clearly says, prophetically and by inspiration from God, that an angel would need to come to the earth and bring the gospel back with them.
Thirdly, the church that this gospel was restored to would take it to every part of the world; therefore it must be a proselyting and missionary church.

John the Apostle did indeed write the Apocalypse (Revelation), long after Jesus had Ascended into Heaven. That’s obvious. But, I beg to differ with you on your assumption that he was ‘prophesying’.

Revelation =/= Prophecy.

As someone else already mentioned, ‘revelation’ refers to something being revealed that was not previously known. It’s not necessarily something that will happen in the future. ‘Prophecy’ is usually something that concerns future events and was the main purpose of all OT Prophets, who’s prophecies concerned the coming of the Messiah, the Word of God (Jesus Christ). They are definitely not the same things, at all. Although there may be some events written about in the Apocalypse that do concern future events, not all of them do. The Book was shown and dictated to him by an ‘Angel’, although at times it is clearly Jesus speaking to him, since no mere ‘angel’ would ever refer to Himself as “The Alpha and the Omega”.
**Apocalypse 14:[6] And I saw another angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the eternal gospel, to preach unto them that sit upon the earth, and over every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people:**There is only one Bible that contains the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and it has always been preached by the One True Church. The angel said absolutely nothing about “bringing the Gospel back”.

John was one of the twelve Apostles, but he was certainly not a ‘prophet’. Jesus never said anything about that.

 

[Telstar]

But I never said any such thing, so why would Rebecca’s brief reply have signified a response to such an argument?

I believe Rebecca was also referring to what Naf had said about translations, so she was not just responding to you regarding the ‘Protestant myth’.

One of the things that really bugs me about this forum’s software, is that it doesn’t include quotes within quotes, so it’s really hard to follow exactly who said what, and why. It actually causes a lot of undue confusion because of that.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

One of the things that really bugs me about this forum’s software, is that it doesn’t include quotes within quotes, so it’s really hard to follow exactly who said what, and why. It actually causes a lot of undue confusion because of that.

Amen, sister.

 

[zaffiroborant]

1. You assume The Book of Revelation is about a time yet to come; not necessarily. Revelation is making known a previously unknown fact.
2. You assume that ‘an angel’ means literally ‘an angel.’
3. Most English translations call it the ‘eternal (without beginning or end) gospel;’ which means a gospel preceding Christ and the Apostles.
4. St. John never claimed an angel would NEED to come; just that he saw one at the present time.
5. St. John doesn’t say the gospel would be restored, he said that it would be preached to all nations.

Conclusion: St. John said he saw an angel that had the eternal gospel to preach to all nations. The angel said, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”

Catholics give glory to God who made everything from nothing. Mormon’s give glory to a god who was once a man who made nothing. The Catholic Church still preaches the eternal gospel to all nations as we did at the time of St. John.

And this is just one of three angels.

 

[zaffiroborant]

But I never said any such thing, so why would Rebecca’s brief reply have signified a response to such an argument?

Note that I didn’t even attribute the suppression of Bible translation to “the Catholic Church” generally. I imagine that a few “priests in black gowns” (I’m fond of William Blake today) wanted to secure their exclusive interpretation of the scriptures. That motive is pretty much what you said, except with a negative spin rather than your positive spin.

You think they had a duty to prevent “private interpretation;” and I would counter that most folks in history that committed atrocities construed some sort of duty to do so. The Bible does warn against private interpretation, but at no point suggests that it needs to be stamped out institutionally. Trying to prevent translation of God’s word is like Uzzah steadying the Ark of the Covenant. Repentance comes from faith, which comes from hearing the word of God. The Holy Spirit testifies of all truth, and will guide the penitent to the truth. If any lack wisdom let him ask of God (James 1:5), God’s sheep know his voice, etc.

Is is okay for anyone to translate and publish the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, or is the LDS church concerned that these are properly translated into other languages? The LDS church makes a large point about the reliability of Scripture being only “as far as they are translated correctly”. While you may not believe that they have been translated fully and correctly it seems odd you would take issue with another church making sure that scripture is translated correctly, regardless of whether or not you agree with their interpretation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

I am not disputing history, I am disputing the interpretation of it.

Look, Mormons harp day and night with an unnatural anxiety over the Bible being kept uncorrupted. When the Catholic Church acts, exactly for the reason of protecting the Faith handed on, you take a Protestant stance all of the sudden. Acting like protecting the Gospel that the Apostles handed on is some kind of conspiracy theory with grand schemes to keep the small people down.

If a Mormon scholar took your scriptures, removed books from it, and started teaching that your church was hiding something from everyone by not allowing every Dick and Jane to do what they will with the Word of God, I’m thinking you wouldn’t be in support of it as you are in support of the corruption of scripture as done during the Protestant “reformation”.

Your church would excommunicate anyone who made such an action, which sends a clear message, to all believing Mormons, that the LDS Church is the sole interpreter and teacher of Mormon scripture.

Yet, the Catholic Church and Catholics who have protected the Word of God for hundreds of years, are the bad people, to be pointed at with accusations of corrupting the Word of God…it is a Protestant stance, a myth from a Catholic view, and one that Mormonism is founded on.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I believe Rebecca was also referring to what Naf had said about translations, so she was not just responding to you regarding the ‘Protestant myth’.

One of the things that really bugs me about this forum’s software, is that it doesn’t include quotes within quotes, so it’s really hard to follow exactly who said what, and why. It actually causes a lot of undue confusion because of that.

Yeah, true, but I’m done talking to “Naf”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Is is okay for anyone to translate and publish the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, or is the LDS church concerned that these are properly translated into other languages?

You mean publish like this:

Welcome to the largest freely available archive of online books about religion, mythology, folklore and the esoteric on the Internet. The site is dedicated to religious tolerance and scholarship, and has the largest readership of any similar site on the web.

– or like this?

I find the non-LDS publications of the BoM useful since they are easier to cut and paste without the footnote markers cluttering up the pasted text.

One author based some sci-fi book on the BoM, and the Atheist rip-off book and movie of “the Golden Compass” obviously borrowed the whole idea of the Golden Compass from the Liahona, but other than a few annoyed church members, I never heard anything from the church leadership.

There are several private illustrated children’s version of the Book of Mormon which simplify the language, or summarize the story.

Here’s an RLDS/CoC version of the Book of Mormon with the language revised:

Plain Text Book of Mormon

Readers’ Edition Book of Mormon

Why, were you going to actually claim Catholic ownership of the Jewish Tenach and the New Testament? :tsktsk:

Unless I much misunderstood Rebecca, I think that she said that it’s a “Protestant Myth” that any Catholic ever made such an audacious claim as the one you just made. How’s it feel being a Protestant myth, Zaff?

The LDS church makes a large point about the reliability of Scripture being only “as far as they are translated correctly”.

Absolutely. But so far we’ve managed to avoid killing and threatening translators, Khomeini-style, and we’ve also managed to avoid suing and harassing them, Scientology style. What’s wrong with making your point non-coercively?

As far as I can tell, Jesus didn’t give the sermon on the mount at gunpoint.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Look, Mormons harp day and night with an unnatural anxiety over the Bible being kept uncorrupted.

We do? When?

If a Mormon scholar took your scriptures, removed books from it, and started teaching that your church was hiding something from everyone by not allowing every Dick and Jane to do what they will with the Word of God, I’m thinking you wouldn’t be in support of it as you are in support of the corruption of scripture as done during the Protestant “reformation”.

Two misconceptions here:

First, we do let every Dick and Jane do what they want with the Word of God. It’s not our job or our right to prevent it. All we can do is excommunicate them to show that we disapprove of their interpretation. Jesus never intended his Church to replace Caesar. Render to Caesar that which is Caesar and to God that which is God’s.

Second, even when scholars do pretend like we are hiding something from everyone by oppressing then by exing them when they reject every principle of our beliefs, we still let them blather on. That’s their right. We learned with our experience with the Expositor: let the gossips blather. What, do you think that JS was right to destroy the Expositor? I don’t. It was a serious miscalculation, even though the paper was seditious and incited violence.

I’m thinking you wouldn’t be in support of it as you are in support of the corruption of scripture as done during the Protestant “reformation”.

If you mean “you”: collectively as mormons, I actually agree with you that the LDS church seems a bit naive when we speak glowingly of Luther and especially naive about Calvin. Don’t know how anyone who burns people alive can be considered a decent human being, let alone some sort of religious hero. Not to mention that Calvin is precisely the sort of jerk that the Zoramite part of the BoM warns against.

Nevertheless, I confess general ignorance as to what “corruption of the scriptures” you refer to. Please enlighten me, or link me to enlightenment.

Your church would excommunicate anyone who made such an action, which sends a clear message, to all believing Mormons, that the LDS Church is the sole interpreter and teacher of Mormon scripture.

You are quite mistaken.
The church does not act as the sole interpreter of scripture – even within the church! Excommunication, when it happens, sends a message that certain interpretations (e.g Adam God, blood atonement, etc) are off-limits for believing mormons. There are still a range of interpretations in which mormons may differ, just as faithful Catholics may believe or disbelieve in the Shroud of Turin. (I’m personally on the fence as to the Shroud).

Besides, if the Catholic Church had merely exed translators, rather than taking coercive action, we would not be having this discussion.

Yet, the Catholic Church and Catholics who have protected the Word of God for hundreds of years, are the bad people, to be pointed at with accusations of corrupting the Word of God. …it is a Protestant stance

Oh, I agree. Like much of the racist junk, we inherited some anti-Catholic myths from Protestantism, and we’ve only recently jettisoned those myths.

But I’ve never accused the Catholics of being “bad people” nor have I accused you of “corrupting the word of God.” I am troubled that some of your leaders did employ coercive means to prevent non-Catholics from publishing their interpretations of scripture.

 

[Telstar]

Yeah, true, but I’m done talking to “Naf”.

I’ve been holding my tongue, for the most part, and have had to struggle not to say some things that came to mind in response, but I’m guessing they won’t be around long if they keep saying things about the Church like he/she/it have said since they got here. Right off the bat they played the ‘persecution card’ and accused everyone of attacking their church, but they’ve continued to attack the Catholic Church and Catholics in almost every post, ever since I tried to be nice to them. I won’t continue to be so nice if they keep that up. They’ll be getting it, both barrels.

 

[Naf623]

Most of us here are willing to defend our faith with whatever it takes to prove our points. You will certainly be confronted by many arguments from our side that will try to help you understand why we believe that LDS doctrine is incorrect. If you’re willing to engage in some very difficult discussions, at times, without letting your ‘feelings’ get in the way or your powers of reason and logic, then you’ll be just fine. But, if you can’t really handle these sometimes rather heated discussions, then perhaps you should get out of the kitchen before you get burned out by them. No one would really blame you for leaving if this kind of thing bothers you that much. Poor Parker is usually the only one that sticks around to ‘fight the good fight’ for the LDS side, while all of his other Mormon friends abandon him (or get booted) to carry on the ‘battle’, alone.

Welcome to the fray.

Might I remind you of the above?
Because this:

I’ve been holding my tongue, for the most part, and have had to struggle not to say some things that came to mind in response, but I’m guessing they won’t be around long if they keep saying things about the Church like he/she/it have said since they got here. Right off the bat they played the ‘persecution card’ and accused everyone of attacking their church, but they’ve continued to attack the Catholic Church and Catholics in almost every post, ever since I tried to be nice to them. I won’t continue to be so nice if they keep that up. They’ll be getting it, both barrels.

Seems distinctly how I felt before your welcome above. I know that one of my posts definitely went too far, and for that I do apologise, but for the rest I’m making no attacks, simply defending my beliefs based on scripture and the interpretation that I believe to be true and correct. You already know that our interpretations of the same scripture differ in places, and that our views of each others’ church and beliefs are much the same. You knew this to begin with, as did I, so why be surprised when we disagree?