How do the Mormons do it?

[zaffiroborant]

But without access to the actual text (even if it has to be read to them), people are completely reliant on someone else interpreting it on their behalf. How are they supposed to have confidence in an interpretation of something, if they can’t actually access the thing in the first place?

But if it is a translation the person reading it is still completely reliant on someone else interpreting it on their behalf.

 

[CopticChristian]

You seem to intentionally miss the point

Historically, without proper (approved) translations, people were hearing the gospel as translated by their local preist. Thus the quality of the translation varied dramatically by location and skill of priest. The lack of official translations brought about the the very problem you wanted to avoid - that bad translations would corrupt the true teachings of the church.

The only way to ensure that the people hear the proper church sactioned meanings/translations is for the Church to make those translations available where needed.

You can’t have it both ways

• if a correct translation is crucial, then it should have been done early and revised as needed
• if a correct translation was not so critical, then why was the church so hard on people who did set their best translation to paper.

So what about the gospel at the endowment ceremony and the movie…tell me about the gospel…

 

[CopticChristian]

You seem to intentionally miss the point

Historically, without proper (approved) translations, people were hearing the gospel as translated by their local preist. Thus the quality of the translation varied dramatically by location and skill of priest. The lack of official translations brought about the the very problem you wanted to avoid - that bad translations would corrupt the true teachings of the church.

The only way to ensure that the people hear the proper church sactioned meanings/translations is for the Church to make those translations available where needed.

You can’t have it both ways

• if a correct translation is crucial, then it should have been done early and revised as needed
• if a correct translation was not so critical, then why was the church so hard on people who did set their best translation to paper.

Is the book of Mormon Scripture?

 

[Tony888]

But if it is a translation the person reading it is still completely reliant on someone else interpreting it on their behalf.

EXACTLY,
And the sooner the official Church sanctioned translation was made available, the sooner the error of on-the-spot human translation would have been mitigated.

 

[zaffiroborant]

EXACTLY,
And the sooner the official Church sanctioned translation was made available, the sooner the error of on-the-spot human translation would have been mitigated.

And that would do nothing for the vast majority of the people at the time who COULDN’T READ ANY LANGUAGE and would have to have someone read it to them. You do realize that Catholic priests are and were taught in seminaries right? Scripture would be of primary importance in their education the end result being a priest who could properly teach Catholic understanding of scripture. The Catholic church takes it’s teaching authority very seriously, the priesthood isn’t given to every Tommy, Ricky and Harry.

 

[RebeccaJ]

One of the struggles for increasing literacy and providing education for people living in third world countries is…people can’t afford books.

 

[Tony888]

I don’t think the church was hard on people who put a good translation on paper. It was the bad translations that caused problems. Some Protestant reformers purposely translated things in a way to make the Catholic Church look bad and they got in trouble. The ones who did an honest translation didn’t get in trouble.

I agree, the church was hard on what they considered bad translations, rather than good translations. However, I think the bad ranslations were sincere attempts to translate the bible, and their mistakes could have been prevented by earlier release of accepted/official translations.

 

[Telstar]

I agree, the church was hard on what they considered bad translations, rather than good translations. However, I think the bad ranslations were sincere attempts to translate the bible, and their mistakes could have been prevented by earlier release of accepted/official translations.

And the BoM would have a much higher possibility of greater belief among educated people if those ‘golden plates’ were available for expert linguists to study and decipher, but …

 

[Tony888]

And the BoM would have a much higher possibility of greater belief among educated people if those ‘golden plates’ were available for expert linguists to study and decipher, but …

So your response to the discussion is to get snarky and off-topic?

You are right that we don’t have the 1st edition scriptures of the New testament or the BoM to study.

I still see immense value the LDS having our scripture properly translated into the local language of members.

 

[mwok]

FYI, every word you wrote here doesn’t make sense to the text of the scripture.
John wouldn’t refer to an Angel (even by your own doctrines that they are some separate species to humans) if he meant a man - a man just teaching, on a regular basis (as John would be well accustomed to, unlike angelic visits), is something quite different from an angel being sent.
And even if he did just mean an average meeting, just like those he attended (potentially led) himself, the scripture still says that the gospel needed to be brought and taught to men. For it to be necessary to bring the gospel back from heaven it must have been missing from the earth.

That is because you do not understand what is actually taking place at the Mass, therefore completely misinterpreting John’s Revelation. Just take into account that it is John’s “Revelation” as in something is or has taken place and now the meaning has been REVEALED. The only reason everyone outside the Catholic Church gets this wrong is because the book is doing what it is intended to do, reveal what is truely happening from those on the outside especially the two beasts(corrupt secular power and corrupt religious).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Does a book cease to exist because nobody reads it?
The covenants are eternal, they last forever for everyone who makes them with God. The fact that nobody remained on the earth who had entered into His covenants, doesn’t diminish their eternal nature for those who had made them before, or would make them after.

Jesus Christ is the New and Everlasting Covenant. Christ died for all…so, I’m not really seeing your point here.

 

[mwok]

What Tony and Naf are really trying to say here is that we should ignore the homilies of priests who are under the authority of bishops and were taught what the Church teaches about scripture and rely on the interpretation of someone who misinterpreted egyptian hyroglyphics instead?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I still see immense value the LDS having our scripture properly translated into the local language of members.

That is because spreading the Mormon religion is reliant on people who can read. This is a relative new way to proselytize, as has been pointed out several times…people who can’t read aren’t going to read. Not a Book of Mormon in any language. No burning bosoms if people can’t read.

Understanding the Good News of Jesus Christ is not reliant on how well one is educated, or ones economic position. That is the mission and purpose of the Catholic Church, to bring people to Jesus Christ. Today, much of the world can read and can come to know Christ through reading. But that has never been the normative way for the Catholic Church to evangelize. We evangelize by what we do, by stepping into the fray, by our public prayers, churches,…being Christ’s presence in the world. Not by handing a book to someone and asking them to read it. That does nothing for what Jesus commanded us to do…to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, care for widows, etc.

You are making a complaint that has no meaning, other than to support an ideology, ideologies do nothing for anyone.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I still see immense value the LDS having our scripture properly translated into the local language of members.

And your translation is totally useless to an illiterate person. You seem to be working under the assumption that everyone at every time who could speak language A could read language A.

All of your proselytizing is based on a literate population, what do you have to offer the illiterate?

I’d also note translating the BoM was a bit easier than the bible since it was translated from one language still in use to other languages still in use. Not to mention the ease of production, a more wealthy and literate society.

Sorry but comparing publishing in 1840 to publishing in 1500 doesn’t work.

 

[Naf623]

First of all, are you trying to tell us that each individual Mormon has come to understand Mormon doctrine simply through private reading? Or have they learned it in the Mormon community? Did each of you just happen to arrive at the same belief system after studying on your own? I seriously doubt that. And who says that we do not know, personally, that what we are being taught is true. I study my faith constantly and what I have been taught to believe is affirmed constantly by my own study and prayer. Your inference that we are a bunch of blind sheep won’t play here.

That’s not what I said at all. I am purely pointing out that there is an insistence that everything in the Catholic church is reliant on community to understand it and learn its truth. What you have just said agrees with exactly what I have said, that while we worship and usually learn together in a community, we need to personally find and understand its truth for ourselves.

And I wonder how far the LDS Church would have gone, how many languages, and how many texts issued without the advantage of the printing press. This is the difference. If every Bible in the world was burned tomorrow, the Catholic Church would still possess the fullness of the truth contained within it. It exists within the very life of the Church; within its liturgies, its sacraments, its Catechisms, its encyclicals, etc. The Bible did not give us our Church, our Church gave us, and the rest of the world, the Bible.

And if every Book of Mormon in the world was burned tomorrow we would still hold the greater fullness of truth held therein because it is the core of our lives beliefs and teachings as it it centred completely on Jesus Christ just as we attempt to centre our lives on Him.

And that would do nothing for the vast majority of the people at the time who COULDN’T READ ANY LANGUAGE and would have to have someone read it to them. You do realize that Catholic priests are and were taught in seminaries right? Scripture would be of primary importance in their education the end result being a priest who could properly teach Catholic understanding of scripture.

But I don’t believe that Catholic understanding and teaching of scripture is correct, and neither do many many others throughout the ages; so having the text available to people so they could understand what the Prophets actually wrote is of great importance to helping individuals find the truth.
The Catholic church was afraid that people would read the scriptures and that their interpretations and understanding would disagree with Catholic teaching; and guess what they were right.
Consider (I’m not asking you to accept this, but if you are incapable of even objectively viewing the argument from different angles, this discussion is clearly fruitless) that if Catholic teaching has strayed from the truths taught by Christ, and has incorporated mysticism and practises from pagan rituals (during the very early years after the original Apostles died) then allowing others the freedom to study the scriptures and learn for themselves, and ask God for themselves about the truth of His teachings is extremely important. And especially so from God’s viewpoint as He wants His children to come to know the truth so they can return to live with Him in heaven.

 

[Naf623]

That is because you do not understand what is actually taking place at the Mass, therefore completely misinterpreting John’s Revelation. Just take into account that it is John’s “Revelation” as in something is or has taken place and now the meaning has been REVEALED. The only reason everyone outside the Catholic Church gets this wrong is because the book is doing what it is intended to do, reveal what is truely happening from those on the outside especially the two beasts(corrupt secular power and corrupt religious).

If the Catholic mass today is indeed just the same as what John would have attended (which I do not accept), then he has even less reason to describe the priest as an angel, because he is clearly a man. If he held the same belief that angels and men are distinctly different species, then he has less reason again to make such a confusing statement. Much more likely, given the simplicity and plainness of New Testament teachings, is that he really does mean an actual angel, actually coming from actual heaven carrying the actual true gospel to the earth.
Your argument still does not marry up to what is actually written, plus still fails to explain why the angel needs to being the gospel to the earth. If the fulness of gospel truths were already on the earth and being taught correctly then it would be illogical for the angel to bring it. Thus the scripture describes a time upon the earth where God’s words were not being taught, or if they were then they were no longer being taught correctly and therefore it was necessary to restore them.
Alongside the prophecy of Amos that a time will come when there will be a “famine in the land…of hearing the words of The Lord” and that people shall travel everywhere In an attempt to find it, but will not be able to. (Amos 8:11-12) the two together clearly speak of a time where the words of God (the Gospel) will not be found anywhere on the earth, and then they will be brought back again by an angel visiting from heaven.
From the time of Amos through until Christ, the Word of The Lord was present in the Judaic worship, and from Christ’s timed this no longer applied (having been fulfilled in Christ) and so only Christ’s teachings constituted the Word of The Lord. If the time prophecied by Amos has not yet been, then there is yet to come a time when all churches, Catholic included, will either fail or will be teaching incorrect principles. If Catholic teachings, traditions and practises do not change, then they must already be in this apostate state, as must all other church’s claiming continuous mortal apostolic succession from Christ to the present.

Is the book of Mormon Scripture?

Very much so.

That is because spreading the Mormon religion is reliant on people who can read. This is a relative new way to proselytize, as has been pointed out several times…people who can’t read aren’t going to read. Not a Book of Mormon in any language. No burning bosoms if people can’t read.

All of your proselytizing is based on a literate population, what do you have to offer the illiterate?

The book of Mormon and Bibile are available on audiocassette, CD and I believe can be accessed online in audio also. For languages which have only oral tradition, not written, the scriptures are available in audio also, and videos are available for ASL and BSL so I guess they are available in other sign languages also. Not to mention Braillle…

And your translation is totally useless to an illiterate person. You seem to be working under the assumption that everyone at every time who could speak language A could read language A.

I’ve never said that, and have been careful not to assert any such thing. But instead of relying on one person’s translation of Latin, which will differ from another person’s in various ways, and may lose some of the language, smilie and metaphors of the original dependant on the reason for translating (the particular teaching being presented, or the perceived understanding level of the individual or group it is being translated to), having an authorised translation, accepted as correct by the Magisterium, that could simply be read to the person, allows scripture to do its job and keep its real power: that people can learn based on their readiness to learn, and the more one learns, the more one can glean from a reading of the same scripture.

But that has never been the normative way for the Catholic Church to evangelize. We evangelize by what we do, by stepping into the fray, by our public prayers, churches,…being Christ’s presence in the world.

You’re right; going out and teaching people, asking them to read the things that has been written is not the normal way the Catholic church teaches and proselytes, but it is the way the Early Church did it. John 5:39 "Search the scriptures…they are they which testify of me

 

[mwok]

If the Catholic mass today is indeed just the same as what John would have attended (which I do not accept), then he has even less reason to describe the priest as an angel, because he is clearly a man. If he held the same belief that angels and men are distinctly different species, then he has less reason again to make such a confusing statement. Much more likely, given the simplicity and plainness of New Testament teachings, is that he really does mean an actual angel, actually coming from actual heaven carrying the actual true gospel to the earth.
Your argument still does not marry up to what is actually written, plus still fails to explain why the angel needs to being the gospel to the earth. If the fulness of gospel truths were already on the earth and being taught correctly then it would be illogical for the angel to bring it. Thus the scripture describes a time upon the earth where God’s words were not being taught, or if they were then they were no longer being taught correctly and therefore it was necessary to restore them.
Alongside the prophecy of Amos that a time will come when there will be a “famine in the land…of hearing the words of The Lord” and that people shall travel everywhere In an attempt to find it, but will not be able to. (Amos 8:11-12) the two together clearly speak of a time where the words of God (the Gospel) will not be found anywhere on the earth, and then they will be brought back again by an angel visiting from heaven.
From the time of Amos through until Christ, the Word of The Lord was present in the Judaic worship, and from Christ’s timed this no longer applied (having been fulfilled in Christ) and so only Christ’s teachings constituted the Word of The Lord. If the time prophecied by Amos has not yet been, then there is yet to come a time when all churches, Catholic included, will either fail or will be teaching incorrect principles. If Catholic teachings, traditions and practises do not change, then they must already be in this apostate state, as must all other church’s claiming continuous mortal apostolic succession from Christ to the present.

This just goes to show that you don’t understand the literature of Revelations. Read the book of Daniel and tell me what all the imagery mean, angels in that book would look outrageous if taken on a literal description. You even missed that the Gospel is represented as “four living creatures”. Once again showing that you don’t understand the imagery and the fact that the meaning of Revelations is meant to be confusing.

 

[mwok]

You’re right; going out and teaching people, asking them to read the things that has been written is not the normal way the Catholic church teaches and proselytes, but it is the way the Early Church did it. John 5:39 "Search the scriptures…they are they which testify of me

When any of the NT writers refer to scripture they are referring to the OT. So, no real Bible to read from since the Bible wasn’t available to be read cover to cover.

 

[Jay53]

That’s not what I said at all. I am purely pointing out that there is an insistence that everything in the Catholic church is reliant on community to understand it and learn its truth. What you have just said agrees with exactly what I have said, that while we worship and usually learn together in a community, we need to personally find and understand its truth for ourselves.

And if every Book of Mormon in the world was burned tomorrow we would still hold the greater fullness of truth held therein because it is the core of our lives beliefs and teachings as it it centred completely on Jesus Christ just as we attempt to centre our lives on Him.

But I don’t believe that Catholic understanding and teaching of scripture is correct, and neither do many many others throughout the ages; so having the text available to people so they could understand what the Prophets actually wrote is of great importance to helping individuals find the truth.
The Catholic church was afraid that people would read the scriptures and that their interpretations and understanding would disagree with Catholic teaching; and guess what they were right.
Consider (I’m not asking you to accept this, but if you are incapable of even objectively viewing the argument from different angles, this discussion is clearly fruitless) that if Catholic teaching has strayed from the truths taught by Christ, and has incorporated mysticism and practises from pagan rituals (during the very early years after the original Apostles died) then allowing others the freedom to study the scriptures and learn for themselves, and ask God for themselves about the truth of His teachings is extremely important. And especially so from God’s viewpoint as He wants His children to come to know the truth so they can return to live with Him in heaven.

The part that I bolded above would also mean that Jesus lied and that His Holy Spirit did NOT remain with His Church - which He clearly promised it would!!

 

[truthsave]

The part that I bolded above would also mean that Jesus lied and that His Holy Spirit did NOT remain with His Church - which He clearly promised it would!!

I already thought about it but LDS don’t see it this way. They cannot feel anything outside their doctrine. They choose to, and they train to with classes and teaching and so on.

I don’t think you should never put dialogue based in evidence with an LDS since he chose to believe in Joseph Smith.
They are free to do it. But they don’t realize the extreme danger of it.
If Joseph SMith is a faulse prophet (as everybody think he is except mormons) they would be responsable to have followed him. They would be responsable to have preferred believe in him and consider passage of NT badly translated or surpassed by the “gospel of the last despensation”. It is an extremely serious responsability.
If a cathoic or Orthodox or whoever don’t accept Joseph Smith as a prophet we will go to pay for it just going in a kindom of lesser exaltation that is anyway not a bad sistuation, since we have believed in Jesus as our savior and as Christians we strived to do our best.

So a mormon play all his cards to become a god and to go in their Celestial Kindom.
They are free to do it, but I repeat myself, they put themselves in an extremely delicate situation.
We as Chrstian we should pray for them, since if they are very wrong, as we think they are, they will really need our prayers.