W
Wannano
Guest
This may be true for all?
How the Mormon Church Now Explains the Translation of the Book of Mormon
- Status
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
Not sure what you mean. Though it is especially true for Mormons for many reasons, one of which is that if you are not sealed in the temple you will lose your family in the afterlife.
Last edited:
T
TOmNossor
Guest
It is true that few members knew the intricacies of “Urim and Thummim” vs. “Seer Stone” a handful of years ago. I suspect I was a member for only 3-4 years before I knew about this, but I wanted to know history/truth/faith/…. Articles from 20 and 40 years ago and historical documents from longer ago than that were available to those with extraordinary interest. Most with extraordinary interest had extraordinary commitment and the willingness to pursue research and answers through scholarship. I think the biggest change today is that many folks with a casual interest stumble upon things they never considered during an Internet search. These are not folks with extraordinary commitment nor a taste for weighing these questions carefully over a period of time.
As a new member, I was fascinated by anti-Mormon arguments and I really still am. My intellectual conviction that the BOM came from God continues to grow.
That being said, what in your opinion is the difference between the BOM coming from a seer stone or a pair of stones set in a bow that LDS often envisioned as some type of glasses? Does looking through miraculously provided glasses or looking through a stone really change the extraordinary nature of the story?
Again, I was a very new member as I learned about seer stones. My best recollection was that the BOM was no more or less miraculous because it through a seer stone as compared to “the Urim and Thummim.”
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Speaking of research, I doubt Mark doesn’t really believe what he is saying.
I recently read his 2000 Master’s Thesis. I found some of his connections to be a little tenuous, but I have little doubt that Mark believes that the Seer Stone was involved in the translation of the BOM.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I was actually not born a LDS, I was a cradle Catholic. I was more involved than your average Catholic young man, but 5 years after I became a LDS I realized that I had missed a great deal that was Catholicism. As I explored Catholicism I was told by many Catholics I was headed back to Rome. As I refuted anti-Catholic arguments on Protestant boards, I was told I was already Catholic. I do not know what would have happened had a looked at Mormonism as a well-catechized, committed Catholic, but I do know what happened when I looked at Catholicism as an informed LDS. I remained and continue to remain a LDS.
I vehemently deny that my view involves blinders; or rather I utilize significantly less blinders in my view of the CoJCoLDS and the Catholic Church than most people. Everyone has their preconceptions and buried biases. I have attempted to exercise mine and explore them, but nobody is perfect at this (the attempt is more than most pursue).
Your view reminds me of the view espoused by a former Catholic nun in one of my previous wards. I told her of a Catholic friend of mine who had a bigger problem than I did. He spend 99% of his resources intellectually weighing and sifting religions and 1% of his time using his heart. I told her that I was imbalanced, but I was more like 90/10. She felt bad for both of us, but she immediately offered to irrefutably show that Catholicism was false. To her it was easy. Once informed, nobody could remain Catholic.
That being said the most informed scholars on Catholicism are Catholics and the most informed scholars CoJCoLDS are LDS. There is no simplistic piece of data that demonstrates the truth or falsity of either of our traditions. In a LDS audience I offer some things concerning the ability to receive Public Revelation present within the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament and I ask which group receives Public Revelation from God today. Everyone is certain that being a LDS is the only rational choice. I also regularly explain that things are not so simple and folks usually nod here too. The anti-Mormon narrative present on this board is “not so simple.”
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
BTW, last week I was able to spend 4-5 hours in Harmony, PA (well Emma’s family’s home in what was previously Harmony, PA).
It was actually quite wonderful. And relevant to this thread, they had two areas (one in the main visitors center and one in one of the restored houses) where they spoke about the Seer Stone. I think it was Elder Uchtdorf that offered the his view of the stone as a tool receiving revelation from God. Which of course aligns with what Joseph Smith regularly said on the mechanics of translation, it was “By the Gift and Power of God.”
I can see how someone might say recently, but I do not think the Seer Stone was hidden. As soon as I started trying to move from being a lousy scout assistant (who was at sea 65% of the time anyway), to someone who thought being a LDS was something I should engage (in the only way I know how to do anything, intellectually as my heart is much atrophied); I was soon read of Seer Stones and Polygamy and a host of other things that were supposedly hidden.
Charity, TOm
It was actually quite wonderful. And relevant to this thread, they had two areas (one in the main visitors center and one in one of the restored houses) where they spoke about the Seer Stone. I think it was Elder Uchtdorf that offered the his view of the stone as a tool receiving revelation from God. Which of course aligns with what Joseph Smith regularly said on the mechanics of translation, it was “By the Gift and Power of God.”
I can see how someone might say recently, but I do not think the Seer Stone was hidden. As soon as I started trying to move from being a lousy scout assistant (who was at sea 65% of the time anyway), to someone who thought being a LDS was something I should engage (in the only way I know how to do anything, intellectually as my heart is much atrophied); I was soon read of Seer Stones and Polygamy and a host of other things that were supposedly hidden.
Charity, TOm
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
If Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon is as accurate as his translation of the Book of Abraham, then both of them are sheer poppycock.
G
gazelam
Guest
A few weeks ago on one of these LDS-oriented thread debating the doctrine of the Trinity, @TOmNossor mentioned that the RCC believes that Christ is both consubstantial with the Father in His Divine Nature and constubstantial with us in our human nature. Catholic thread participants immediately called TOmNossor out as stating something erroneous about Catholic belief even after the pertinent CCC paragraph was cited. Only when a priest chimed in concurring with TOmNossor did the Catholic participants change their opinion of that Catholic belief.
That belief is clearly spelled out in “obscure” RCC sources such as the CCC and this article here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur332.htm. Not only that, each week Catholics attend mass and ingest a wafer they believe is the actual substance of Christ’s body, into their own body (I mean, how much more consubstantial can you get with Jesus than that!), Even so, the Catholic thread participants were unaware of that doctrine, but the priest was not. Why? Because the priest took the time to learn about his faith.
So, is the RCC at fault for spelling something out and most Catholics choosing not to study it? Whether RCC or LDS, there is only so much that can be taught to the congregation in a worship service and the leaders have to be judicious about what to teach. The burden is on the individual to seek out additional information on his or her own.
B
Benadam
Guest
What makes revelation public for Mormons ? Also, Public as opposed to?
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
If Joseph Smith had been a true prophet, he wouldn’t have needed seer stones or anything else to translate these alleged golden plates since they were supposedly given to him by the “angel” Moroni.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
Painful.
The way they describe things makes me think of ancient gnostic heresy combined with 19th century con’s.
I just don’t understand how anyone can believe Mormonism is true - to me, their beliefs are so patently absurd and preposterous that I just can’t fathom how people can’t see that JS was a fraud.
I honestly believe that the “powers that be” within the LDS church only stay in place because of the immense power and wealth they have, not because they actually believe what they tell the laity.
The way they describe things makes me think of ancient gnostic heresy combined with 19th century con’s.
I just don’t understand how anyone can believe Mormonism is true - to me, their beliefs are so patently absurd and preposterous that I just can’t fathom how people can’t see that JS was a fraud.
I honestly believe that the “powers that be” within the LDS church only stay in place because of the immense power and wealth they have, not because they actually believe what they tell the laity.
Last edited:
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I use the term “public revelation” in the Catholic sense (aka Public vs Private). Public Revelation is revelation received by God’s representative on earth to be delivered to God’s children on the earth. Private Revelation is revelation that may be of value to others, but is received by individuals (leaders or laity) and is not for the purpose of guiding the entire body of the faithful to the truth (though some Marian apparitions have contributed to a rise in faith beyond those who received it). As Patrick Madrid puts it, “The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter.”TOmNossor:
What makes revelation public for Mormons ? Also, Public as opposed to?
LDS dealt with their problems with unauthorized/false revelations very differently than Catholics did. I believe that LDS were guided by revelation as they loosely defined the parameters of revelation. I believe Catholics were guided by reason as they rigidly explained that there would be “no new revelation.” Today Catholics make it clear that the “deposit of revelation is complete,” and “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” The degree to which the “deposit of faith” is expected to develop by modern Catholics is far greater than it was in the early 19th century, but this does not change the fact that there is “no new public revelation.” LDS can expect and do receive a great deal of “messiness” because of our views on revelation. We also receive a great deal of criticism. In both messiness and criticism we are much like Early Christians.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I suppose you would say:
If Joseph (of Egypt) was a true prophet he wouldn’t have practiced divination with a silver cup.
If Moses and Aaron were true prophets they wouldn’t have used a rod to do many things including control water.
If the Aaron (and the Apostles) were true prophets they wouldn’t have cast lots to determine God’s will.
Your view of this is not Biblical. It is ultimately born of the rejections of the supernatural experienced when the Bishops and Priests rejected THE POSSIBILITY of revelation in the early 3rd century. Power was being centralized and revelation was absent. It is all very rational. I am quite sympathetic, but I believe the Bible is the proper guide here not enlightenment perspectives.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
This is a powerful argument. There are responses, but the BOA is a problem IMO.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
As there are millions of faithful LDS and tens or hundreds of thousands of LDS with vast knowledge of the issues that lead you to your conclusions, I think you are correct that you “don’t understand.”
The idea that Joseph Smith choose to carry out a deception instead of following God has been rejected by thoughtful critics who have tried to get to know him. History strongly teaches he is sincere and committed to God. I addition to this were he brilliant enough to carry out the deception, he surely could have produced better results for himself and his family than he did with his chosen scheme.
The limited interactions with church leaders I have experienced also suggests that you are mistaken concerning their duplicity.
And, I assure you if deceived, I do not know that I am deceived; and yet I doubt you have studied the history and doctrine of my church as much as I have.
Instead, you say about LDS what was regularly said about Christians in the early church. St. Augustine who learned of Christianity at the feet of St. Monica found it ridiculous. It was not until St. Ambrose convinced St. Augustine that the foolishness that St. Monica believed was not Christianity that Augustine decided he could be a Christian. I hope to embrace the truth, not what learned society expects the truth to be.
Charity, TOm
S
Spyridon
Guest
Wait…
So you sincerely believe that the faith St. Augustine practiced was identical to, or at least more close to that of the LDS Church than the Catholic Church?
G
Gertabelle
Guest
I can see your problem here. We have nearly 2000 years of history in the Catholic Church. So for us, “recent” would be in the past 40 or 50 years.Chris-Wa1:
Again, please define “until very recently”. Which specific years are you referring to? Clearly the LDS Church was referring to the Seer Stone in 1974 in a magazine for children. 1974 was long before the internet was around…
For LDS, 40 or 50 years is like 20% or 25% of your total history. I think this really is someone using a Catholic perspective to refer to the LDS timeline.
I agree, 40 years ago is not recent for LDS. That would be like 400-500 years ago for Catholics.
Going back to lurking mode.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Spyridon,TOmNossor:
Wait…
So you sincerely believe that the faith St. Augustine practiced was identical to, or at least more close to that of the LDS Church than the Catholic Church?
I do not think I said anything that could be construed as claiming the “faith St. Augustine practices was identical to, or at least more close to that of the LDS Church than the Catholic Church.”
My point is and was that your view of the CoJCoLDS is the same view of the “learned” towards Early Christianity. I will offer two ways in which your view is like the “learned” view.
Way #1:
Augustine is a POWERFUL witness of this view in that he rejected aspects of ancient Christianity that do align with what LDS believe today and in doing so rejected Christianity. He considered the faith of his mother St. Monica to be ridiculous. And he and you still consider ancient Christianity ridiculous, but at the hands of Origin and as taught to Augustine by St. Ambrose this all changed. The embodiment of God was a ridiculous view Christians like St. Monica embraced. Christians like Origin (who does evidence a duplicitiousness as he addresses this view) and St. Ambrose left behind this view in the 3rd century, but it survived for many years. Augustine documents that he rejected Christianity because of its belief in an embodied God and that he only accepted it after he was taught such a view was wrong. This is “Way #1” because I believe the learned then and now reject THE TRUTH concerning God’s embodiment.
Way #2
Paul in Romans 6:1 records a criticism (both ancient as I understand, but definitely modern as I have heard it) of Christianity. Paul refutes this criticism, but it is still heard today. I submit that SOME of your view of Mormonism is not a product of what LDS really believe, but of what you think they believe. Fulton Sheen said that there were “not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church,” but there are “millions who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.” Ancient and modern critics of Christianity cannot be bothered to learn what it really is and many times reject what it is not. I think your view that Joseph Smith and the modern LDS leaders are duplicitous in that they do not truly believe that the CoJCoLDS is God’s church on earth is radically difficult to believe if you become informed, but you can reject the CoJCoLDS all day long because of this erroneous belief (and others).
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Thank you for your comments.gazelam:
I can see your problem here. We have nearly 2000 years of history in the Catholic Church. So for us, “recent” would be in the past 40 or 50 years.Chris-Wa1:
Again, please define “until very recently”. Which specific years are you referring to? Clearly the LDS Church was referring to the Seer Stone in 1974 in a magazine for children. 1974 was long before the internet was around…
For LDS, 40 or 50 years is like 20% or 25% of your total history. I think this really is someone using a Catholic perspective to refer to the LDS timeline.
I agree, 40 years ago is not recent for LDS. That would be like 400-500 years ago for Catholics.
Going back to lurking mode.
I find great value in recognizing the amount of time LDS and Catholics have been dealing with the revelations we received. Less than two hundred years from the 33AD and from 1830AD, there was and is great chaos in our traditions. LDS are only beginning to plumb the full depths of the teachings present in our revelations. So part of the change and chaos experienced within the CoJCoLDS for the last 200 years is not a product of the fact that we believe in continuing revelation. Part of it is a product of LDS coming to grips with the bulk of our unique revelations which were delivered from 1830-1845.
I might also mention that the knowledge of the Seer Stone was present for many decades in the early CoJCoLDS before it began to be less discussed. I could draw parallels to this for Catholicism too if you like.
Charity, TOm
G
Gertabelle
Guest
No thanks, I’m good. :+1:t4:
- Status