Joseph Smith Teaches that Jesus Christ is the Rock Upon Which Youth and Adults Must Build Their Foundation

[lax16]

It was a totally wrong concept, and would be very offensive to a large group of people and should have been thoroughly researched before discussing such a sensitive item in a casual way.–those are my thoughts, and I think this aside should quickly get buried now.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[lax16]

It was a totally wrong concept, and would be very offensive to a large group of people and should have been thoroughly researched before discussing such a sensitive item in a casual way.–those are my thoughts, and I think this aside should quickly get buried now.

I’m not sure if you are referring to Muslims being offended? This is from islamreligion.com

Sarah returned while Abraham was praying, accompanied by gifts from the Pharaoh, as he had realized their special nature, along with his own daughter Hagar as well, according to Judeo-Christian traditions, as a handmaiden[5]. She had delivered a powerful message to the Pharaoh and the pagan Egyptians.

After they had returned to Palestine, Sarah and Abraham continued to be childless, despite divine promises that he would be granted a child. As the gifting of a handmaid by a barren woman to her husband in order to produce offspring seems to be a common practice of that day[6], Sarah suggested to Abraham that he take Hagar as his concubine. Some Christian scholars say of this event that he actually took her as his wife[7]. Whichever case it may be, in Jewish and Babylonian tradition, any offspring born to a concubine would be claimed by the concubine’s former mistress and be treated exactly the same as a child born to her[8], including matters of inheritance. While in Palestine, Hagar bore him a son, Ishmael.

So why is this a totally wrong concept, offensive, and not researched?

 

[ParkerD]

I have gone on to several Jewish websites, and they all say Jehovah is not a Hebrew word that appeared in the Hebrew Bible.

Please explain how polygamy worked to increase the faith of Emma Smith and JS’s followers? It certainly backfired in the Old Testament!

Again, I have not read on any reputable website that Abraham was married to Hagar. She may have gained status once she had a child, but you need to prove they were married.

So Joseph Smith, unlike Abraham, was not trying to prove himself to God but to people?

Please give examples of how early Mormons were more faithful because of Joseph Smith’s obedience to polygamy?

Lax16,
The words “test of faith” do not mean “strengthen faith.” They mean in the case I had cited, a test of whether a person has the kind of faith to do something that seems contrary to their normal expectations of what they have been taught. It means they are brought to a situation where they have to decide if their communication with God really does have the kind of staying power such that they can discern that a prophet is still a prophet even when their own personal feelings differ with revealed doctrine or a revealed command from God.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m not sure if you are referring to Muslims being offended? This is from islamreligion.com

Sarah returned while Abraham was praying, accompanied by gifts from the Pharaoh, as he had realized their special nature, along with his own daughter Hagar as well, according to Judeo-Christian traditions, as a handmaiden[5]. She had delivered a powerful message to the Pharaoh and the pagan Egyptians.

After they had returned to Palestine, Sarah and Abraham continued to be childless, despite divine promises that he would be granted a child. As the gifting of a handmaid by a barren woman to her husband in order to produce offspring seems to be a common practice of that day[6], Sarah suggested to Abraham that he take Hagar as his concubine. Some Christian scholars say of this event that he actually took her as his wife[7]. Whichever case it may be, in Jewish and Babylonian tradition, any offspring born to a concubine would be claimed by the concubine’s former mistress and be treated exactly the same as a child born to her[8], including matters of inheritance. While in Palestine, Hagar bore him a son, Ishmael.

So why is this a totally wrong concept, offensive, and not researched?

If you had cited the above, then that would not be offensive at all. I was objecting to a specific word use that was totally different in connotation and use than the above explanation.

 

[TheosisM]

I have gone on to several Jewish websites, and they all say Jehovah is not a Hebrew word that appeared in the Hebrew Bible.

Right, “Jehovah” is a transliteration of the Hebrew (which some see as incorrect). I believe YHWH/Yahweh are also seen as equivalent to “Jehovah”.

 

[lax16]

However, your last question moves into the area of inspiration itself, and I certainly acknowledge that Moses received the Ten Commandments from God and wrote them down in words that he understood, so one could say that Moses wrote down the Ten Commandments, and sent them forth to the world.

Do you think Moses wrote the Ten Commandments?

Ex 24:12
And the Lord said to Moses: Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and the law, and the commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Another example of how Joseph Smith is not like the prophets of the Old Testament. God gave the tablets to Moses so that he could carry them and show to the people that God had spoken. Obviously, God knew that if he sent Moses empty-handed, professing that God had spoken to him, the people would not have believed him. Why didn’t God give Joseph Smith the golden tablets to show the people? God knows people are skeptical, therefore he gave the tablets to Moses to prove they were God-given. **Why would God leave Joseph Smith on his own without proof? **

Ex. 32:15-16
And Moses returned from the mount, carrying the two tables of the testimony in his hand, written on both sides, (16) And made by the work of God; **the writing also of **God was graven in the tables.

(Douay-Rheims commentary - Both sides. The ten commandments were writtten twice over, or on both sides, that all who stood round Moses, might be able to read them. M.-On one side, appeared the laws regarding God; on the other, those which relate to man. H.-They were like two originals. The common way of writing was only on one side. C.)

 

[ParkerD]

Do you think Moses wrote the Ten Commandments?

Ex 24:12
And the Lord said to Moses: Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and the law, and the commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Another example of how Joseph Smith is not like the prophets of the Old Testament. God gave the tablets to Moses so that he could carry them and show to the people that God had spoken. Obviously, God knew that if he sent Moses empty-handed, professing that God had spoken to him, the people would not have believed him. Why didn’t God give Joseph Smith the golden tablets to show the people? God knows people are skeptical, therefore he gave the tablets to Moses to prove they were God-given. **Why would God leave Joseph Smith on his own without proof? **

Ex. 32:15-16
And Moses returned from the mount, carrying the two tables of the testimony in his hand, written on both sides, (16) And made by the work of God; **the writing also of **God was graven in the tables.

(Douay-Rheims commentary - Both sides. The ten commandments were writtten twice over, or on both sides, that all who stood round Moses, might be able to read them. M.-On one side, appeared the laws regarding God; on the other, those which relate to man. H.-They were like two originals. The common way of writing was only on one side. C.)

Lax16,

I hope you’re kidding with this line of thought, or that perhaps you haven’t considered the full ramifications of what it would mean to say that every single message from God to man had to be written down onto tablets of stone by God, and that every other message including the entire Bible (of which Moses certainly wrote down many, many pages and sent them forth to the world) was not from God.

I am saying those messages are from God to man, but are written down by a prophet. This includes the fact that the Ten Commandments were written down and put in the Torah by Moses, even though the tablets had the Ten Commandments on them and could be seen. It makes completely good sense that those Ten Commandments should have been written down in form more generally accessible than to see the original words on the stone tablets.

Do you think all of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written down by the Lord onto stone tablets, and just transcribed by Moses?

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I hope you’re kidding with this line of thought, or that perhaps you haven’t considered the full ramifications of what it would mean to say **that every single message from God to man **had to be written down onto tablets of stone by God, and that every other message including the entire Bible (of which Moses certainly wrote down many, many pages and sent them forth to the world) was not from God.

I am saying those messages are from God to man, but are written down by a prophet. **This includes the fact that the Ten Commandments were written down and put in the Torah by Moses, even though the tablets had the Ten Commandments on them and **could be seen. It makes completely good sense that those Ten Commandments should have been written down in form more generally accessible than to see the original words on the stone tablets.

Do you think all of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written down by the Lord onto stone tablets, and just transcribed by Moses?

Parker - We are having problems communicating. Every time I post something, you accuse me of saying or doing something I didn’t do (Diana will tell you, this is a BIG no-no!) Deflection is the name of the game, I can see…

Do you think you could start backing up your opinions with some sources?

Please show me where my post said that **“all of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written down by the Lord onto stone tablets…” **

From chabad.org

Moses Receives the Torah

The entire people heard the words of G-d, and they became frightened.

They begged Moses to be the intermediary between G-d and them, for if G-d Himself would continue to give them the entire Torah, they would surely die. Moses told them not to be afraid, for G-d had revealed Himself to them so that they would fear Him and not sin.

Then G-d asked Moses to ascend the mountain; for he alone was able to stand in the presence of G-d. **There Moses was to receive the two tablets containing the Ten **Commandments, and the entire Torah, to teach it to the children of Israel. Moses went up the mountain and stayed there forty days and forty nights, without food or sleep, for he had become like an angel.

(I will provide an explanation for the items in red in my next post).

 

[lax16]

Then G-d asked Moses to ascend the mountain; for he alone was able to stand in the presence of G-d. **There Moses was to receive the two tablets containing the Ten **Commandments, and the entire Torah, to teach it to the children of Israel. Moses went up the mountain and stayed there forty days and forty nights, without food or sleep, for he had become like an angel.

from aish.com Oral Tradition

It is a foundation of our faith to believe that God gave Moses **an oral explanation **of the Torah along with the written text.

This oral tradition is now essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim.

We thus speak of two Torahs. There is the Written Torah (Torah SheBiKetav) and the Oral Torah (Torah SheB’Al Peh). Both are alluded to in God’s statement to Moses, “Come up to Me to the mountain, and I will give you… the Torah and the commandments” (Exodus 24:12).

…Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but no details are given, and they are assumed to be in the Oral Torah. **Although observing ****Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, no details are given as to how it should be **kept, and these are also in the unwritten tradition. God thus said, “You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers” (Jeremiah 17:22).

If the entire Torah would have been given in writing, everyone would be able to interpret it as he desired. This would lead to division and discord among people who followed the Torah in different ways. The Oral Torah, on the other hand, would require a central authority to preserve it, thus assuring the unity of Israel.

 

[lax16]

I am saying those messages are from God to man, but are written down by a prophet. This includes the fact that the Ten Commandments were written down and put in the Torah by Moses, even though the tablets had the Ten Commandments on them and could be seen. It makes completely good sense that those Ten Commandments should have been written down in form more generally accessible than to see the original words on the stone tablets.

from chabad.org

Overview for Parshah Mishpatim

The narrative of **Moses’ ascent after the revelation is likewise split into two separate **accounts. This is because when God summoned Moses to ascend Mount Sinai again after the revelation and remain there for forty days and nights to receive the rest of the Torah, **it was in order to present him with both of these aspects of the Torah **in more concrete form. On the one hand, **God taught him **the numerous detailed laws of the beginning of parashat Mishpatim—the commandments, which constitute the **contractual **side of the relationship. On the other hand, He gave him the two tablets, which served as **enduring testimony to the covenant **between God and the Jewish people. (This is seen in the terms the Torah uses to refer to them: "the tablets of testimony"7 and "the tablets of the covenant."8) The first element—the laws in the beginning of parashat Mishpatim—follows the first account of the revelation in parashat Yitro; the second element—which begins with God summoning Moses to "come up…and I will give you the tablets of stone"9—follows the second account, at the very end of parashat Mishpatim.

The sequence in this narrative can now be understood: first the Torah describes the contractual element of the Torah in its entirety—by relating all those parts of the event, from the preparatory instructions, to the Ten Commandments, the commandments of the altar, and the commandments of parashat Mishpatim, which God taught Moses on the mountain. After its exhaustive portrayal of this side of the coin, the Torah sets out to convey the covenantal element by describing those details of the event, from start to finish.

 

[ParkerD]

from chabad.org

Overview for Parshah Mishpatim

The narrative of **Moses’ ascent after the revelation is likewise split into two separate **accounts. This is because when God summoned Moses to ascend Mount Sinai again after the revelation and remain there for forty days and nights to receive the rest of the Torah, **it was in order to present him with both of these aspects of the Torah **in more concrete form. On the one hand, **God taught him **the numerous detailed laws of the beginning of parashat Mishpatim—the commandments, which constitute the **contractual **side of the relationship. On the other hand, He gave him the two tablets, which served as **enduring testimony to the covenant **between God and the Jewish people. (This is seen in the terms the Torah uses to refer to them: "the tablets of testimony"7 and "the tablets of the covenant."8) The first element—the laws in the beginning of parashat Mishpatim—follows the first account of the revelation in parashat Yitro; the second element—which begins with God summoning Moses to "come up…and I will give you the tablets of stone"9—follows the second account, at the very end of parashat Mishpatim.

The sequence in this narrative can now be understood: first the Torah describes the contractual element of the Torah in its entirety—by relating all those parts of the event, from the preparatory instructions, to the Ten Commandments, the commandments of the altar, and the commandments of parashat Mishpatim, which God taught Moses on the mountain. After its exhaustive portrayal of this side of the coin, the Torah sets out to convey the covenantal element by describing those details of the event, from start to finish.

Lax16,
Thanks for providing the terrific context for my being able to understand the complexity and nature of your questions much better than my first glance wherein I really didn’t absorb the questions contrasting the “gold plates” with the “tablets of stone” (sorry). I am busy for a good while and the answer will take more than a few comments, so please know that I haven’t ignored these but have been busy and will get to this sometime much later tonight or early morning.

Meanwhile, have a great evening.

 

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
Thanks for providing the terrific context for my being able to understand the complexity and nature of your questions much better than my first glance wherein I really didn’t absorb the questions contrasting the “gold plates” with the “tablets of stone” (sorry). I am busy for a good while and the answer will take more than a few comments, so please know that I haven’t ignored these but have been busy and will get to this sometime much later tonight or early morning.

Meanwhile, have a great evening.

Lax16,
I would like to answer your questions about this within the context of your expectations about what God does to “reveal Himself” to man.

For example, God gave the children of Israel manna, and that was an evidence that they were worshiping the “right God”. It also provided them food. (It also was a representation of the living Manna from heaven, Jesus Christ.)

Should God give the people now manna to (1) feed the poor and (2) provide evidence to “reveal Himself” to man? (Note: I am not talking about the Eucharist.)

I think the children of Israel were just coming out of a situation where they had lost track of their covenants, and were living like the people around them (the Egyptians). That is evidenced by what they did when Moses didn’t come back off the mountain right away.

We have the Bible in the latter days, which is a far different thing than what the children of Israel had and what they were using to guide their daily lives. God reveals Himself to man through the Bible in large measure. It would be like going back to the days of the children of Israel in the wilderness to think that God needed to provide the kind of “stone tablets” evidence to “reveal Himself to man” in the latter days. He reveals Himself to man through the Bible and through the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ.

The Book of Mormon provides a second witness to that process of “revealing Himself to man” and a second witness that the Bible is true, including that the atonement is the keystone of the gospel and that covenant making with God and Christ are central to gaining exaltation.

It would defeat God’s purposes regarding faith and seeking the Holy Spirit (promised by Christ) to provide an external physical evidence that did not match the New Testament teaching of how the Holy Spirit is brought into a person’s life. It might be impressive, but God doesn’t necessarily do things to impress us. He always does the particular right thing to help us toward gaining exaltation if we desire that and desire to make the choices leading to that.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Lax16,

The Book of Mormon provides a second witness to that process of “revealing Himself to man” and a second witness that the Bible is true, including that the atonement is the keystone of the gospel and that covenant making with God and Christ are central to gaining exaltation.

There was no need for a “second witness”. Had the Bible been written by one man, then yes, a second witness might be needed. But that is not the case. It is written by many people, each a witness. The Book of Mormon IS full of good teaching. Which is not a surprise since the KJV was used as a guide for the story. But it is not “scripture” and it is not factual. While you and I can go to places mentioned in the Bible, we cannot go to places mentioned in the B of M. No cities exist. No huge areas of bones have been found as a witness to the battles where thousands and thousands and thousands of people died. No non-LDS archeologist has ever found anything that is related to the Book of Mormon (while non-Christian archeologists have found things that relate to the Bible).

I have read the Book of Mormon many times. It DOES teach good. But, there are a lot of books on the religious bookshelf at Border’s that teach good and are not Scripture.

I really wish the LDS was true. I really do. I loved being LDS and I loved my mission. I loved the cammeraderie of the LDS Church. I loved the togetherness. I loved visiting Palmyra, Navoo, Cathage, Liberty Jail, and Kirtland. I loved going to the Temple (I attended Idaho Falls, Jordon River, Salt Lake, Chicago, Washington, DC, Provo, and Guatamala (and maybe one or two more I can;t recall right now). I truly love watching General Conference (Elder Holland is my favorite. I have always like L. Tom Perry, but mainly because he was my pen pal on my mission and I have a picture of he and I together). I wish so much it was true. But, it isn’t. There is too much that points to its lack of truth.

I hope someday, you can come to realize this.

Peace

 

[PJM]

[QUOT]E=mark a;6605168]Mormons have a love of God, family, and Christian behavior second to none. And if it takes calling another Church apostate to achieve this, so be it.

My dear Brother in Christ;

As an Informed, practicing Catholic Iam a skeptic of the Mormon Faith.

I would greatly appreciate a few things being clarified and CERTIFIED. [Please prove your position].

What is the Mormon understanding of “God”

What is the Morman understanding of “Jesus Christ”

What is the Mormon position of “heaven and hell?”

I certainly agree with you’re position of Morality; being pretty much in line with the CC.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[lax16]

ParkerD;6609955:

Lax16,

I really wish the LDS was true. I really do. I loved being LDS and I loved my mission. I loved the cammeraderie of the LDS Church. I loved the togetherness. I loved visiting Palmyra, Navoo, Cathage, Liberty Jail, and Kirtland. I loved going to the Temple (I attended Idaho Falls, Jordon River, Salt Lake, Chicago, Washington, DC, Provo, and Guatamala (and maybe one or two more I can;t recall right now). I truly love watching General Conference (Elder Holland is my favorite. I have always like L. Tom Perry, but mainly because he was my pen pal on my mission and I have a picture of he and I together). I wish so much it was true. But, it isn’t. There is too much that points to its lack of truth.

Atticus - You hit the nail on the head. Over and over again I hear from LDS that they “love” being LDS or it makes them “happy.” Some like the programs for the kids (esp scouts), some like knowing who their kids are playing with, some like meals coming to the house when a baby is born…whatever it is, they “love” it.

However, as you have pointed out, (and as I have just pointed out another thread) history and archaelogy tell another story that completely discredits Mormonism as a religion. Now the social stuff is pretty good. But that is not religion.

If Mormons could bring into the Catholic Church their knowledge and experience in these areas it would be incredible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The LDS church, and thus LDS people, are pragmatic in their approach to morality, ie, what is good for the people, here and now. This does not align to Catholic morality.

 

[Answersplease]

ParkerD;6609955:

Lax16,

The Book of Mormon provides a second witness to that process of “revealing Himself to man” and a second witness that the Bible is true, including that the atonement is the keystone of the gospel and that covenant making with God and Christ are central to gaining exaltation.

There was no need for a “second witness”. Had the Bible been written by one man, then yes, a second witness might be needed. But that is not the case. It is written by many people, each a witness. The Book of Mormon IS full of good teaching. Which is not a surprise since the KJV was used as a guide for the story. But it is not “scripture” and it is not factual. While you and I can go to places mentioned in the Bible, we cannot go to places mentioned in the B of M. No cities exist. No huge areas of bones have been found as a witness to the battles where thousands and thousands and thousands of people died. No non-LDS archeologist has ever found anything that is related to the Book of Mormon (while non-Christian archeologists have found things that relate to the Bible).

I have read the Book of Mormon many times. It DOES teach good. But, there are a lot of books on the religious bookshelf at Border’s that teach good and are not Scripture.

I really wish the LDS was true. I really do. I loved being LDS and I loved my mission. I loved the cammeraderie of the LDS Church. I loved the togetherness. I loved visiting Palmyra, Navoo, Cathage, Liberty Jail, and Kirtland. I loved going to the Temple (I attended Idaho Falls, Jordon River, Salt Lake, Chicago, Washington, DC, Provo, and Guatamala (and maybe one or two more I can;t recall right now). I truly love watching General Conference (Elder Holland is my favorite. I have always like L. Tom Perry, but mainly because he was my pen pal on my mission and I have a picture of he and I together). I wish so much it was true. But, it isn’t. There is too much that points to its lack of truth.

I hope someday, you can come to realize this.

Peace

You need to keep the end quote marker to make a quotation box, it looks like this:

All quotes need an end quote marker:
and a begin quote marker:

I had to show you the end quote marker first, before the begin quote marker, because whenever you put them in the right order, they will make a quotation box.

 

[Answersplease]

The LDS church, and thus LDS people, are pragmatic in their approach to morality, ie, what is good for the people, here and now. This does not align to Catholic morality.

Answersplease:

I doubt that The Holy Spirit guides people into lying.

Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 ‘Messenger and Advocate’ reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that ‘we must lie to protect brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.’

Not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage.
…

-Richard van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, pp. 38-39

 

[ParkerD]

1845 quote

That particular research may have been a bit faulty, since Joseph Smith was killed June 27, 1844. Also, Sidney Rigdon by 1845 was no longer associated with the LDS church.

I hope any current readers of this thread will read the opening OP, with the verses from the Book of Mormon that give such a beautiful expression of building one’s foundation on the rock of Jesus Christ.

 

[pinay]

The LDS church, and thus LDS people, are pragmatic in their approach to morality, ie, what is good for the people, here and now. This does not align to Catholic morality.

Hello Rebecca,

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If my understanding is correct, you are trying to say that the Mormon idea of morality is only for what’s practical here and now?

That is actually quite the opposite. Everything the LDS teaches is in light of the eternities.

Let’s take a very simple example - LDS scripture commonly referred to as the “Word of Wisdom” advices members to abstain from coffee. This is not for the here and now alone. This is in light of the effect coffee has to the Spirit. Chemical dependency affects one’s spirituality which could affect the spirit’s state after mortality.

Roman Catholics and LDS are actually pretty close - closer than most other Christian churches when it comes to morality.