C
campeador
Guest
Please, take it easy on the new guy…
- Status
C
chris2009
Guest
Sounds good Hope. I’m sorry if I came off rudely.
C
chris2009
Guest
I’m sorry if I came off as defensive. I’ve heard people say a lot of garbage about my religion and I do everything I can to defend it & clarify misunderstandings.
We believe Jesus’ earthly father was Father in heaven and Jesus’ earthly mother was the Virgin Mary. Some speculate, but it hasn’t been revealed how this all occurred. We have always referred to Mary as a virgin.
This is also taught by prophets in the Book of Mormon.
“13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!” (1 Nephi 11)
“10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.” (Alma 7:10)
In all 40 years of being a member of the LDS church, serving a full-time mission, serving in the bishopric, I don’t recall ever hearing of Mary as being referred to as “celestial mother”. Although I think that would be a good title.
C
chris2009
Guest
Bring it on. I’m thoroughly confident in my religion. However, I only have so much time to reply…Please, take it easy on the new guy…
C
chris2009
Guest
Hi Paul,
I have learned enough LDS history and doctrine to realize that it is all true. Did you serve an LDS mission? If so, where did you serve?
T
TheosisM
Guest
Please, take it easy on the new guy…
Don’t worry, welcome to the forum!
C
campeador
Guest
TheosisM,
To avoid confusion for new members in the future, maybe you could call yourself Catholic in your profile. You’re not trying to ambush some poor Protestant (or Catholic) are you?
To avoid confusion for new members in the future, maybe you could call yourself Catholic in your profile. You’re not trying to ambush some poor Protestant (or Catholic) are you?
T
TheosisM
Guest
Yes, I am
I have various reasons as to why I do not list my religion, and prefer not to discuss the matter.Though I do think that it’s interesting that whether someone lists their religion (and what it is) affects how the content of their posts is interpreted (I’ve seen this before, and have done it myself). But that’s just me channeling my psychology degree.
Anyway, back to the topic!
C
chris2009
Guest
This is a vain attempt to discredit Joseph Smith. What you are saying is false. Congratulations, you are fulfilling Moroni’s prophecy to Joseph as a young farm boy. Joseph speaking of his experience of Angel Moroni’s visit said,
“33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” (Joseph Smith- History 1:33)
ALL nations? ALL kindreds? ALL tongues? That’s quite a stretch for a farm boy in 1823 in upstate New York. Don’t you think? But the prophecy is fulfilled by all of you here today.
You know, it is interesting how the Bible makes a better case that the Father and Son are two seperate personages than the Book of Mormon does. But the Book of Mormon still teaches of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being seperate beings.
Here is just one example in the Book of Mormon:
“2 I perceive that ye are weak, that ye cannot understand all my words which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you at this time.
3 Therefore, go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again.
4 But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.” (3 Nephi 17)
So are you saying Jesus commanded himself and spoke to himself? And then later left and went to himself?
The arguement is so silly I can’t believe I’m defending this.
Please show me where in the Book of Mormon where the modalistic view of the Godhead is taught. It is no different than the Bible showing they are “one” in purpose.
C
campeador
Guest
Friend, it seems in your arrogance, you’ve decided on you own that you don’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If you’re ashamed of your religion just say so. Otherwise it just seems like you’re playing psychologist with everyone here.
I call that un-christian.
Please be considerate of others here.
T
TheosisM
Guest
And the rules do not state that one has to list their religion (and many do not), so perhaps you would do well to take your personal attack elsewhere (which is against the forum rules, as is questioning the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs).
C
chris2009
Guest
To be fair, if you read one side of the story, you should read the other side also. This is what an honest investigator would do. If I want to learn about Catholics, I don’t go to your enemies to learn.
Smith was a con man, huh? So you must believe this is the biggest con in the history of the earth. With 14 million members world-wide, this is a big deal. The LDS church makes some pretty bold claims. Either it is true and of God or false and of the devil. There is no room for any middle ground. Other churches don’t dare make such bold claims. Most like to keep with what is popular in the world from one generation to the next.
I’ve heard this theory before and it doesn’t add up. There are very few quotes used from the KJV Bible. In a few minor areas, the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah and of course Jesus taught the Nephites the same teachings as he did in Jerusalem. Besides this, the Book of Mormon is all original work. The NT quotes the OT. I would think the BofM would quote the OT also. Of course the Book of Mormon quotes other OT prophets that we don’t have today also - like Zenos and Zenock. The Book of Mormon’s Jacob chapter 5 allegory of the olive tree is amazing.
In addition, Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found” is really much different than the Book of Mormon. The Spaulding manuscript talks of Romans sailing to the Americas. They pry open a stone box and find an ancient manuscript. These are the only similarities. Those creating affidavits to sue Joseph Smith were all enemies of the church trying to stop the work. These affidavits have since been proven to be false. It was suggested a second Spaulding Manuscript was lost, but there has been no evidence found of this.
There was another book called “View of the Hebrews” by Ethan Smith published in 1823.
Ethan Smith was a pastor for the Congregationalist Church in Vermont. He did extensive research throughout America regarding the indian people. He spoke with many indian tribes. He firmly believes the American Indians to be a lost branch of the tribes of Israel. He believes their language evolved from Hebrew. He has some incredible evidence to back this up. Read the book here:
books.google.com/books?id=thFZYLuCY_4C&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Again, here is another evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I never said I did not. How do you think I know the basic format of a FAIR “apologetic”? Usually includes very few facts, a lot of speculation, disparages the Bible, and top it off with red herrings. If there is a particular author that is being countered, throw in plenty of ad hominem attacks against the author.
Many more are deceived in other ways. 14 million is nothing. There are approx. 75 million Muslims in Turkey alone. Bold claims about truth does not make the claims true.
But I can agree, either it is true or of the devil.
Yeah, ok. You can also read the Book of Zelph.
You can easily do the research on studies that have been done about the authorship of the BoM. There are several long threads on the subject here. You can search for them rather than going through it all, again, in this thread.
As I said, Rigdon was the editor. Do you think he was an idiot? He had to modify the story enough that the plagiarism wasn’t that obvious.
Yes, it was a common folk belief of the time and place. Just because a person thinks such ideas, does not make them true. After all, according to Joseph Smith there are Quakers on the moon.
The facts do not back up either claim.
Look to Christ, not myths.
C
chris2009
Guest
With all due respect to pinay, he is incorrect. Maybe he misunderstood. Smith saw the Father and the Son from the very beginning. Joseph may not have fully understood things until later, but after the First Vision he knew the Father and Son were two seperate personages.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
No one has seen the Father.
C
chris2009
Guest
Holy cow, you really love your anti-mormon material. Straight from the book. I have found FAIR to be incredibly honest and fair. Of course they are going to defend the church against every attack and they should. Can you provide evidence of speculation, disparaging the Bible and attacks from FAIR? I have not been able to find this. I know they do thorough research and provide verifiable sources for all their material. Perhaps you are just saying this because you disagree. Some people really have no intention of having their questions answered. The claims you are repeating from the anti-mormon material are very strange. Do you really believe Joseph Smith believed Quakers were on the moon? I’ve heard the one about Brigham Young believing giant green men 10 feet tall living on the moon from anti’s, but this Quaker thing is a new one to me. Pretty entertaining. Oh, and did you know that Mormon’s have horns too?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
ad hominem #1
The link you posted.
ad hominem #2
red herring
Mormon tactic #1 - diversion
As I said, you don’t know your own history.
C
chris2009
Guest
Here is the truth about your Quaker/moon idea. It is FALSE. It came from an elderly member’s journal about 50 years after the supposed rumor. Is this the scholarly work you rely upon for your claims?
"The idea that Joseph taught the moon is inhabited comes from the writing of Oliver B. Huntington in 1881 (his journal) and in 1892 (the Young Woman’s Journal). Huntington claimed that Joseph Smith’s father had given him a patriarchal blessing in 1837 which promised that he would preach the gospel to the moon inhabitants.
Close examination reveals that Huntington was only ten years old when he was given this blessing and that his recollections were made over fifty years later. Also, it turns out that the blessing was given by his own father, not Joseph Smith’s father.
According to a copy of the blessing in the Church archives (Blessing Book, vol.9, pp.294-95), it was only one of many given the same day at the same meeting, and none were recorded in detail at the time. Orson Pratt took sketchy notes as the blessings were given, then filled in details later by consulting those who were there. An examination of the blessing shows that the recorded blessing was much more vague than Huntington remembered.
It also appears that Huntington may have picked up on a rumor that Joseph Smith had given a description of the inhabitants of the moon. This description, which Huntington recorded in his journal, is the original source of the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph described the moon inhabitants. Because his journal is also cited in a Young Woman’s publication of the Church, it supposedly gives more credibility to the critics. The statement, which appeared in a two-page article by Oliver B. Huntington entitled “The Inhabitants of the Moon” in the Young Woman’s Journal, is as follows:
As far back as 1837, I know that he Joseph SmithJ said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we d~that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (Young Woman’s Journal, Vol.3, p.263).
From what is quoted here, the most we can conclude is that 0. B. Huntington was familiar with rumors of statements that were attributed to Joseph Smith. However, there is nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith or those who recorded his words prior to his death that even hints of any these views about inhabitants on the moon. This earliest recollection was recorded in 1881, 37 years after the prophet’s death."
C
campeador
Guest
chris2009,
With all due respect sir, you copy&pasted most of that response from somewhere else. You should at least provide a link to where you’re getting this info.
Maybe you can tell us the truth about the Brigham Young/sun idea… w/links.
With all due respect sir, you copy&pasted most of that response from somewhere else. You should at least provide a link to where you’re getting this info.
Maybe you can tell us the truth about the Brigham Young/sun idea… w/links.
C
chris2009
Guest
I’ve got an answer for you Rebecca.
"The critics have, however, failed to notice a very significant phrase located in the introductory paragraph of the Prophet’s historical narrative. There he indicates that the 1832 document is . . .
“A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough [it] forth and established [it] by his hand he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—<—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—>and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God.”
This paragraph not only introduces the document with a heavy emphasis on the Son of God but it also chronologically outlines four inaugural events of the Restoration.
FIRST: Reception of “the testimony from on high” - First Vision
SECOND: The “ministering of angels” - Moroni visitations
THIRD: Reception of the Holy Priesthood to administer the letter of the gospel - Aaronic
FOURTH: Reception of the High Priesthood after the order of the Son - Melchizedek"
en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Only_one_Personage_appears
The 1832 historical narrative from the prophet Joseph mentions that he received “the testimony from on high” when describing the First Vision. Later Joseph provided more details of the First Vision with the Father saying, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” From “on high” is used in other scriptures in reference to the Father. This testimony from on high shows Joseph knew the Father was there from the very beginning even though Joseph gave a brief description in the first account with his poor grammer.
In addition, the Book of Mormon does not teach a modalistic Godhead as you suppose. I’m asking you to provide evidence I am wrong.
- Status