Joseph Smith's Seer Stone Photos Released

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have long found the naturalistic explanations for the BOM and the CoJCoLDS to be far less compelling than the solely naturalistic explanations for 5th century Christianity. I believe that 5th century Christianity has supernatural sources just as I believe the BOM has supernatural sources. Some things on this thread lead me to believe that Catholics here were looking for a non-naturalistic way of explaining the BOM.
If that is not the point, then what is the point?
It would seem to me that in the naturalistic world in which I live, the existence of a seer stone would be a way to embarrass the CoJCoLDS. Is that your point. Those with flying spaghetti monster bumper stickers will surely align their selves with you here.
Hi TOm - thanks for discussing this topic with us!

What do you mean by naturalistic explanations for the BoM?
What 5th century Christian supernatural sources are you referring to?

What is embarrassing is that I remember that anyone who thought JS received the BoM by peering into a hat was ANTI-Mormon now it is being explained as something good. Also, to say that JS used the same stone for treasure seeking is terribly embarrassing now matter how they try to spin it.
First, give me truth. But if all claims were equally likely (and I of course do not think they are) I would expect God’s church to be a divine church with public revelation instead of a church that claims that public revelation ended about 2000 years ago. My engineering mind might not appreciate seer stones, but it doesn’t appreciate turning water into wine or men rising from the dead either. This doesn’t of course mean that the weird is somehow compelling evidence for truth, just that it has very little negative impact if any.
Charity, TOm
But, TOm, the stone doesn’t even match the description given to us by the witnesses. At least Christians have been consistent for 2,000 years regarding turning water into wine and men rising from the dead, even though some find it unbelievable.
 
Hello Lax16,
I hope I will not have TOO much to say.

I am not sure you answered my question about the purpose of this thread. Again it seems to me to be either offering non-naturalistic explanations for the CoJCoLDS OR it is just here to say Mormonism is too weird and cannot be true.

By naturalistic, I mean something that Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris could embrace.
Before I even weigh the evidence associated with my encounters with God (evidence by its nature only I can know about, “inside the mailbox as C.S. Lewis says”), I can weave a Daniel Dennett story about how Christianity came to exist in the 5th century (as it existed in the 5th century not to mention the even more scientifically pleasing Christianity of today) easier than I can weave a Daniel Dennett story about how the CoJCoLDS came to be what it is. I find the BOM to connect with things that Daniel Dennett could see and understand in ways that defy explanation. I find 5th century Christianity with its Jesus walked on water stories easier to explain in a way pleasing to Dennett.
So, were I to decide that the BOM is best explained via naturalistic means, I would then find it easy to apply those tools to 5th century and 1st century Christianity (as seen from the 21st century) and say it is best explained via naturalistic means.

Sometimes you speak as if you were once a member long ago and other times you speak as if you have never been a member. I was not a member long ago. Unlike Isaiah Bennett, my conversion to the CoJCoLDS was a considered thing. I encountered anti-Mormonism before I joined and became fascinated by it before my son (who is on a mission) was born.

I am not sure what to make of your, “What is embarrassing…” I suspect you think that I should be quite upset that many folks taught a version of translation that didn’t involve a hat or stone. I doubt you mean that you are embarrassed else you probably wouldn’t be chanting, “look here, look here!”

Now, perhaps I shouldn’t have chosen “water and wine” or “raising from the dead.” Maybe I should have chosen “trees bowing down for the Christ child” or “clay animals being made alive that then fly away.” Good 2nd century stuff there.

You said, “Consistent for 2000 years?” 2015 today -1830 (restoration) equals the CoJCoLDS 185th year. You think the Christianity of your day is like the Christianity of 185-218AD? You think there were not volumes of folks who told stories about “trees bowing down” and Christ killing kids he played with (then raising them from the dead)? You think anyone knew that Christianity was not to be lead by revelation? Certainly Tertullian thought that would be a dead church. St. Irenaeus used Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably so you might not recognize that distinction if you were back in 200AD either (and by all accounts, Irenaeus would be more like Nibley or Talmage and less like “joe six pack”). Oh and who would be the first Bishop of Rome after the apostles, if you were in the Roman church in 200AD you would likely say Clement (or so said Jerome of the Roman church), but now we say Linus. That seems like an important “bishops list” to have so much disagreement about, maybe it is all fables and fiction? And many scholars like Father Francis Sullivan think that if you were in the Roman Church of Clement’s day you would likely only see Clement as the spokesman of the Roman presbyters.

Returning to the topic, I generally follow Richard Bushman’s explanation of seer stone and … and I do not think he neglected a single thing mentioned in this thread. I am actually not embarrassed, should I be?

Charity, TOm
 
Hello Lax16,
I hope I will not have TOO much to say.

I am not sure you answered my question about the purpose of this thread. Again it seems to me to be either offering non-naturalistic explanations for the CoJCoLDS OR it is just here to say Mormonism is too weird and cannot be true.
Isn’t the seer stone big news?

I have absolutely no idea what non-naturalistic explanations for Mormonism might be, so I certainly didn’t start a thread for you to offer them.

What is weird is that Joseph Smith used a seer stone for treasure hunting AND to read the
Book of Mormon out of a hat. That Mormon artwork depicted JS looking at golden tablets while sitting at a table. That his mother-in-law said the seer stones looked like diamonds. That Mormons don’t find it problematic that JS was known for his association with magic.
By naturalistic, I mean something that Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris could embrace.
Before I even weigh the evidence associated with my encounters with God (evidence by its nature only I can know about, “inside the mailbox as C.S. Lewis says”), I can weave a Daniel Dennett story about how Christianity came to exist in the 5th century (as it existed in the 5th century not to mention the even more scientifically pleasing Christianity of today) easier than I can weave a Daniel Dennett story about how the CoJCoLDS came to be what it is. I find the BOM to connect with things that Daniel Dennett could see and understand in ways that defy explanation. I find 5th century Christianity with its Jesus walked on water stories easier to explain in a way pleasing to Dennett.
So, were I to decide that the BOM is best explained via naturalistic means, I would then find it easy to apply those tools to 5th century and 1st century Christianity (as seen from the 21st century) and say it is best explained via naturalistic means.
Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris? I don’t know who they are.
Sometimes you speak as if you were once a member long ago and other times you speak as if you have never been a member. I was not a member long ago. Unlike Isaiah Bennett, my conversion to the CoJCoLDS was a considered thing. I encountered anti-Mormonism before I joined and became fascinated by it before my son (who is on a mission) was born.
I have never been a member and I have never said I was. I live in Utah and have had (now ex) Mormon friends for 25 years.
I am not sure what to make of your, “What is embarrassing…” I suspect you think that I should be quite upset that many folks taught a version of translation that didn’t involve a hat or stone. I doubt you mean that you are embarrassed else you probably wouldn’t be chanting, “look here, look here!”
I am not surprised to hear you say this new information doesn’t bother you. You always say that when the Mormon church contradicts itself.
Now, perhaps I shouldn’t have chosen “water and wine” or “raising from the dead.” Maybe I should have chosen “trees bowing down for the Christ child” or “clay animals being made alive that then fly away.” Good 2nd century stuff there.
Again, I have no idea what you are referring to here.
You said, “Consistent for 2000 years?” 2015 today -1830 (restoration) equals the CoJCoLDS 185th year. You think the Christianity of your day is like the Christianity of 185-218AD? You think there were not volumes of folks who told stories about “trees bowing down” and Christ killing kids he played with (then raising them from the dead)? You think anyone knew that Christianity was not to be lead by revelation? Certainly Tertullian thought that would be a dead church. St. Irenaeus used Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably so you might not recognize that distinction if you were back in 200AD either (and by all accounts, Irenaeus would be more like Nibley or Talmage and less like “joe six pack”). Oh and who would be the first Bishop of Rome after the apostles, if you were in the Roman church in 200AD you would likely say Clement (or so said Jerome of the Roman church), but now we say Linus. That seems like an important “bishops list” to have so much disagreement about, maybe it is all fables and fiction? And many scholars like Father Francis Sullivan think that if you were in the Roman Church of Clement’s day you would likely only see Clement as the spokesman of the Roman presbyters.
The teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed. No matter how many words you put into a response does not change the facts.
Returning to the topic, I generally follow Richard Bushman’s explanation of seer stone and … and I do not think he neglected a single thing mentioned in this thread. I am actually not embarrassed, should I be?
Charity, TOm
Richard who?
Yes, it is embarrassing that JS used seer stones for treasure hunting at the same time he claimed to receive the BoM with them.
 
I have long found the naturalistic explanations for the BOM and the CoJCoLDS to be far less compelling than the solely naturalistic explanations for 5th century Christianity. I believe that 5th century Christianity has supernatural sources just as I believe the BOM has supernatural sources. Some things on this thread lead me to believe that Catholics here were looking for a non-naturalistic way of explaining the BOM.
If that is not the point, then what is the point?
It would seem to me that in the naturalistic world in which I live, the existence of a seer stone would be a way to embarrass the CoJCoLDS. Is that your point. Those with flying spaghetti monster bumper stickers will surely align their selves with you here.

First, give me truth. But if all claims were equally likely (and I of course do not think they are) I would expect God’s church to be a divine church with public revelation instead of a church that claims that public revelation ended about 2000 years ago. My engineering mind might not appreciate seer stones, but it doesn’t appreciate turning water into wine or men rising from the dead either. This doesn’t of course mean that the weird is somehow compelling evidence for truth, just that it has very little negative impact if any.

Charity, TOm
From my perspective, LDS Church leaders lie, beginning with Joseph Smith. So pretty much the COB could release a photo of a blue sky, and I’d question that it wasn’t in fact misrepresenting a day in SLC that everyone knew was cloudy.

So what evidence? A photo of a photo? A claim to occult folk magic as sourced from God? What am I supposed to be impressed about, exactly?
 
I have long found the naturalistic explanations for the BOM and the CoJCoLDS to be far less compelling than the solely naturalistic explanations for 5th century Christianity. I believe that 5th century Christianity has supernatural sources just as I believe the BOM has supernatural sources. Some things on this thread lead me to believe that Catholics here were looking for a non-naturalistic way of explaining the BOM.
If that is not the point, then what is the point?
It would seem to me that in the naturalistic world in which I live, the existence of a seer stone would be a way to embarrass the CoJCoLDS. Is that your point. Those with flying spaghetti monster bumper stickers will surely align their selves with you here.

First, give me truth. But if all claims were equally likely (and I of course do not think they are) I would expect God’s church to be a divine church with public revelation instead of a church that claims that public revelation ended about 2000 years ago. My engineering mind might not appreciate seer stones, but it doesn’t appreciate turning water into wine or men rising from the dead either. This doesn’t of course mean that the weird is somehow compelling evidence for truth, just that it has very little negative impact if any.

Charity, TOm
Here is Truth - Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the light. Truth - One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. Truth - Jesus Christ gave the Church to the Apostles and it had has continued since then. Truth - Over 2000 years of verifiable Truth.

TOm - Given the great ability God has shown us, His faithful, for more than 2000 years it’s just nonsense He would have done what JS said He did. God also would not have contradicted Himself, telling us He was the God throughout the Old Testament, then telling JS 1800 years later that opps He was wrong, LDS men can become gods.
 
Thank you for warning me. I will respectfully decline, though.

I say ‘what the heck’ when I post, generally. If I can be moderated for calling a priest that doesn’t believe in evangelism a coward, then I can be moderated for anything. People will call my religion a religion of hatred and imperialism, but don’t get so much as a slap on the wrist. The moderators don’t even try to be consistent.
From what little I know about Sufi Islam, it’s rather peaceful…
…Unfortunately Sufism is believed to be heretical & they are persecuted most places they live.
…In any event I thought your comment was in light hearted humor - I liked it.

Is that accurate?
 
The LDS Church has always been in possession of the seer stone Joseph Smith claimed to use while translating the Book of Mormon. However, they are just now publishing the information and photographs in an effort to become more transparent.

sltrib.com/news/2802019-155/mormon-church-releases-photos-of-seer

Does this conflict with the Bible regarding sorcery?

What about the belief depicted in paintings that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon while seated at a table instead of looking into a hat with a seer stone?
I think this is a move by Mormon leadership to slowly move the Book of Mormon from a history to an allegory. The Book of Abraham is no longer being sold as a translation but as a “revelation.” This could also be a step in that direction for the Book of Mormon.

Mormons have always tried to equate the Book of Mormon stories with the stories of the New Testament. Many stories in the New Testament are based on our faith in the original followers of Christ just like Mormons based their believe in the Book of Mormon on their faith in Joseph Smith. But a Mormon cannot equate the origins of the two. The New Testament is a first century document whether you believe the stories or not. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century document whether you believe the stories or not. The problem for Mormons is that Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was an ancient history; which it is not. This would shake the faith of a reasonable thinking person in Joseph Smith and their faith in the Book of Mormon.

The Mormon Church has already moved away from Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon. Now it can move away from claiming it is a history at all.
 
I think this is a move by Mormon leadership to slowly move the Book of Mormon from a history to an allegory. The Book of Abraham is no longer being sold as a translation but as a “revelation.” This could also be a step in that direction for the Book of Mormon.

Mormons have always tried to equate the Book of Mormon stories with the stories of the New Testament. Many stories in the New Testament are based on our faith in the original followers of Christ just like Mormons based their believe in the Book of Mormon on their faith in Joseph Smith. But a Mormon cannot equate the origins of the two. The New Testament is a first century document whether you believe the stories or not. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century document whether you believe the stories or not. The problem for Mormons is that Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was an ancient history; which it is not. This would shake the faith of a reasonable thinking person in Joseph Smith and their faith in the Book of Mormon.

The Mormon Church has already moved away from Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon. Now it can move away from claiming it is a history at all.
I have read on ex-Mormon boards that many members have had their faith shaken or they know of very faithful family members that are fed up.

I think you are correct that we may see the day that the LDS church no longer considers the BoM a historical account. It will shake the belief of many that still think the Nephites and Lamanites really existed.
 
Isn’t the seer stone big news?
It seems to be. I have thought the seer stone was involved in the translation of the BOM for years so it was not particularly shocking to me.
I have absolutely no idea what non-naturalistic explanations for Mormonism might be, so I certainly didn’t start a thread for you to offer them.

What is weird is that Joseph Smith used a seer stone for treasure hunting AND to read the
Book of Mormon out of a hat. That Mormon artwork depicted JS looking at golden tablets while sitting at a table. That his mother-in-law said the seer stones looked like diamonds. That Mormons don’t find it problematic that JS was known for his association with magic.
Magic is a non-naturalistic explanation for the BOM and Mormonism. Is that what you are offering to explain?

Concerning weird:
I read Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction. I enjoyed it. Some of the criticisms offered by anti-Catholics I had already put to bed, some I had never heard of, and some I think were mitigated by Patrick’s words. For the purpose of this response, I want to share a general impression. Spending time with Patrick’s book did not make Catholicism appealing. Focusing on 30 things that critics of Catholicism have used to attack Catholicism, even as related by a preeminent apologist, do not make Catholicism seem more likely to be true EXCEPT in that in some instances such discussion can remove an impediment to becoming Catholic. Almost nothing made Catholic truth claims more likely.
The treatment of the CoJCoLDS by posters here is very similar. I suspect that if I didn’t attend sacrament weekly; participate in blessing, temple rites, lessons, …; and read positive things about the CoJCoLDS and about the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS; I might agree with posters here that it is “nonsense,” “crazy,” “a bunch of hooey,” “ludicrous,” …. But, I do all those other things too. Until I think it likely any man, Joseph Smith or Solomon Spalding or some other man could produce the BOM, I will be stuck with the need to explain the BOM via supernatural explanations. That those supernatural explanations involved God and a seer stone, God and the Urim and Thummim, and/or God and direct personal revelation to a simple farmboy ALL are fantastic claims that I believe not because I have had the same experiences Joseph claims, but because I need the supernatural to explain the BOM. The addition of talking lizards (abandoned as an explanation for the BOM before I was a member, but very influential in the journey of Grant Palmer) would again make things weirder, but it would do nothing to convince me that Joseph Smith or some other 19th century man could create the BOM and the CoJCoLDS.

I tend to believe that men in Palestine experiences miracles performed by Jesus the Christ. The need to explain these, left them unable to believe that these things were no different than the normal occurrences in their lives. That Jesus was God the Son, fantastic as that may seem, was an explanation preferred by thousands. Some were so convinced of this they spent their lives (and even gave their lives) telling others this truth. While the purpose of Joseph Smith was to point people to Christ (like prophets and apostles of old), not be “the Christ” the experiences he had and those around him had left “them unable to believe that these things were no different than the normal occurrences in their lives.” That Joseph Smith communicated with God and restored the “divine church” was an explanation preferred by thousands.

My review from 2015 of these events leads me to the same conclusion. And again my review of 2015 of all I know about the Christian church of the 5th century leaves me unwilling to believe the things that occurred from 5BC to 450AD were “no different than the normal occurrences in my life.” But it would be EASIER for me to believe that the start of early church was just human and not supernatural than for me to believe that what happened to create the restoration was just human and not supernatural.

cont…
 
Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris? I don’t know who they are.

Again, I have no idea what you are referring to here.

Richard who?
That you do not know Dennett and Harris means you are not paying much attention to Atheists who are trying to tear down faith in God. That is fine, and I have not seen you make anti-Atheist arguments.

That you have no idea what I am talking about when I speak of things that would have been part of Christianity from 185-215 means that you are not giving the difficult things within the early Christian Church near the amount of attention that you give to the difficult things in the early CoJCoLDS. I submit this makes believe Catholicism is rational and Mormonism is irrational much easier. And I might point out while I have encountered almost every criticism of the CoJCoLDS offered on this board before it was offered here, I have encountered almost NONE of them in my day to day worship, just like you have encountered very little difficult history in your day to day worship as a Catholic.

That you do not know Richard Bushman means that you are not interacting with one of (and presumably many of) the best minds in the CoJCoLDS. Richard spoke of Seer Stones long ago and covered all that you have revealed here. He also didn’t mock himself, his co-religionists, or even the critics of the CoJCoLDS with words like, “nonsense,” “crazy,” “a bunch of hooey,” and “ludicrous.” (Note: These words are lifted from Catholics on this thread not from Lax16).
The teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed. No matter how many words you put into a response does not change the facts.
I could never believe what you just said is true. The teachings of the Catholic Church MAY be said to have DEVELOPED over time, or maybe they have been PERVERTED over time, but unchanged they are not. If you have not read Cardinal Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” you should. Newman was a brilliant High Church Anglican. He KNEW that history clearly taught that there was CHANGE. He came to believe that there was no way to embrace Anglican truth claims and reject unique Catholic developments, and he became a Catholic.

I hope I have clarified my thoughts some.
Charity, TOm
 
I am not surprised to hear you say this new information doesn’t bother you. You always say that when the Mormon church contradicts itself.
There is no defense for Mormonism, so just he pretends there is, and attacks the Catholic Church.
I have read on ex-Mormon boards that many members have had their faith shaken or they know of very faithful family members that are fed up.

I think you are correct that we may see the day that the LDS church no longer considers the BoM a historical account. It will shake the belief of many that still think the Nephites and Lamanites really existed.
A rational person would have their faith shaken by the facts surrounding the Book of Mormon. But Mormons rely on faith alone and reject all reason. When a Mormon does engage reason they become ex-Mormons. This is why a Mormon archeologist thought it was a waste of time for Mormons to look for evidence of the Book of Mormon story, because Mormons will believe no matter what.
The teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed. No matter how many words you put into a response does not change the facts.
Yes, Tom uses many words but says little. He makes claims which he has never proven, but a lack of proof is consistent with Mormon thinking.
I could never believe what you just said is true.
I know, even though it is true, you must reject it; facts don’t matter.
The teachings of the Catholic Church MAY be said to have DEVELOPED over time, or maybe they have been PERVERTED over time, but unchanged they are not. If you have not read Cardinal Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” you should. Newman was a brilliant High Church Anglican. He KNEW that history clearly taught that there was CHANGE. He came to believe that there was no way to embrace Anglican truth claims and reject unique Catholic developments, and he became a Catholic.
Cardinal Newman never claimed the Catholic Church CHANGED doctrine; that is why he became Catholic.

There is no rational support for the Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon is history or the Mormon Church is the Church of Christ; that is why throwing stones at the Catholic Church is their only defense. And why is was Mormon doctrine when Mormon Doctrine was Mormon Doctrine.
 
That you do not know Dennett and Harris means you are not paying much attention to Atheists who are trying to tear down faith in God. That is fine, and I have not seen you make anti-Atheist arguments.
Because I live in Utah and have had several Mormon friends I am far more interested in Mormonism than atheism. However, atheism has been popping into my life more and more so I may have to learn more.
That you have no idea what I am talking about when I speak of things that would have been part of Christianity from 185-215 means that you are not giving the difficult things within the early Christian Church near the amount of attention that you give to the difficult things in the early CoJCoLDS. I submit this makes believe Catholicism is rational and Mormonism is irrational much easier. And I might point out while I have encountered almost every criticism of the CoJCoLDS offered on this board before it was offered here, I have encountered almost NONE of them in my day to day worship, just like you have encountered very little difficult history in your day to day worship as a Catholic.
Please tell me about the things that were part of early Christianity that I am ignorant of. I have read quite a bit about the Early Church and would gladly welcome any new information on the subject.
I have not avoided things because they are difficult. Quite the opposite.

I have dedicated time studying the early history of the Mormon church due to the LDS claim of the Great Apostasy. What I found is that the LDS had a great apostasy of their own.
That you do not know Richard Bushman means that you are not interacting with one of (and presumably many of) the best minds in the CoJCoLDS. Richard spoke of Seer Stones long ago and covered all that you have revealed here. He also didn’t mock himself, his co-religionists, or even the critics of the CoJCoLDS with words like, “nonsense,” “crazy,” “a bunch of hooey,” and “ludicrous.” (Note: These words are lifted from Catholics on this thread not from Lax16).
I have not heard of him, however I have found most Mormon historians, apologists and scholars are very busy doing damage control and may not be completely honest in their explanations of Mormon history.
I could never believe what you just said is true. The teachings of the Catholic Church MAY be said to have DEVELOPED over time, or maybe they have been PERVERTED over time, but unchanged they are not. If you have not read Cardinal Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” you should. Newman was a brilliant High Church Anglican. He KNEW that history clearly taught that there was CHANGE. He came to believe that there was no way to embrace Anglican truth claims and reject unique Catholic developments, and he became a Catholic.
I hope I have clarified my thoughts some.
Charity, TOm
I know who Newman is and he is a saint in the Catholic Church. Just because he stated that some concepts may have changed does not mean Catholic TEACHING has changed.

Please provide concrete examples where he said Church teaching has changed.
 
It seems to be. I have thought the seer stone was involved in the translation of the BOM for years so it was not particularly shocking to me.
Maybe not to you, but what about the many Mormons who are hurt by this and may end up running to atheism? Don’t you understand that some Mormons feel, and claim, that if the LDS church has lied to them then ALL churches lie??!! This is a very serious problem that may not affect you, but what about others?

You can’t be happy with ex-Mormons becoming atheists, can you???
Magic is a non-naturalistic explanation for the BOM and Mormonism. Is that what you are offering to explain?
No, Joseph Smith used the seer stone also for treasure seeking, that’s what I am talking about.
Concerning weird:
I read Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction. I enjoyed it. Some of the criticisms offered by anti-Catholics I had already put to bed, some I had never heard of, and some I think were mitigated by Patrick’s words. For the purpose of this response, I want to share a general impression. Spending time with Patrick’s book did not make Catholicism appealing. Focusing on 30 things that critics of Catholicism have used to attack Catholicism, even as related by a preeminent apologist, do not make Catholicism seem more likely to be true EXCEPT in that in some instances such discussion can remove an impediment to becoming Catholic. Almost nothing made Catholic truth claims more likely.
TOm, Catholicism is true because Jesus made it true. Jesus made the claims that His Church is true. You are looking in the wrong places if you think a man is going to convince you.
The treatment of the CoJCoLDS by posters here is very similar. I suspect that if I didn’t attend sacrament weekly; participate in blessing, temple rites, lessons, …; and read positive things about the CoJCoLDS and about the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS; I might agree with posters here that it is “nonsense,” “crazy,” “a bunch of hooey,” “ludicrous,” …. But, I do all those other things too. Until I think it likely any man, Joseph Smith or Solomon Spalding or some other man could produce the BOM, I will be stuck with the need to explain the BOM via supernatural explanations. That those supernatural explanations involved God and a seer stone, God and the Urim and Thummim, and/or God and direct personal revelation to a simple farmboy ALL are fantastic claims that I believe not because I have had the same experiences Joseph claims, but because I need the supernatural to explain the BOM. The addition of talking lizards (abandoned as an explanation for the BOM before I was a member, but very influential in the journey of Grant Palmer) would again make things weirder, but it would do nothing to convince me that Joseph Smith or some other 19th century man could create the BOM and the CoJCoLDS.
It is nonsense because it claims that the church established by Jesus Christ himself is wrong, didn’t last and needed Joseph Smith to restore it. Now we are learning about the person of Joseph Smith, as the LDS church moves to become more transparent, is not the prophet Mormons claimed he was.
I tend to believe that men in Palestine experiences miracles performed by Jesus the Christ. The need to explain these, left them unable to believe that these things were no different than the normal occurrences in their lives. That Jesus was God the Son, fantastic as that may seem, was an explanation preferred by thousands. Some were so convinced of this they spent their lives (and even gave their lives) telling others this truth. While the purpose of Joseph Smith was to point people to Christ (like prophets and apostles of old), not be “the Christ” the experiences he had and those around him had left “them unable to believe that these things were no different than the normal occurrences in their lives.” That Joseph Smith communicated with God and restored the “divine church” was an explanation preferred by thousands.
I am not following you here.
My review from 2015 of these events leads me to the same conclusion. And again my review of 2015 of all I know about the Christian church of the 5th century leaves me unwilling to believe the things that occurred from 5BC to 450AD were “no different than the normal occurrences in my life.” But it would be EASIER for me to believe that the start of early church was just human and not supernatural than for me to believe that what happened to create the restoration was just human and not supernatural.
What do you mean by your review of 2015?
 
TOm - This was from another poster who shared her story about converting to Catholicism from Mormonism and why so many Mormons become atheists:

[The following is the first of a five-part essay offered by Mormon Coffee guest contributor Joshua Valentine (aka spartacus). All five parts of this series will be posted in succession, following our regular schedule of new posts appearing each Monday and Thursday.]

Why do so many Mormons become atheists? Whatever the validity of the observation, online discussions of this topic usually only revolve around the answers of not wanting to be fooled again, burnout, and that the same things that deconstruct Mormonism deconstruct all religions. All of these look outside for an answer, but what about Mormonism, itself? *The very doctrines, teachings, and culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only directs its members toward atheism but actually gives them atheistic beliefs and atheistic perspectives such that, upon exiting the LDS faith, they find themselves closer to atheism on the spectrum of worldviews than to anything else.

In fact, it is Mormon doctrine that actually provides much of the content of an atheist worldview. Mormonism is the most materialistic worldview next to atheism. In Mormon doctrine, it is not the Mormon God or Gods, but Matter, itself, which is truly eternal, having existed from everlasting to everlasting. *With Matter are Eternal Laws or Principles as well. These exist before and independently of the Mormon God. In fact, the Mormon God, like all Gods before him, is himself made up of this eternal matter and subject to these eternal laws or principles. *Joseph Smith taught that spirit was actually matter, just a more “fine” form of it. God, according to Mormonism, had to obey these Eternal Principles in order to progress from eternal fine matter, or “intelligence,” to a god. This is in stark contrast to many religions that assume that independence from, and being the source of, all creation is definitive of what it means to be “God” or the “Ultimate.” However, in LDS cosmology, Matter and Eternal Law are the true Ultimate, not God.

Thus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides its members an understanding of the universe that is nearly identical to that of naturalistic atheism, where matter and its inherent properties that are described by humans as universal physical laws are ultimately all there is. When a member realizes that the Mormon God does not exist, when this deity is removed from the materialist LDS worldview, they are left with a materialist atheist worldview already in place, provided by the LDS Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the Plan of Happiness. *One of the main purposes of the Mormon God is to bring about the eternal life and happiness of mankind. *The LDS Church teaches that traditional family is critical to this happiness. Mormons are known for holding the family in high regard. *Outsiders who study the religion find it difficult not to conclude that Mormons practically deify their family by their devotion to it, and how it plays such a prominent role in the purpose of existence, and the definition of happiness, and even heaven, itself. In fact, the Mormon God is subsumed into the human family as the literal physical father of all spirits. *Mormons are also known for their service to others. With the exalted doctrine of family and the principles of greatest good being service to humans and family, the ex-member has already embraced the highest good in atheist practice – loved ones and humankind.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also teaches that God and humans are of the same kind or species. It teaches that God used to be a regular human and that humans can become Gods. *All Gods and humans started as “intelligences,” or fine spirit matter. By an unknown process, this intelligence is embodied in a spirit body provided by a previous God and Goddess’ reproductive activity. The resultant “spirit child” may eventually obtain a physical body, living on a world as a human. *The human may, upon dying and an unknown number of millennia in the afterlife, attain “exaltation” and become another God, and the process repeats. In this way, the LDS Church teaches that humans are the highest form of life in the universe, and that our development as individuals and the continuation of our posterity are the highest good. This is strongly analogous to the closest thing to purpose in atheism, the development and continuation of species and, the highest form of life in particular, humankind.

The primacy and essentiality of the family in the LDS conception of purpose and eternal happiness does not simply give a sense of idolatry but the “eternal round” of gods making spirit babies, who become humans, who become gods, and repeat endlessly is also a sacralizing of reproduction and genetic continuance. The LDS Church teaches that the glory of God is this eternal increase of his posterity. This increase is also only possible through the most worthy members, those who have overcome the challenges of life and flourished in the LDS gospel of laws and ordinances. One could say that Mormonism is a religion of not only individual evolution from spirit to human to god, but also a religion of the exaltation of the fittest. Upon leaving the LDS Church and relinquishing belief in its transcendent dimensions of god and afterlife, ex-members are by default evolutionary atheists whose highest good and reason for what they do is their own happiness, which in its greatest form is found in benefitting and continuing the human race.

Not to derail the thread, I just want to point out that Mormons becoming atheists due to the fact that they feel they have been lied to is a SERIOUS issue. Therefore, one cannot dismiss the serious nature of the topic of seer stones used by Joseph Smith.
 
The critics of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so much an evolution as an evasion; that it is at best an adaptation. They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender. But that is not the natu*ral meaning of the word Development. When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller. When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less. (G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox (Garden City: Image Books, 1956), 27–28)
The point of Newman’s essay was to show that Catholics had changed doctrine; that is, they began by teaching one thing, and now taught something else. When he found that that was not the case, he entered full communion with Rome.

When we talk about “doctrinal development”, we haven’t changed (into something else), but have grown. An acorn becomes a sapling becomes a tree; the nature didn’t change, only the manifestation of it.

Or, if you will: the apostles left us a pizza with one slice showing. Over time, we’ve been able to see more and more of the pizza. The teachings of Joseph Smith are such a radical break with what came before that it’s like starting with a slice of pizza, then finding the next slice is a piece of pie, then the next one is a bottle of water…

In short: Catholic doctrine has developed over time as men guided by the Holy Spirit meditated on the deposit of faith received by the Apostles from Christ and passed on to the present. Often, development came in response to an attack on the faith or a novelty(e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.)

Mormon doctrine, however, is a radical break from what came before (which makes sense, given the allegations of universal apostasy), and has come to contradict itself multiple times.
 
The point of Newman’s essay was to show that Catholics had changed doctrine; that is, they began by teaching one thing, and now taught something else. When he found that that was not the case, he entered full communion with Rome.

When we talk about “doctrinal development”, we haven’t changed (into something else), but have grown. An acorn becomes a sapling becomes a tree; the nature didn’t change, only the manifestation of it.

Or, if you will: the apostles left us a pizza with one slice showing. Over time, we’ve been able to see more and more of the pizza. The teachings of Joseph Smith are such a radical break with what came before that it’s like starting with a slice of pizza, then finding the next slice is a piece of pie, then the next one is a bottle of water…

In short: Catholic doctrine has developed over time as men guided by the Holy Spirit meditated on the deposit of faith received by the Apostles from Christ and passed on to the present. Often, development came in response to an attack on the faith or a novelty(e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.)

Mormon doctrine, however, is a radical break from what came before (which makes sense, given the allegations of universal apostasy), and has come to contradict itself multiple times.
:tiphat::clapping::amen:
 
The point of Newman’s essay was to show that Catholics had changed doctrine; that is, they began by teaching one thing, and now taught something else. When he found that that was not the case, he entered full communion with Rome.

When we talk about “doctrinal development”, we haven’t changed (into something else), but have grown. An acorn becomes a sapling becomes a tree; the nature didn’t change, only the manifestation of it.

Or, if you will: the apostles left us a pizza with one slice showing. Over time, we’ve been able to see more and more of the pizza. The teachings of Joseph Smith are such a radical break with what came before that it’s like starting with a slice of pizza, then finding the next slice is a piece of pie, then the next one is a bottle of water…

In short: Catholic doctrine has developed over time as men guided by the Holy Spirit meditated on the deposit of faith received by the Apostles from Christ and passed on to the present. Often, development came in response to an attack on the faith or a novelty(e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.)

Mormon doctrine, however, is a radical break from what came before (which makes sense, given the allegations of universal apostasy), and has come to contradict itself multiple times.
AMEN, God Bless, Memaw
 
Please tell me about the things that were part of early Christianity that I am ignorant of. I have read quite a bit about the Early Church and would gladly welcome any new information on the subject.
I have not avoided things because they are difficult. Quite the opposite.
.
He is referring to apocryphal books mostly from the heresies of agnostics. It is hardly a true comparison as these books were not accepted by the Church where as the BOM is a church document.
 
He is referring to apocryphal books mostly from the heresies of agnostics. It is hardly a true comparison as these books were not accepted by the Church where as the BOM is a church document.
What would be the value in reading these?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top