LDS and ancient record...

[Telstar]

No, failed to do right on the first attempt in the Old World and then failed again in a second attempt in the New World. But third time’s a charm

I sit corrected! Mea culpa. At least, this time He can count on ‘the glass looker’ for a much better shot at success. After all, he’s got a magic stone to help him pull it off.

 

[KathleenGee]

MtOlympus…

Your formation is devoid in the study of Christianity and its 2000 year old history. You will see that there was no apostasy.

There are old threads here that discuss the Great Apostasy…that is when people will reject faith in God…and it is happening already in many parts of the world.

Be leery when an emerging religion originates denouncing the established one. Look at Islam; Muhammed drew on Mary’s Immaculate Conception…it was already held in belief by Christians for 600 years prior.

You have to look at the tradition of faith in Christianity and Catholicism holds it. The Roman Catholic Church is the administrative and defining branch of the Church. The Orthodox Church was founded by the Apostles as well, but without the papacy – ends up being more ethnic, nationalistic entities…however we do acknowledge their sacraments. Seeing the great crisis of faith in the world right now, there are leaders within Orthodoxy who are now seeing the need to return to the united faith.

A thousand years ago, there was only one Church, united. Christ said at the Last Supper to pray that we be one so the world would believe…far from it in this country.

 

[bz5]

While I agree that it is a conviction, it doesn’t really matter. Here is the testimony of Emma Smith’s father, Mr. Hale:

What this shows is that Joseph Smith was pulling his “peep stone in the hat” trick years before he claimed to translate the Book of Mormon by the same means. It also makes clear that Joseph Smith was a dishonorable young man prone to sneaking around and preying on vulnerable young women.

All this took place after the alleged First Vision, during the time God and the angel Moroni were supposedly grooming Joseph to be a prophet, seer and revelator.

It does not paint a picture of “the man who communed with Jehovah” - more like a crook in league with the devil.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Thanks for this and the answer to my polyandry question

 

[KathleenGee]

Pray pray pray for the Mormon people to come to the truth of authentic Christianity…without the peeps, stones, tablets, spectacles, lost Jewish tribes in America (Jews laugh at this), changing doctrines, ‘lying for the Lord’, and most of all blanket condemnation of Christian priesthood and subsequent sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

 

[Leegal]

Leegal, maybe I’m wrong but it seems obvious to me that Justice Neely wrote up the expense sheet after the case had already been settled. And again, to me it seems obvious that Joseph Smith was found guilty because of the judge’s use of the words “The Glass Looker”. If he had been found innocent, why call him that? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call him ‘innocent’, or ‘exonerated’, or ‘not guilty’, or anything else besides ‘glass looker’?

This IMO is the most crucial part of the evidence.

Not entirely certain. I am no expert on the court system of 1826 in NY, but I know how it works now… The sheet seems to indicate that these were actions for “cause” – which, indeed, might be the judge’s calendar of cases to determine whether the charges warrant a trial or release of the defendant. A finding of sufficient cause. There are many cases on the docket and they say “as to cause.” So, in all fairness this sheet may be the preliminary hearing before the judge as to whether there is any foundations. However, the it may be that the term “cause” was used in a different manner – such as cause to find guilty or not guilty. I think the document is not clear, but I don’t think cause is being used as a dispositive term.

However, admittedly, the judge examined many witnesses. This tells me that, unlike today, the case was likely simultaneously disposed of or adjudicated. Since they kept no records of the misdemeanor trials, we cannot know.

As to the use of the “glass looker” instead of today’s term, which would be defendant, might also be a clue as to the charge. At that time the caption, in a calendar or docket, would read “Same” to refer to “The People” - we no longer use such shortcuts in court dockets – each state criminal action is always the “People.” Charges (or other terms) are not included in the caption, as it appears in that papers, so that may be the custom at the time.

I am just not sure that this paper is a final disposition of the charges. If judges ran in a circuit they might hear all the cases that were pending as to whether the person should be released or charged – and then return in the next circuit to dispose of the cases. Or they might do it all at one time. It is telling to me that the judge examined so many witnesses so, yes, this may be the disposition of the case. I don’t doubt it is possible as the judge would want to do it all at once so as to dispose of the cases too – hence the examination of so many witnesses – as I said justice was a lot swifter in those days.

The LDS Church indicates that this is a record of a preliminary hearing. I can see how that they can make that claim. It may be a conviction or it may be the probable cause hearing. Contemporaneous accounts seem to indicate that JS was there as a warrant had been issued for his arrest in the dealings with the Sowell family.

I personally believe the case was disposed of in the same day – the judge finding enough cause to warrant a trial and disposition in the same day, but the LDS claims this was the prelim. I can see how they make the claim, because no records were kept for misdemeanor trials.

 

[mtolympus]

And you get Mormonism from this how? You cannot restore that which is not lost. And the Church and its teachings have been with us since Christ established his Church. The Catholic Church, not your church with your ‘prophet’.

Jesus would not return until the times of restitution of all things which would preceed the “times of refreshing… from the presence of the Lord”. (Acts 3:19)

“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restutution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts:3:20-21)

 

[KathleenGee]

The Word of God and the Eucharist are the same God Who led the Jews out of Egypt, became the Pillar of Fire leading them across the desert, Who parted the Red Sea, Who fed them manna from heaven, Who spoke to prophets in the natural elements, in signs, symbols, visions…

And then when time was fulfilled, Christ took on the form of man through Holy Spirit and Mary.

And it truly was the right time…not turning back, withdrawing the Holy Spirit, no new prophets with new stories…

Jesus is the Light. You put on Jesus Christ, His light enlightens you. He gave us His church 2,000 years ago.

Our priesthood is that of Christ Who refers to the priesthood of Melchizedek…no beginning and no end vs the requirements of the Levi. Jesus Christ feeds us the Tree of Life…first mentioned as one the fruit Adam and Eve could eat in the Garden of Eden, but instead chose themselves over God.

Jesus is the Vine and we are the branches…Jesus, Eternal Life…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus would not return until the times of restitution of all things which would preceed the “times of refreshing… from the presence of the Lord”. (Acts 3:19)

“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restutution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts:3:20-21)

1. We, indeed, to all men are the Vicar of Christ, the Son of God, who so loved the human race that not only did He not refuse, taking our nature to Himself, to live among men, but delighted in bearing the name of the Son of Man, openly proclaiming that He had come upon earth “to preach deliverance to the captives”(1) in order that, rescuing mankind from the worst slavery, which is the slavery of sin, “he might re-establish all things that are in heaven and on earth,”(2) and so bring back all the children of Adam from the depths of the ruin of the common fall to their original dignity. The words of St. Gregory the Great are very applicable here: “Since our Redeemer, the Author of all life, deigned to take human flesh, that by the power of His Godhood the chains by which we were held in bondage being broken, He might restore us to our first state of liberty, it is most fitting that men by the concession of manumission should restore to the freedom in which they were born those whom nature sent free into the world, but who have been condemned to the yoke of slavery by the law of nations.”(3) It is right, therefore, and obviously in keeping with Our apostolic office, that We should favor and advance by every means in Our power whatever helps to secure for men, whether as individuals or as communities, safeguards against the many miseries, which, like the fruits of an evil tree, have sprung from the sin of our first parents; and such safeguards, of whatever kind they may be, help not only to promote civilization and the amenities of life, but lead on to that universal restitution of all things which our Redeemer Jesus Christ contemplated and desired.

In Plurimis

(ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII)

 

[KathleenGee]

Good addition, Rebecca…

The big baddie is not the Protestants or anti-Catholics…it is SIN.

 

[Telstar]

Jesus would not return until the times of restitution of all things which would preceed the “times of refreshing… from the presence of the Lord”. (Acts 3:19)

“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restutution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts:3:20-21)

This is the entire passage you quoted (from the Douay-Rheims version), which is slightly different in it’s wording and in its layout. It doesn’t read the way you claim it to read, as far as the “restitution of all things” is concerned, especially your claim for line #19 that isn’t anything like what you said.
[19] Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. [20] That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ,
[21] Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, from the beginning of the world.
The “times of the restitution of all things” is a reference to the general resurrection at the end of the world, when Jesus will return to pass Final Judgement on all mankind. At that point, the whole earth, that has been all but utterly destroyed in the Tribulation, will be restored by Him, as well as all of mankind that will be resurrected and Judged. Then, He will reign forever on the New (restored) Earth, where all souls will also be restored to their resurrected bodies, and into their eternal life (in Heaven or hell). That passage has nothing to do with Jesus coming back before that time to ‘restore’ His Church. His Church will still exist as it always has, ever since He first established it. There is only one time that Jesus told us He would return to the earth, and that’s at the time of the Final Judgement. Not before.

 

[KathleenGee]

Telstar,y

Missed that…thanks…sorry

 

[Jim_Dandy]

OK… so it was the Pearl of Great Price, D&C or some other writing by Joseph Smith, or other LDS leaders, that rewrote Genesis. It’s still Mormon ‘scripture’ that is followed faithfully by LDS that has completely rewritten the concepts of creation and almost every other basic belief of Judaism and Christianity. The point is that all of those sources are against almost everything that the Bible teaches.

You’re correct that Joseph Smith rewrote Genesis. He rewrote as much of the KJV as he wanted to in order to make it fit his doctrines (he missed some things) and called it “An Inspired Revision of the Authorized (King James) Version by Joseph Smith, Jr.” Inspired, indeed!

Here’s a sample:

Genesis 1 And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth: write the words which I speak. 2. I am the Beginning and the End: the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten, I created these things. 3. Yea, in the beginning the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. 4. And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come upon the face of the deep. 5, And my Spirit moved upon the face of the waters, for I am God. 6. And I, God, said, Let there be light, and there was light. 7. And I, God, saw the light, and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.

In the rest of the creation story, the phrase “And I, God,” begins almost every sentence. JS made the KJV read just like the BOM, very repetitive, very pedestrian.

In Genesis 1:1, Smith has God telling Moses to write what he dictates. Hmmmm.
The first five books of the Bible are called “the books of Moses” but scholars know that Moses didn’t write them.

I’ve been told that Joe Smith’s rewrite of the KJV is not used much by Utah Mormons. It’s published by the RLDS, the Missouri group now known as the Community of Christ. My copy came from a Mormon bookstore in San Diego.

Reading Smith’s version of Genesis is disturbing. God didn’t really “create.” Genesis 2:9*“Nevertheless, all things were before created, but spiritually they were created and made, according to my word.”*In Mormonism, the earth God only organized preexisting matter; he didn’t create anything. It’s also Mormon doctrine that Jesus and Satan are brothers, spirit children of Heavenly Father and one of his many goddess wives. Ugh!

 

[TarkanAttila]

My responses are bolded.
Here is just another point of view.

Matthew 16:19- If the Church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth, as prophecied in the Bible, the gates of hell did not prevail against it.

1) If it had to be restored, it had to have fallen in the first place, and Hell had to have prevailed against it.

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus’ last words to his disciples before he ascended into heaven was to go out to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.”

He then told his disciples that as they did these things he would always be with them. The last verse in the book of St. Mark shows us he was refering to the Lord’s missionaries.

Yes. And to His Church, therefore, for we are all missionaries, from the Pope to the most modest beggar.

He would always be with them and help them in their work of teaching the gospel.

**But total apostasy denies that Christ was always with them, for eventually, according to Joseph Smith, all Christian churches fell into error, and thus out of Christ’s grasp. **

After the Lord was received into heaven Mark wrote: “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mark 16:20)

 

[soren1]

TarkanAttila:
TarkanAttila,

Bravo for sustaining these points on Matt 28:19-20. It’s one of the best passages there is, but many Mormons do not see the force of it, because they consider it an adequate response to say that they don’t believe Jesus left the earth altogether, but that the light of Christ is given to all men (Moroni 7:19). Therefore the truth of Christ actually remained in the world even after the Great Apostasy, and so he has always been with us, and so the text does not really pose a problem. What did not remain in the world was the priesthood, but Christ still gave his care and his truth to people on earth, even unto the salvation of many (D&C 137:7). This and other responses require that the argument be posed in a way that demonstrated the bearing of this text upon priesthood authority.

Here’s how to make that case, and it’s about the same as the text you quoted but with a few extra specifics. First off, the Mormon definition of priesthood is “the authority as given by God to man to act in his name.” Now that is not the way a Catholic would define it, but granting the Mormon definition for the sake of argument, note how this definition corresponds to the last verses of Matthew. In verse 18, Jesus says, “Behold, all power is given me.” Here the word power here translates the Greek exousia, which means “authority.” It is the very same word used in 7:29, “For he taught them as one having authority (exousia), and not as the scribes.” So having claimed all authority, Jesus then tells the apostles, “Go therefore,” that is, “go on my authority.” Thus, “authority as given by God to man” is the subject of this text.

But what kind of authority? It is authority to “teach all nations” and also to baptize in Christ’s name, indeed, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Hence, this is “authority as given by God to man to act in his name,” and so Jesus is speaking here of the conferral of priesthood authority, by the Mormon definition. And it is in the context of conferring this authority that Jesus says, “I am with you always.” (The Greek says pasas tes hemeras, literally “all the days” leaving no room for a gap in time.) Consequently, Matt 28:18-20 shows Christ assuring his Church of his continual presence precisely in the capacity of sustaining the priestly office.

 

[tskrobacz]

Jesus would not return until the times of restitution of all things which would preceed the “times of refreshing… from the presence of the Lord”. (Acts 3:19)

“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restutution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts:3:20-21)

We are not waiting for Jesus to return on a cloud of glory…God is waiting for each of us to return ourselves as the Glory of God. Then, and only then, will Christ have come again.

 

[KathleenGee]

Without priestly authority, the Church would cease…historically, it has never ceased. ‘Biblical Roots of the Mass’, Tom Nash, explains well the foundation of the Catholic priesthood, coming from Jesus Christ in the order of Melchizedek.

Scripture warns us not to change even one word of Scripture…anathema…or listen to unknown angels…

Christ came at the fulfilled time…He is the Eternal Word…no more words added…

‘Veritatis Splendor’…‘Splendor of Truth’, a short encyclical written by John Paul II is recommended to Mormons…you can get it at the Vatican website.

The Book of Revelations in Ch 22 portrays the Mass, the daily sacrifice…once people understand the Mass…every word of the Bible is fulfilled and affirmed in Jesus Christ.

There is no need for any other book, 1800 years after the event.

 

[TexanKnight]

Not entirely certain. I am no expert on the court system of 1826 in NY, but I know how it works now… The sheet seems to indicate that these were actions for “cause” – which, indeed, might be the judge’s calendar of cases to determine whether the charges warrant a trial or release of the defendant. A finding of sufficient cause. There are many cases on the docket and they say “as to cause.” So, in all fairness this sheet may be the preliminary hearing before the judge as to whether there is any foundations. However, the it may be that the term “cause” was used in a different manner – such as cause to find guilty or not guilty. I think the document is not clear, but I don’t think cause is being used as a dispositive term.

However, admittedly, the judge examined many witnesses. This tells me that, unlike today, the case was likely simultaneously disposed of or adjudicated. Since they kept no records of the misdemeanor trials, we cannot know.

As to the use of the “glass looker” instead of today’s term, which would be defendant, might also be a clue as to the charge. At that time the caption, in a calendar or docket, would read “Same” to refer to “The People” - we no longer use such shortcuts in court dockets – each state criminal action is always the “People.” Charges (or other terms) are not included in the caption, as it appears in that papers, so that may be the custom at the time.

I am just not sure that this paper is a final disposition of the charges. If judges ran in a circuit they might hear all the cases that were pending as to whether the person should be released or charged – and then return in the next circuit to dispose of the cases. Or they might do it all at one time. It is telling to me that the judge examined so many witnesses so, yes, this may be the disposition of the case. I don’t doubt it is possible as the judge would want to do it all at once so as to dispose of the cases too – hence the examination of so many witnesses – as I said justice was a lot swifter in those days.

The LDS Church indicates that this is a record of a preliminary hearing. I can see how that they can make that claim. It may be a conviction or it may be the probable cause hearing. Contemporaneous accounts seem to indicate that JS was there as a warrant had been issued for his arrest in the dealings with the Sowell family.

I personally believe the case was disposed of in the same day – the judge finding enough cause to warrant a trial and disposition in the same day, but the LDS claims this was the prelim. I can see how they make the claim, because no records were kept for misdemeanor trials.

If one looks at the law back then, there would likely not have been a preliminary hearing on such a minor charge. Most minor charges were called, judge ruled, fined and moved on. Though a troubling charge for Mormons, this was a minor charge in the scheme of things.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,y

Missed that…thanks…sorry

No problem, Kathleen.

Whenever someone throws out a partial line, or even a partial passage, from the Bible, I always read the whole thing in context in the DR, because I know there are subtle differences that can sometimes change the intended meaning (most notably in the woman crushing the head of satan in Genesis). Even though it may only be a slight change, if those changes are being used to make a point that contradicts Catholic teaching, then I tend to trust the DR over all other modern English versions, especially the KJV or other non-Catholic versions.

 

[KathleenGee]

You have good experience with this Bible…I have my parents’ here at home…but have gotten so used to the New American Standard…

My eyes are not so good right now…have to reread well…changing one word…changes everything!

 

[Telstar]

You’re correct that Joseph Smith rewrote Genesis. He rewrote as much of the KJV as he wanted to in order to make it fit his doctrines (he missed some things) and called it “An Inspired Revision of the Authorized (King James) Version by Joseph Smith, Jr.” Inspired, indeed!

Here’s a sample:

Genesis 1 And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth: write the words which I speak. 2. I am the Beginning and the End: the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten, I created these things. 3. Yea, in the beginning the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. 4. And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come upon the face of the deep. 5, And my Spirit moved upon the face of the waters, for I am God. 6. And I, God, said, Let there be light, and there was light. 7. And I, God, saw the light, and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.

In the rest of the creation story, the phrase “And I, God,” begins almost every sentence. JS made the KJV read just like the BOM, very repetitive, very pedestrian.

The biggest reason that I could never get through very much of the BoM, especially in one sitting, was the annoying tendency that it has to repeat certain phrases over and over, again. It goes on for paragraph after paragraph without really saying anything significant, except to hammer away one solitary point. Or, just to sound more important by being grandiosely verbose. When someone told me that they loved to read it because it was so ‘beautiful and inspiring to read’, I decided to check it out and read the passage they were talking about. After the first paragraph, I was already getting annoyed, and after reading the whole page, I was ready to do myself physical harm.

In contrast, I really love to read the DR version of the Bible. I often sit for hours reading different passages and looking up things in it. The OT can be a bit more difficult to read. But, I’ve never had to reread passages as many times as I did those few in the BoM, to make sense of them. In fact, the BoM left me scratching my head to try to make any sense of them, at all. I’d have to say that I definitely didn’t get any ‘testimony’ that the BoM is ‘true’ by reading it. :nope:

In Genesis 1:1, Smith has God telling Moses to write what he dictates. Hmmmm.
The first five books of the Bible are called “the books of Moses” but scholars know that Moses didn’t write them.

Most of the older ‘books’ were passed down mostly through oral tradition and recitation of the stories to the younger generations. The Jews that were unable to read or write, memorized all of those stories, word for word. The scribes that were educated had to copy them exactly as they were written, just like the early Monks of the Church carried on that tradition to ensure that there were no changes made.

I’ve been told that Joe Smith’s rewrite of the KJV is not used much by Utah Mormons. It’s published by the RLDS, the Missouri group now known as the Community of Christ. My copy came from a Mormon bookstore in San Diego.

He never finished it because he was killed before he could rewrite the whole thing. You would think that if God had given him the mission to ‘re-translate’ it, He would have made sure that Joseph would live long enough to accomplish that mission, or would have commissioned someone else to finish it. Apparently, God changed His mind…?

Reading Smith’s version of Genesis is disturbing. God didn’t really “create.” Genesis 2:9*“Nevertheless, all things were before created, but spiritually they were created and made, according to my word.”*In Mormonism, the earth God only organized preexisting matter; he didn’t create anything. It’s also Mormon doctrine that Jesus and Satan are brothers, spirit children of Heavenly Father and one of his many goddess wives. Ugh!

All of JS’s writings are disturbing to anyone that’s ever read the Bible, or heard it read, enough to be familiar with the stories in it. Many of his interpretations of it are even more disturbing when compared to what the Church teaches about those same passages. They don’t even resemble the intended meanings, that many times are blatantly obvious to anyone that reads them for themselves. Just when you think that no one could possibly misinterpret a certain passage, JS proves that anything is possible.