LDS and the bible vs BOM

[jane_doe]

I’m very sorry if you took it that way, because it was certainly not meant as a personal attack. I was just pointing out that if you were 12 when you last read that story, and that’s how you remember it, then it might be a good idea to refresh your memory by reading it again. And, if you remember that story so vaguely, then there might also be others that you remember poorly, too.

That’s why most people do read the Bible over and over, again. They do it to keep it fresh in their minds. Reading it many times over can often help us to understand it better, and even discover other ways of looking at it that we hadn’t thought about the other times we read it. It’s a treasure trove of inspiration that continues to open up our hearts and minds to what God has said to us in the past, where we can learn how to better understand Him and apply that understanding to our lives, today. So, it’s certainly not a bad thing to read something from it every day. Even if you just open it up at random, you can sometimes find things that will inspire or comfort you concerning things going on in your own life at the time, that might surprise you. I’m just saying, give it a try.

Thank you for that gracious response.

 

[jane_doe]

Horton, I’m going to address your response in a slightly different order than you posted it (hope you don’t mind).

Couple of things to set the record straight regarding LDS practice and beliefs,

To be Christian means to believe in the the divinity of Christ, to believe Blessed Mary conceived Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit and not through sexual relations with God.

This would also be a Mormon belief.

Any suggestions of sexual-relations with Mary in regards to Christ’s inception are officially disavowed and have been for decades. Such man-derivied suggestions were never universally accept in the first place. I do not believe any anything like that and find the idea quite digesting and offense. Again, I’m just stating things for the record.

I don’t have to worry about being excommunicated over it.

I hold some beliefs which are not orthodox Mormon, and downright disagree with some Mormon church policies (policies are different than doctrine). I have zero fear of excommunication. Excommunication in the Mormon church occurs only in rare extreme cases, usually involving someone trying to teach the errant beliefs to a mass following.

Moving on to discussion items–

General question for the Catholics here: when I visited the Catholic church Friday (for the heck of it), I chatted with a lady there. She mentioned that in the last few years the Catholic church and Orthodox church had been mending some fences, and that RCC now acknowledges Orthodox communion (correct me if I’m misunderstanding). I also heard the choir practicing songs in English, and read phamplets about the Vatican II changes.

Are these not changes within the Catholic church? Obviously not to the core message of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection, but they are still changes?

 

[Horton]

Horton, I’m going to address your response in a slightly different order than you posted it (hope you don’t mind).

Couple of things to set the record straight regarding LDS practice and beliefs,

This would also be a Mormon belief.

Any suggestions of sexual-relations with Mary in regards to Christ’s inception are officially disavowed and have been for decades. Such man-derivied suggestions were never universally accept in the first place. I do not believe any anything like that and find the idea quite digesting and offense. Again, I’m just stating things for the record.

But the fact remains mormons believe Jesus was concieve by the flesh of God and not through the divinity of God. The belief is significantly different than Christian belief of the birth of Christ.

I hold some beliefs which are not orthodox Mormon, and downright disagree with some Mormon church policies (policies are different than doctrine). I have zero fear of excommunication. Excommunication in the Mormon church occurs only in rare extreme cases, usually involving someone trying to teach the errant beliefs to a mass following.
I just read on the news today about a very small handful of people who objected to something or another during a meeting and the 30,000 people in the room gasped. This tells me disent is still not welcomed in the LDS

Moving on to discussion items–

General question for the Catholics here: when I visited the Catholic church Friday (for the heck of it), I chatted with a lady there. She mentioned that in the last few years the Catholic church and Orthodox church had been mending some fences, and that RCC now acknowledges Orthodox communion (correct me if I’m misunderstanding). I also heard the choir practicing songs in English, and read phamplets about the Vatican II changes.

Are these not changes within the Catholic church? Obviously not to the core message of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection, but they are still changes?
The Catholic Church has been about mending fences for 2000 years. One of the results of Vatican II was to have priests say the Mass in the vernacular of the county where they are. Making changes in practice of the doctrine is very very different than changing doctrine itself.

 

[Horton]

Horton, I’m going to address your response in a slightly different order than you posted it (hope you don’t mind).

Couple of things to set the record straight regarding LDS practice and beliefs,

This would also be a Mormon belief.

Any suggestions of sexual-relations with Mary in regards to Christ’s inception are officially disavowed and have been for decades. Such man-derivied suggestions were never universally accept in the first place. I do not believe any anything like that and find the idea quite digesting and offense. Again, I’m just stating things for the record.

I hold some beliefs which are not orthodox Mormon, and downright disagree with some Mormon church policies (policies are different than doctrine). I have zero fear of excommunication. Excommunication in the Mormon church occurs only in rare extreme cases, usually involving someone trying to teach the errant beliefs to a mass following.

Moving on to discussion items–

General question for the Catholics here: when I visited the Catholic church Friday (for the heck of it), I chatted with a lady there. She mentioned that in the last few years the Catholic church and Orthodox church had been mending some fences, and that RCC now acknowledges Orthodox communion (correct me if I’m misunderstanding). I also heard the choir practicing songs in English, and read phamplets about the Vatican II changes.

Are these not changes within the Catholic church? Obviously not to the core message of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection, but they are still changes?

"SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -
A handful of people are voicing their public opposition to the Mormon church presidency during the faith’s conference underway in Salt Lake City.

During a part of the conference when attendees usually raise their hands in unison in a vote of support for church leadership, five of the 20,000 people in attendance stood up Saturday and yelled, “Opposed!”

They drew some gasps by surprised attendees.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf, the faith’s third-highest ranking leader who was at the podium, noted their votes. He later reminded that people in opposition are welcome to express their reasons to regional church leaders.

The opposition group said in a statement that they are unhappy with how little access they have to express concerns to church leaders.

Open opposition at conference hasn’t happened for several decades." The article I used earlier. Let me state the news station is in a predominate LDS are in Idaho.

 

[jane_doe]

Re: disciplinary action and the opposed vote at General Conference:

I’m unsure what you’re getting at Horton.

Are you trying to prove that there are people who have different views in Mormon-don and not everybody agrees this everything? Well that’s a fact-- groups of people ever agree on everything. Mormons are allow to different opinions, including downright disagree with church leaders. If this fact was denied, then leaders wouldn’t ask “any opposed?”.

This particular group of opposing-voters was not a random happenstance: they are a group which organized ahead of time and sought tickets into conference specifically to cast opposing votes (their website: anyopposed.org/).

No disciplinary action has happened to these folks, let alone an excommunication. I doubt any will.

 

[Stephen168]

To be Christian means you believe in the Trinity. To be Christian you must believe God is who is.

.

Mormonism started as a trinitarian religion. It was reflected in the Book of Mormon and the first “official” vision story. As Joseph Smith changed his teaching on who God was the Book of Mormon was changed, and so was the “official” vision story.

It is the change in Mormon belief as to who God is that renders them no longer Christian.

 

[Stephen168]

It looks like fundamental #3 guarantees the confusion and contradiction you suggest could happen.

As Catholics we understand a change in doctrine and discipline, but the changes in dogma found in Mormonism make it impossible to rationally follow.

As someone said before the Book of Mormon changes to follow changes in dogma.

General question for the Catholics here: when I visited the Catholic church Friday (for the heck of it), I chatted with a lady there. She mentioned that in the last few years the Catholic church and Orthodox church had been mending some fences, and that RCC now acknowledges Orthodox communion (correct me if I’m misunderstanding). I also heard the choir practicing songs in English, and read phamplets about the Vatican II changes.

Are these not changes within the Catholic church? Obviously not to the core message of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection, but they are still changes?

No.

 

[Horton]

Re: disciplinary action and the opposed vote at General Conference:

I’m unsure what you’re getting at Horton.

Are you trying to prove that there are people who have different views in Mormon-don and not everybody agrees this everything? Well that’s a fact-- groups of people ever agree on everything. Mormons are allow to different opinions, including downright disagree with church leaders. If this fact was denied, then leaders wouldn’t ask “any opposed?”.

This particular group of opposing-voters was not a random happenstance: they are a group which organized ahead of time and sought tickets into conference specifically to cast opposing votes (their website: anyopposed.org/).

No disciplinary action has happened to these folks, let alone an excommunication. I doubt any will.

My point is that rather than having an opportunity for open dialogue with church leadership people have to make bold jesters to gain attention. I’m not trying to point out lack of opposition within the LDS, just the freedom to do so.

 

[jane_doe]

My point is that rather than having an opportunity for open dialogue with church leadership people have to make bold jesters to gain attention. I’m not trying to point out lack of opposition within the LDS, just the freedom to do so.

Any one who has problems/concerns/whatever can meet with a leader. It starts at the local congregation, if not moves to the area level and so forth. Or if a person rather not talk to a leader, they of course don’t have to.

How about Catholics? How do you handle someone whom has a question/concern? Say (for example) someone doesn’t think that artificial birth control isn’t totally evil? What is said person supposed to do? (If you don’t like the ABC example, feel free to pick whatever you do like).

 

[Horton]

Any one who has problems/concerns/whatever can meet with a leader. It starts at the local congregation, if not moves to the area level and so forth. Or if a person rather not talk to a leader, they of course don’t have to.

How about Catholics? How do you handle someone whom has a question/concern? Say (for example) someone doesn’t think that artificial birth control isn’t totally evil? What is said person supposed to do? (If you don’t like the ABC example, feel free to pick whatever you do like).

If a Catholic has an issue with teachings of the church they are encouraged to pray, speak to a priest or other knowledgeable person regarding the issue then make their own decisions based on their conscious.

Say I feel sexual activity outside of marriage is OK for a single person (which I don’t just to be clear). I can go to my priest or any priest, religious, deacon, or spiritual director with my concerns. I then get make my decision about sexual activity. If I choose to engage in sexual activity, the Catholic Church will allow me the freedom to do so. However there are internal consequences for my choice. I would be in a state of mortal sin and therefore should not receive the Eucharistic. When I then come to the realization that sexual activity is pulling me away from God, I then go to reconciliation, make a contrite confession, do the penance the priest gives and return to a state of grace.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No disciplinary action has happened to these folks, let alone an excommunication. I doubt any will.

Would be nice to believe, however, the group is headed down the same path as Kate Kelly.

 

[Horton]

Would be nice to believe, however, the group is headed down the same path as Kate Kelly.

Yep

 

[RebeccaJ]

Moving on to discussion items–

General question for the Catholics here: when I visited the Catholic church Friday (for the heck of it), I chatted with a lady there. She mentioned that in the last few years the Catholic church and Orthodox church had been mending some fences, and that RCC now acknowledges Orthodox communion (correct me if I’m misunderstanding).

These are not doctrines. The schism between east and west has complexities to it of course, but to the point you raise here, of communion, the result of a doctrinal disagreement between the Pope in the west and the Patriarch in the east was that they excommunicated each other. The Pope and Magesterium (west) allows those who haven been baptized and confirmed in the Orthodox churches, to receive communion at a RC Mass. With the caveat that the persons(s) have good cause and permission from both Bishop and Patrarch. The Orthodox do not allow the same for RC baptized and confirmed, and the Orthodox do not allow their members to receive communion without good cause and permission.

So, the norm is no, do not receive communion at each other’s Mass.

I also heard the choir practicing songs in English, and read phamplets about the Vatican II changes.

Also, not a doctrinal change. The Mass was already in many languages. Latin, Greek, Syrian, etc. Vatican II allows for Mass to be said in the vernacular.

Are these not changes within the Catholic church? Obviously not to the core message of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection, but they are still changes?

These are not doctrinal changes.

 

[Telstar]

There may be much more going on in this scene than most realize and it has nothing to do with Noah’s kids finding him naked and laughing about it. According to Dr. Tim Gray and Jeff Cavins it is a lot more serious than that. In their book “Walking with God” it is explained that the Hebrew expression “to look upon the nakedness of your father” actually meant to sleep with your father’s wife. Ham didn’t go in and see Noah laying naked. He saw Noah passed out from being drunk and proceeded to commit incest with his own mother, the wife of Noah, most likely raping her. When Shem and Japheth hear about it they go back into the tent to cover up their poor mother.

The story makes a lot more sense with this understanding. Remember, when Noah awakens and finds out what has happened who does he curse? He doesn’t curse Ham, rather he curses Canaan, who has not yet even been born. He is cursing the fruit of the incest. This wouldn’t make sense otherwise. And this probably didn’t happen just because Ham was some pervert. It was a power grab. He wanted to lay claim to the leadership of the family and the blessing was suppose to go to Shem, his older brother.

Oh my goodness! That’s it!

I knew there was an even greater significance to that expression (“to look upon the nakedness of your father”), and to the whole passage, but I could not for the life of me remember what it was. I must admit that I’m much more familiar with the NT than the OT, which apparently shows in this case. You certainly have a greater knowledge and understanding of scripture than I do. This is a perfect example of how we have to understand the significance of the terminology used in the Bible, in the context of what it meant to the people of that time period, or we can come to a completely incorrect conclusion. So, I am very glad you shared that much deeper meaning with us, that you’ve learned by studying it in more detail. Thank you!

 

[Telstar]

Thank you for that gracious response.

You’re welcome. Sometimes, I guess I tend to come off as a bit harsh, even though I don’t mean to be.

 

[Stephen168]

But, you can’t test the reliability of that translation, and the Book of Mormon has been changed from Smith’s original, in a manner that changes its interpretation. Was Smith’s pure translation done correctly, or are the changes the “most correct” version?

This seems to be the key, yet unanswerable, question.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168 and Horton,
First, the bolding was Stephen’s. He quoted 14 Fundamentals and added his own conclusion. Those are here:

I see an infallible prophet claimed by Mormonism
Infallible in EVERYTHING, not just faith and morals

And I think the term “infallible” has very specific meaning. “Without error.” And in this context I would suggest “Without the possibility of error.” Nothing in the 14 points supports that conclusion IMO.
Point #4 while not saying infallible is the ONLY one that anyone could believe is saying this:

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

There is only one concept in all of LDS scripture that I can see warrant for this statement. D&C 112:30. This says that we are in the last dispensation. Whatever it was that lead to the need for a restoration associated with the church once headed by St. Peter, could not happen in the CoJCoLDS according to D&C 112:30. To read more into the fourth point is unwarranted and out of alignment with volumes of LDS teaching. Here are some (you already had the link, but maybe you didn’t make it there before you quoted):

1887 B. H. Roberts, Letter written November 4, 1887, London, Millennial Star 49. 48 (November 28, 1887): 760-763; a portion of which reads: “Relative to these sermons [Journal of Discourses] I must tell you they represent the individual views of the speakers, and the Church is not responsible for their teachings. Our authorized Church works are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In the Church very wide latitude is given to individual belief and opinion, each man being responsible for his views and not the Church; the Church is only responsible for that which she sanctions and approves through the formal actions of her councils. So it may be that errors will be found in the sermons of men, and that in their over zeal unwise expressions will escape them, for all of which the Church is not responsible”
1892 21 March 1892: Elder Charles W. Penrose, at the time a counselor in the Salt Lake Stake Presidency: "At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet . . . we respect and venerate him; but we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God."Millennial Star 54 (21 March 1892): 191

And very specifically (also at the link I posted earlier in the thread):

Charles W. Penrose (1912): “Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?”
Charles W. Penrose:
Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility

I personally have NEVER heard anyone say the prophet is infallible, but if you say you did that is fine. If you inferred such from 14 fundamentals, I find such inferences unwarranted and will not be following you in apostasy for such reasons. But, I understand how you could get there. I hope others will not make such mistakes (mistakes IMO).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

This is the least interesting topic in my opinion. Supposed evidence or consistencies are always specific or isolated events and connections are extremely vague at best. Problem is…material evidences of an entire civilization are completely missing. Sorry, there’s just nothing there.

I very much disagree with the “there’s just nothing there.” There are large scale civilizations in Mesoamerica just were folks like Gardner, Clark, and Sorenson say they should be. These civilizations have lacked the permanence of civilizations in the Old World making some of the connections tenuous.
In the Old World, the BOM narrative stands as well as much of the 600BC and earlier Biblical narrative and better than some of the 600BC and earlier Biblical narrative.
The small band of folks who walked from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful reported what they saw and such a journey has been documented including 81 points of contact with geographic features and place names. That there is no grave that says “here lies Ishmael” is to be expected.
In Mesoamerica there is no “City of Zarahemla” but this is not because we know the names of more than 5% of the cities and they are not Zarahemla. Rather it is because we do not know the names of many cities at all and there is zero certainty when it comes to how this small fraction of city names we have would be rendered in English. Things we do know of population dynamics, cultural connects, use of cement, warfare practices, and … provide support (in some cases) and plausibility (in other cases) for the BOM.
Anyway, all of this can be read about from the folks that I mentioned above, but I do not agree that the “entire civilization” is missing.

This is one of the greatest problems with Mormonism. The church is increasingly moving away from the credibility of its leaders’ revelations. You’re trying to correct the “philosophies of men” by direct revelation from God through fallible people/councils who, have in the past, supposedly mis-interpreted the revelation only to introduce more “philosophies of men”. There is no reliable authority in mormonism.

I can appreciate this criticism. As I look at the more authoritative statements of leaders, I do not see what ex-members claimed to experience from the 70’s and 80’s when I was Catholic. I can also appreciate what it is to “follow the prophet” and have confidence that his direction is His direction while recognizing that the prophet is a man communicating with God in ways not often r adically different than I as a man communicate with God. I occasionally see glimpses that the prophet is more capable of hearing God than I am, but these are matters of degree usually not type. As such, I expect more from God’s communication to the prophet than I experience in God’s communication with me, but I do not expect God’s communication with the prophet to create infallible communication from God to the prophet then to me.
(It was about 1 week ago that I told my Sedavacantist friend that I would be a minimalist when it came to defining Papal Infallibility. He understandably declared such was the WRONG take. He is a geocentrist largely because he considers geocentrisim “de fide” (like Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine said it was) and he believes it comes infallibly from multiple popes. I would not believe geocentrisim concerns “faith and morals,” but he does. I would suggest that in the presence of infallibility humans still have a great deal of (name removed by moderator)ut in what they believe is part of the this charism. Another example I have used here is the disagreement among scholars concerning the exercise of Papal Infallibility or non-exercise concerning Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Even in a church that claims infallibility exists there are non-infallible decisions/debates on when infallibility applies).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

That, of course, is part of a verse from the Book of Mormon. The entire verse reads: . . . and is followed by, Some “charity.” I would be surprised if someone did not consider it an insult to be told, “I hear you saying, ‘A Bible, we have got a Bible’” followed by “ and there cannot be any more Bible” so similar to “and we need no more Bible,” for in their equivalence it is in effect calling that person, “Thou fool.” I suspect forgiveness would be forthcoming by most persons; but there are some who when they are the target of such insults, are not quick to forgive.

How about “Thou fool, that shall say: A Book of Mormon, we have got a Book of Mormon, and we need no more Book of Mormon. Have ye obtained a Book of Mormon save it were by the ones who said that there were many other books to be revealed which you must also believe?" Perhaps James Strang’s Book of the Law of the Lord is valid scripture, the rejection of which puts Mormons in the same peril (as Mormons suppose) as those who reject the Book of Mormon. Or likewise with the revealed scriptures of dozens of other men and women who, inspired by the Book of Mormon and filled with the Holy Ghost, claim to have been called by God to present additional revelations, new scripture, or restore “the apostate Mormon church.”

First, in my mind the quote ended were it ended, I was not trying to call anyone a fool. I am sorry for the name calling! I do absolutely believe that much of the thought process present in the rejection of the CoJCoLDS is present in the Jews rejection of Christ which was my main point.
I have thought about Strangites, Rigdonites, and …, my determination was that the Brighamites are the valid successors. I am quite an authority guy. I just do not demand an infallibility nor do I see such in any church. I do not find the embracing of infallible councils or popes to be easy to defend, instead it must be quite qualified. A reviewing of past papal statements and past conciliar decisions results in a great deal of qualification to make infallibility tenable IMO. I can see how infallibility is a comfort. I just find it difficult to embrace in any meaningful way at best and totally absent at worst.
Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

If a Catholic has an issue with teachings of the church they are encouraged to pray, speak to a priest or other knowledgeable person regarding the issue then make their own decisions based on their conscious.

Say I feel sexual activity outside of marriage is OK for a single person (which I don’t just to be clear). I can go to my priest or any priest, religious, deacon, or spiritual director with my concerns. I then get make my decision about sexual activity. If I choose to engage in sexual activity, the Catholic Church will allow me the freedom to do so. However there are internal consequences for my choice. I would be in a state of mortal sin and therefore should not receive the Eucharistic. When I then come to the realization that sexual activity is pulling me away from God, I then go to reconciliation, make a contrite confession, do the penance the priest gives and return to a state of grace.

The Mormon procedure is quite similar actually.

If a person wants to have sex outside of marriage (good example), they can. No one is physically going to stop them. But that doesn’t make it “right”: they are enacting a horrible thing, bringing great harm to themselves, their current relationships, and their future relationships. Sex outside of marriage is terrible sin. If a person is honest, they should not partake of the Lord’s Supper while involved in such evil.

When a person desires to turn away from such evil, they should surrender the evil actions and seek guidance from their local priest to aide them in the repentance process. At the end of the repentance process, through the power of the Lord’s atonement, the sin is eventually washed away as if it was never there.