Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to know if Mormons believe it is ok to be a Freemason? or, what they believe about Freemasons?
Many early Mormons were Masons. Joseph Smith was a Mason. I believe that some are Masons now.

The problem for a very long time, especially in Utah, wasn’t that the Mormons disapproved of the Masons; it was quite the other way around. Until very recently, Mormons were not allowed to be Masons in Utah.

My father’s father was a Mason, and my grandmother was president of the local Eastern Star. Her Mormonism was overlooked because of HIS non-member status, and the fact that she never went to church.
 
Not to be insulting, but the BOM in English is a clunky read at best. But as a missionary in Taiwan, I was surprised to learn that the Mandarin version is said by those who read it to be “elegant” and “beautiful” in it’s rendering of the text. The reason is two-fold - 1) The translator, an LDS man who is a professor of Chinese language, left out all the “And it came to pass…”. 2) He was not hampered by the faux King James style English that Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith always seemed compelled to use (even in the D&C - I always wondered why God was linguistically stuck in the 17th century). The Mandarin BOM is written in simple and elegant contemporary Mandarin and so is an easy and pleasant read for native Mandarin speakers.

I would like to hear from other foreign-language RMs about the BOM in their target languages.

I think the LDS Church would do its members a great service by offering an alternative version of the BOM in simple contemporary English.

Paul
Paul, I know that sounds like a good idea, but I find it quite elegant in it’s present form.

One interesting thing though, when it was translated into a semantic language, all of the “And it came to Pass” language fit right back in place. The man who did that said that if it would not have had those, it would not have worked and he felt like it had originally been translated from a semantic language.

MEgus
 
Paul, I know that sounds like a good idea, but I find it quite elegant in it’s present form.

One interesting thing though, when it was translated into a semantic language, all of the “And it came to Pass” language fit right back in place. The man who did that said that if it would not have had those, it would not have worked and he felt like it had originally been translated from a semantic language.

MEgus
I think you meant Semitic, but I get what you mean. I’m afraid that is just one of those faith-promoting Mormon legends.
 
This statement:
… the quote is, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is “Translated” correctly.
logically sounds the same to me as:

I’m against abortion except when the woman’s health is threatened.

The second part of the sentence voids the first part.
 
This statement:logically sounds the same to me as:

I’m against abortion except when the woman’s health is threatened.

The second part of the sentence voids the first part.
Huh?

You think that the bible badly translated is as valid as one that is translated correctly?

Ever read “The Good News” bible? 😉
 
A. We believe the Bible to be the word of God
B. Unless we don’t like what it says.
We Catholics don’t think poorly translated bibles are valid either. A bad translation means that the message has become garbled. That’s a commonsense tenet, not a tenet of any particular religion.
 
OK James, but which version of the Bible would that be?

We are taught that to understand the Bible, we should do as the Bible tells us.

John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

If the scriptures are inspired by the Spirit, then it is by the Spirit that we should seek for the understanding of them.

MEgus
As to which version of the Bible that would be:
I would have to go with one that has an imprimatur of the Catholic Church.
Why?
Because the Catholic Church is the one who assembled the Bible as we know it today.

I fully agree with the Bible quote above. We do depend upon the Holy Spirit for our understanding. Which is another reason why I would reamin with the Catholic Church. For it is through the Holy Spirit that the Church has assembled, protected, copied, translated, defended and preached the Holy Bible since ca. 400 AD.
However if one believes that the Church fell into apostacy well before the assembly of the Bible into the book we know today, then one must consider the entire canon as suspect for an aposate church cannot be led by the Holy Spirit. So how could an apostate church be trusted to properly assemble the Books of the canon?
 
James,

Let me ask you a question about your Church.

Who Chooses and Ordains Deacons, Priests, Bishops, etc?

Is there an order?

For instance, can a Deacon ordain a Bishop?

MEgus
I’m not sure what you are asking here and I do not know the particulars of how the processes work however,

Young men are “Called” to the priesthood by the Holy Spirit. They then go through a discerment process with a spiritual advisor before and, I’m sure, during seminary.
Priests are ordained by a Bishop generally.
Bishops are selected by the confirmed by the Pope under his authority as Vicar of Christ.

Peace
James
 
A. We believe the Bible to be the word of God
B. Unless we don’t like what it says.
I don’t know that the mormons actually engage in this sort of thing. At least no more than any other group who wishes to “translate” the meaning of a particular passage to their own suit their own beliefs. This sort of thing goes on all the time around here with things like the “Rock” and “Eat my Flesh”.
 
A. We believe the Bible to be the word of God
B. Unless we don’t like what it says.
I think that you are deliberately missing the point.

Here is the Good News Bible version of Genesis 2:1-2:

*And so the whole universe was completed. By the seventh day God finished what he had been doing and stopped working. He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a special day, because by that day he had completed his creation and stopped working. And that it how the universe was created. *

Here are the same two verses in the **New International Version:
**
  • 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
*
From "The Message"

*1 Heaven and Earth were finished, down to the last detail.

2-4 By the seventh day
God had finished his work.
On the seventh day
he rested from all his work.
God blessed the seventh day.
He made it a Holy Day
Because on that day he rested from his work,
all the creating God had done.

This is the story of how it all started,
of Heaven and Earth when they were created. *

The KJV:

*1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.*

From 'The Contemporary English Version"
  • 1So the heavens and the earth and everything else were created.
The Seventh Day
2 By the seventh day God had finished his work, and so he rested.


From **

*1And the heavens and the earth are completed, and all their host;

2and God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made. *

From "**Today’s New International Version:
**
*1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Code:
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. *
From Douay-Rheims:

*1 So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
*
(I like this one; 'all the furniture of them…"…has a sound to it.)

New World Translation: (very martial version, this one, for a very pacifist people)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made

Ok, I picked two verses that every body pretty much agrees on…except, of course…DO they?

Looking at these, which would you go with? Are these verses talking about the solar system or the entire universe? Furniture or armies or hosts?

When we are talking about scripture, exegesis is important; the words are important; the meaning behind them is IMPORTANT. If the translator reads something into what he sees, and puts what he read into the words that he writes, the meaning of the passage changes; perhaps a little.

Perhaps a lot.

The Johanine comma is a very big case in point.

So yeah, it’s “we believe the bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly,” NOT “we believe the bible to be the word of God unless we don’t like what it says.”

The problem being, of course, that just because you claim it says one thing, it doesn’t mean that it actually does say what you think it does. You could be wrong–and in that case it wouldn’t be US who are ‘not liking what it says,’ is it? In fact, the reason that there are Protestants today is because a great many people decided that the Scriptures didn’t really say what the Catholics think they did.**
 
(Snipped)

So yeah, it’s “we believe the bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly,” NOT “we believe the bible to be the word of God unless we don’t like what it says.”

The problem being, of course, that just because you claim it says one thing, it doesn’t mean that it actually does say what you think it does. You could be wrong–and in that case it wouldn’t be US who are ‘not liking what it says,’ is it? In fact, the reason that there are Protestants today is because a great many people decided that the Scriptures didn’t really say what the Catholics think they did.
OK, I agree that the translation is important, which is why we look for the imprimatur of the Church.

However I did want to comment on one point you make above which I highlighted.
This is not really true at all.
I have no wish to derail the thread, but allow me to make the following points:
  1. The Protestant Reformation was started by a relatively few people
  2. The reformers had problems with Church Practices much more than with Church Doctrine
  3. The reason that Protestantism became entrenched was more to do with politics than with religion.
  4. Once the Reformers came up with Sola Scriptura and yanked the Bible away from the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, “all bets were off” in so far as proper interpretation was involved.
Now back to the topic at hand.

Peace
James
 
I’m beginning to see another reason why we have so much trouble understanding and communicating. It seems that we have different definitions of “Priesthood”…

It appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that in Mormon belief “Prieshood” or a “Priest” would be one who is empowered to receive revelation from God to teach the People. (This is based on what I read on page 4 of the Pamphlet, “The Restoration”) Of course, what they are refering to in the OT are called “Prophets”, and in the NT are called Apostles.

This means that the Jewish Priests did not have “Priesthood Authority”. Unless, of course, a given individual was called by God to be a “Prophet”.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Peace
James
 
I don’t know that the mormons actually engage in this sort of thing. At least no more than any other group who wishes to “translate” the meaning of a particular passage to their own suit their own beliefs. This sort of thing goes on all the time around here with things like the “Rock” and “Eat my Flesh”.
I don’t know that they do either. I’m just saying when I first heard a mormon say it, that is what I thought. It sounds like a ready made escape clause; but I don’t know that they have used it.
 
I’m beginning to see another reason why we have so much trouble understanding and communicating. It seems that we have different definitions of “Priesthood”…

It appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that in Mormon belief “Prieshood” or a “Priest” would be one who is empowered to receive revelation from God to teach the People. (This is based on what I read on page 4 of the Pamphlet, “The Restoration”) Of course, what they are refering to in the OT are called “Prophets”, and in the NT are called Apostles.

This means that the Jewish Priests did not have “Priesthood Authority”. Unless, of course, a given individual was called by God to be a “Prophet”.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Peace
James
Mormons believe priesthood is a power. God the Father gave this power to Jesus. Jesus gave this power to the Apostles. Mormons believe the Apostles did not give this power to anyone else.

All worthy male members of the LDS church are believed to have this power given to them at the age of 12, when they are called deacons. At age 14 they get an increase of priesthood power, and are called teachers. At age 16 they are called priests. At age 19 they are called elders. That is the set path. After elder, a man can be made a high priest. A prophet is a high priest who has been called to the position of prophet. This position gives him more powers of their priesthood.

This power is only available to worthy males, and this power will wax and wane depending on the boy’s/man’s worthiness. “While the power of the priesthood is unlimited, our individual power in the priesthood is limited by our degree of righteousness or purity.” (Priesthood Power, lds.org)
 
I think that you are deliberately missing the point.
Someone once told me the best Bible is the one you’ll read.

I like the New American Bible. The KJV is difficult to understand, has books removed from it, and as far as translation goes…has many errors. Also, uses phrases from 17th century English that do not have the same meaning for us modern English speakers.

But hey, if you’re reading it, great. 👍
 
I don’t know that they do either. I’m just saying when I first heard a mormon say it, that is what I thought. It sounds like a ready made escape clause; but I don’t know that they have used it.
Well, maybe once
King Follet Discourse:
I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Roch—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head!
 
…Looking at these, which would you go with? Are these verses talking about the solar system or the entire universe? Furniture or armies or hosts?
…So yeah, it’s “we believe the bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly,”
Does the Bible cease to be the Word of God if someone translates it “furniture” when it should be “hosts?” How do you know if it should be “hosts” and not “furniture?” How does the LDS church know that the King James Version is translated correctly?

Why isn’t the same standard applied to the Book of Mormon? How do you know it has been “translated correctly,” not only from the original language through Joseph Smith and his scribes, but also though the various printings in English, and from English to the many other languages it has been translated into? Shouldn’t there also be a disclaimer that, “we believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God as long as its translated correctly?” Or is the Book of Mormon held to be the word of God regardless of the correctness of translation?
 
I don’t want to get things to fractured, but I do have another question I’d like to toss out.

My understanding is that the Mormon Church believes that the Bible contains errors. Is that True?
Yes.
If it is True, does the Mormon Church publish a list of what these errors are?
No, we don’t. We consider the Bible to be correct unless we have good reason to believe otherwise. For example, the Book of Mormon contains quotations from Isaiah that have variations with the passages in the Bible. We consider the Book of Mormon variant to be more correct. But the differences are not such that would make us want to “mistrust” the Bible. We still revere it as the word of God, alongside the Book of Mormon and other scriptures that we have.

zerinus
 
OK. Thanks for the correct quote.

Well OK, but then who get’s to say what is or is not translated correctly?
So far as I know we don’t have access to ANY of the original manuscripts so there can be no true comparison by this.
It would seem that if there were errors, translation or otherwise, that the Mormon Founders would have written a “corrected” text. Why didn’t they?

I guess the thing that bothers me about this idea is that the missionaries who visited me made a point of quoting from the King James Bible in support of the Mormon belief set.
Since, as you say, the Bible is correct, “in so far as it is translated correctly”, yet cannot say what is or is not translated correctly (no list remember?), who is to say that the quotes you folks use are translated correctly?
In other words, you are hoping to convince me, and/or others of the correctness of the LDS Church using a book you accept as “The Word of God”, but claim/admit it has errors, but you don’t know what or where.
It seems to me that one can either accept the Bible as is, or one must reject it. Accept that God has Protected His own Word, or reject it in toto.

Peace
James
See my previous post.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top