Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
As the “Can the Mormon Church be the True Church” thread has gotten a bit crazy since I was last on, I am starting a new one to ask a couple of questions.

NOTE – To anyone who wishes to Post Here, Please Keep this thread on the topic of What Mormon’s Actually Believe and is Documented. We, as Catholics, get rightfully frustrated when others “tell us” what we “believe”. Let us use the same courtesy to others. Mormon Beliefs can be found readily on line. One Place is HERE.

I was discussing the idea of the Keys being withdrawn from earth because there were no more “Apostles”. That is, there was no longer a valid “Priesthood”.
This is taken from the Mormon Publication “The Restoration” on page 8 where it says, “With the death of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, the truth was lost once again.”

Now suffice it to say that I find this to be an extraordinary statement. But let’s look at it a bit. The Mormon position is that, the Apostles failed, or did not, call additional Apostles and this resulted in the loss of the “Valid Priesthood”. But why should it?

First of all, what does the term “Apostle”, mean. Does it mean “One who receives revelation? No it does not. It means one who is sent forth. Did Jesus only send the twelve? Again, no He did not. On the great mission during Jesus lifetime he sent out 70, including the twelve, in pairs… So obviously His power was not restricted to the twelve.
Again, if we look at Pentecost, does the Holy Spirit come only to the twelve? No. For it says in Acts 2:1 that, “When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Does “all” mean just the twelve Apostles? Not according to a previous Statement in Acts 1: 13-15 we get a number at around 120 of faithful disciples gathered in the upper room.

So Now if we look at Acts2:1-4 we see
“1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the R55 whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

This seems to fly in the face of the Mormon belief that Revelation through the Holy Spirit of God was limited only to those called Apostles.

Add to this the fact that, when the Apostles layed hands on anyone, they invoked the Holy Spirit in Christ’s name. It is inconceivable that The Apostolic power and mission died with the original Apostles.

I will add one more thing from the pamphlet “The Restoration”. It can be found almost verbatim HERE. IT says:

“This apostasy led to the formation of many churches with conflicting teachings. Without the full gospel or the priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures? and the principles and ordinances? of the gospel of Jesus Christ. False ideas were taught as truth, and much of the knowledge of the true character and nature of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. The doctrines of faith? in Jesus Christ, repentance?, baptism?, and the gift of the Holy Ghost? became distorted or forgotten. Each generation inherited a state of apostasy, as people were influenced by what previous generations passed on, including changes to Christ’s gospel. Some inspired people, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, recognized that practices and doctrines had been changed or lost and tried to reform the churches to which they belonged. Without the priesthood authority, however, Christ’s gospel could not be returned to its original form.

You’ll note that this skips completely over nearly 1500 years of Church History and goes refers directly to Luther and Calvin. It then states that these people were not successful so the Restoration waited until the 1830’s. That’s nearly 1700 years of Apostasy, which is longer than the time from the Exodus until the time of Christ’s birth.

Did God ever abandon Israel for such a time in the OT?
The answer is no. Did He chastise His people – Yes He did, but He never abandoned them.

So by Mormon belief, Christ abandoned His Church for 1700 years.

To me, this makes no logical sense when compared to the Old covenants an the Promises of Christ to the Apostles to Build a Church and to be with Her until the end of the Age.

Peace
James
 
Thanks James for this Board. I hope we can both post things to help each of us and those who read it.

I can see what you mean, and I think if I believed in the way you do, I would think exactly the same way.

We believe the Apostles were much more than just those “Sent Forth” as the term is used today. But, I guess that’s why were talking, right?

Well, one thing we started talking about but didn’t get into was the calling of other Apostles. Unfortunately, we don’t have any information about the calling of these other Apostles except the first one, Matthias.

Many know of the original 12:
Simon Peter
Andrew
James the son of Zebedee
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the son of Alphaeus
Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus, Judas [the brother] of James(Three names)
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot

But how many know of the next 12?

Matthias
Barnabas
Paul
Silvanus
Timotheus
James the Lord’s brother
Judas surnamed Barsabas
Silas
Andronicus
Junia
Epaphroditus
Apollos 1

It’s obvious from the other Apostles called, that the office of Apostle was to be carried on. Well, at least we believe it should have been, and the fact that there were others called seems to indicate that.

MEgus
 
JRKH;:
thread on the topic of What Mormon’s Actually Believe and is Documented.
Probably the most critical thing to remember, is that the definition of a word used in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and The Community of Christ, and splinter groups from those two organisations, may not be the definition that one is used to using. (I’m deliberately ignoring the issue of whether or not CoC is Mormon. (Sorry to any CoC members that wander by, but that “early years” history is going to be a taint, until the Third Testament is tossed out.))

LDS member says “Jesus saved me” and means one thing.
A CoC member says “Jesus saved me” and means a second thing.
Protestant Christian says “Jesus saved me”, and means a third thing.
Catholic Christian says “Jesus saved me”, and means a fourth thing.

Each party said the same three words. Each party meant something completely different.

jonathon
 
Thanks James for this Board. I hope we can both post things to help each of us and those who read it.

I can see what you mean, and I think if I believed in the way you do, I would think exactly the same way.

We believe the Apostles were much more than just those “Sent Forth” as the term is used today. But, I guess that’s why were talking, right?

Well, one thing we started talking about but didn’t get into was the calling of other Apostles. Unfortunately, we don’t have any information about the calling of these other Apostles except the first one, Matthias.

Many know of the original 12:
Simon Peter
Andrew
James the son of Zebedee
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the son of Alphaeus
Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus, Judas [the brother] of James(Three names)
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot

But how many know of the next 12?

Matthias
Barnabas
Paul
Silvanus
Timotheus
James the Lord’s brother
Judas surnamed Barsabas
Silas
Andronicus
Junia
Epaphroditus
Apollos 1

It’s obvious from the other Apostles called, that the office of Apostle was to be carried on. Well, at least we believe it should have been, and the fact that there were others called seems to indicate that.

MEgus
Just stopping by briefly
I assume that each of the persons named above is called Apostle in the Bible. Since I am not a Bible Scholar and my time is fractured, could you give me the locations of each?. I know that is a lot to ask but I would appreciate it.

One thing I note is that you say, “Unfortunately, we don’t have any information about the calling of these other Apostles except the first one, Matthias.”
Since that is the case, then why would one assume that this “office” of apostle was meant to continue under that specific name. You see - We see the office of Apostle as continuing under many names; Priest, Monsignor, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Pope etc. These are all terms used in connection with the leadership of Christ’s Church.

It just seems to me that there is hang-up with the word. A word that does not mean what the LDS Church wants it to mean.

Peace
James
 
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?

If it is True, does the Mormon Church publish a list of what these errors are?

Peace
James
 
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?

If it is True, does the Mormon Church publish a list of what these errors are?

Peace
James
There is not list, and the quote is, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is “Translated” correctly.

That does not mean the original had errors. But translating things from one language to another can bring in errors. Just as our discussion on the differences between the Greek and Aramaic, not to mention then to English and the different changes in what words mean over a period of time as well.

MEgus
 
Matthias Acts 1:26

Barnabas Acts 14:14

Paul, Silvanus, Timotheus. 1 Thess. 1:1 and 2:6 and 3:3, 1 Corinthians 16:10

James the Lord’s brother Galatians 1:19

Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas Acts 15:32

Andronicus and Junia Romans 16:7

Epaphroditus Philippians 2:25

Apollos 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:4-6, 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:6
 
There is not list, and the quote is, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is “Translated” correctly.
OK. Thanks for the correct quote.
That does not mean the original had errors. But translating things from one language to another can bring in errors. Just as our discussion on the differences between the Greek and Aramaic, not to mention then to English and the different changes in what words mean over a period of time as well.
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
 
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?
Actually, JS started one…more of a study guide than anything else; he was murdered before it was completed. We use the KJV officially for our English version. Of course, more Mormons read non-English bibles than read the KJV, and their translations vary according to the language used. I believe that we go with the most widely accepted version of the bible in whatever language is addressed.

As to translation errors, we are dependent upon the same scholarly work you are; we do not have originals, but we have many early copies that we can compare to one another, and we’re not a bit averse to using the incredible scholarship of biblical researchers from many different Christian faiths.

Personally, I use the KJV for the poetry, and have a Strong’s and a Young’s for research purposes, and have bookmarked ‘bible gateway.’ 😉
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.
Makes sense; that’s the one we’ve done most of the cross referencing in. 😉
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
That’s a problem. You realize that your position is very much against even that of the biblical inerrantists among us, don’t you?

When they are pinned down their position is exactly the same as ours is; that the bible is inerrant IN THE ORIGINAL.

As to errors, there are websites all over that claim to list biblical errors; most of these have specific agendas they are pushing. As for me, I figure that I’ll take it as it is; if something I believe is going to depend on the precise wording found in the KJV, then I will go to several other translations to see if everybody agrees.

In other words, I will do as Moroni suggests: I will read, study, ponder and pray about it. That, ultimately, is the final proof of that which is true in religion; the confirmation of the Holy Ghost after sincere study and prayer.

Please excuse the following reference from the Book of Mormon; I am including it to show you how we truly feel about scripture.

Moroni 10: 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.
 
Actually, JS started one…more of a study guide than anything else; he was murdered before it was completed. We use the KJV officially for our English version. Of course, more Mormons read non-English bibles than read the KJV, and their translations vary according to the language used. I believe that we go with the most widely accepted version of the bible in whatever language is addressed.

As to translation errors, we are dependent upon the same scholarly work you are; we do not have originals, but we have many early copies that we can compare to one another, and we’re not a bit averse to using the incredible scholarship of biblical researchers from many different Christian faiths.

Personally, I use the KJV for the poetry, and have a Strong’s and a Young’s for research purposes, and have bookmarked ‘bible gateway.’ 😉

Makes sense; that’s the one we’ve done most of the cross referencing in. 😉

That’s a problem. You realize that your position is very much against even that of the biblical inerrantists among us, don’t you?

When they are pinned down their position is exactly the same as ours is; that the bible is inerrant IN THE ORIGINAL.

As to errors, there are websites all over that claim to list biblical errors; most of these have specific agendas they are pushing. As for me, I figure that I’ll take it as it is; if something I believe is going to depend on the precise wording found in the KJV, then I will go to several other translations to see if everybody agrees.

In other words, I will do as Moroni suggests: I will read, study, ponder and pray about it. That, ultimately, is the final proof of that which is true in religion; the confirmation of the Holy Ghost after sincere study and prayer.

Please excuse the following reference from the Book of Mormon; I am including it to show you how we truly feel about scripture.

Moroni 10: 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.
Still waiting.
 
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
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
 
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
 
40.png
dianaiad:
I imagine that the Book of Mormon, when it is translated, is translated as it is and let the chips fall where they may as far as those passages are concerned, but frankly?

I don’t really know.

And now I get to go find out!
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
 
Wouldn’t that be heresy or something? How about if we changed the shape of the pyramids? The BOM is a heaven sent, translated by a man with a seer stone. The translation appeared in his hat like a hologram. Every word is translated directly from heaven by an angel and to change it would be sacrilegious.
 
Wouldn’t that be heresy or something? How about if we changed the shape of the pyramids? The BOM is a heaven sent, translated by a man with a seer stone. The translation appeared in his hat like a hologram. Every word is translated directly from heaven by an angel and to change it would be sacrilegious.
But if the Mormon Church currently has living “prophets, seers and revelators” every bit as divinely inspired as Joseph Smith, then why can’t those seers put the BOM into modern English without error, as they believe Joseph Smith did in faux King James English? It would still be heaven-sent. In fact, the LDS still have Joseph’s seer stone locked in a vault in Salt Lake City. No reason they can’t still use it, right?
 
I would like to know if Mormons believe it is ok to be a Freemason? or, what they believe about Freemasons?
 
I would like to know if Mormons believe it is ok to be a Freemason? or, what they believe about Freemasons?
Most of the early Mormon leaders were Freemasons. Joseph Smith joined the Freemasons and a few months later “revealed” the temple endowment ceremony, which includes a direct borrowing from the first 3 degrees of Freemasonry, complete with the secret hand clasps and passwords (the Mormon hand clasps are exactly the same as the Freemason, but the passwords are different).

Here is the Wikipedia article on Mormons and Masons.
 
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
Thank you…now we know about Mandarin. 😉
 
Wouldn’t that be heresy or something? How about if we changed the shape of the pyramids? The BOM is a heaven sent, translated by a man with a seer stone. The translation appeared in his hat like a hologram. Every word is translated directly from heaven by an angel and to change it would be sacrilegious.
Well, if what you said were actually how we viewed it, you’d be right. However, while the Muslims feel this way about the Quran, we do NOT feel that way about the Book of Mormon.

In fact, the title page is rather clear that there might be mistakes; Joseph was human, his scribes were human, and there were a BUNCH of printing and grammar errors in the first edition.

So how about taking your strawman and setting it aside for a bit—and dealing with the book as WE see it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top