Mormon Claims

[dianaiad]

What are some of the words defined differently in Mormonism, apostasy and salvation come to mind but I can’t think of others. I find this definition thing annoying, on one hand we are told “that is not the definition found in the dictionary” and on the other we are told well “we think this word means this” even though their meaning is not in the dictionary, like apostasy for instance.

uhmn…how is our definition of ‘apostasy’ different from the dictionary one? IT says “abandonment of one’s religions faith, a political pary, one’s principles, or a cause.” That’s the internet dictionary definition.

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says that apostasy is the 'abandonment or renunciation of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance."

That’s how Mormons define it, too,y’know. We happen to believe that this is precisely what happened in the 'great apostasy." everybody abandoned the gospel Jesus taught and went their own different ways. Of course, they didn’t leave ALL of it, but apostates seldom do. There is no requirement that apostates must abandon everything, after all.

Are there any other words that seem problematic to you?

 

[dianaiad]

I believe he’s talking about God the Father being once a man. In our beliefs, God the Son was once a man, not the Father (or the Holy Spirit for that matter).

It doesn’t matter, sir. As long as YOU believe that Jesus Christ shares the same substance with God the Father, so that they are the same God, then God was once a man. Therefore the horror filled gasps of outrage are very much out of place.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

It doesn’t matter, sir. As long as YOU believe that Jesus Christ shares the same substance with God the Father, so that they are the same God, then God was once a man. Therefore the horror filled gasps of outrage are very much out of place.

They are the same God but they are not the same Person. Therefore, the horror filled gasps of outrage are not out of place, since we don’t believe that the Father was ever once a man. Only the Son was.

 

[dianaiad]

Again, when we are “shocked” at the statement that “God was once a man”, we’re of course thinking about God the Father being once a man. Not the Son.

But that’s the thing: when you get outraged over this idea, you aren’t taking into consideration the whole of the belief, just as you are objecting here to my representation of God having once been man, because of course you are thinking of Jesus Christ, not His Father,

Do you think that, just perhaps, those people who are getting all upset over our beliefs in this area aren’t getting the whole picture either?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

But that’s the thing: when you get outraged over this idea, you aren’t taking into consideration the whole of the belief, just as you are objecting here to my representation of God having once been man, because of course you are thinking of Jesus Christ, not His Father,

Do you think that, just perhaps, those people who are getting all upset over our beliefs in this area aren’t getting the whole picture either?

The phrase “God was once a man” is not objectionable to traditional Christians when we are thinking that “God” is referring to the Son/Jesus Christ. This is the same as when we refer to Mary being the “Mother of God”, since we are of course referring to Jesus Christ and the Incarnation, and not the Father.

The problem here is that, in the context of Mormonism, when we here “God was once a man”, we are thinking of the Mormon belief that the Father was once a man, hence why he has a body of flesh and bones like Jesus does. This is the issue that traditional Christians have. We agree with Mormons that God the Son was once a man, however we strongly disagree that God the Father (a distinct Person from the Son) was ever once a man, or that he has a body of flesh and bones.

 

[zaffiroborant]

uhmn…how is our definition of ‘apostasy’ different from the dictionary one? IT says “abandonment of one’s religions faith, a political pary, one’s principles, or a cause.” That’s the internet dictionary definition.

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says that apostasy is the 'abandonment or renunciation of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance."

That’s how Mormons define it, too,y’know. We happen to believe that this is precisely what happened in the 'great apostasy." everybody abandoned the gospel Jesus taught and went their own different ways. Of course, they didn’t leave ALL of it, but apostates seldom do. There is no requirement that apostates must abandon everything, after all.

Are there any other words that seem problematic to you?

No Mormons on this board do not define it that way when pressed on when the apostasy occurred. When pushed to show just when “everyone” abandoned the gospel they turn to the Mormon definition of “withdrawal of authority to act in Gods name” and “the loss of authority to administer ordinances”. Mormons here have said directly that the great apostasy does not mean everyone abandoned or renounced their faith but actually means this withdrawal of authority. ParkerD has said it on more than one occasion.

 

[evanfaust]

“Can we justify the prophet’s change from “white” to “pure?” The answer is yes. The terms “white” and “pure” can be found in parallel in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and D&C 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ. Moreover, we must note that the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the prophet Joseph modified does not refer to the Lamanites, but to the Jews and Gentiles in the latter days who turn to Christ.”

lol…yes, but in Revelations, it does speak of blacks becoming white. So your justification holds no water. When it was clear blacks were not becoming white, the book of mormon HAD to be changed.

As expected your criticism is blind without any consideration to the explanation of your opponent! You did not read what I posted. If you carefully read it you will see that the text above says that the passage Joseph changed in the BOM applies to the Jew and gentiles as Dr. John Tvedtnes says. It does not apply to the dark lamanites.

“we must note that the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the prophet Joseph modified does not refer to the Lamanites, but to the Jews and Gentiles in the latter days who turn to Christ."

 

[why_me]

No Mormons on this board do not define it that way when pressed on when the apostasy occurred. When pushed to show just when “everyone” abandoned the gospel they turn to the Mormon definition of “withdrawal of authority to act in Gods name” and “the loss of authority to administer ordinances”. Mormons here have said directly that the great apostasy does not mean everyone abandoned or renounced their faith but actually means this withdrawal of authority. ParkerD has said it on more than one occasion.

Zaff, we are talking apples and oranges. The great apostacy was just that…Great. It implies everything Parker said and more. However, dianaid is talking about apostacy with a small A. So, those that left their faith are apostates and are in a state of apostacy.

 

[Stephen168]

No Mormons on this board do not define it that way when pressed on when the apostasy occurred. When pushed to show just when “everyone” abandoned the gospel they turn to the Mormon definition of “withdrawal of authority to act in Gods name” and “the loss of authority to administer ordinances”. Mormons here have said directly that the great apostasy does not mean everyone abandoned or renounced their faith but actually means this withdrawal of authority. ParkerD has said it on more than one occasion.

True, the Mormon definition is not the same as the OED because Mormons can not prove the OED definition ever happened. In fact if we applied the OED definition it is clear the apostasy was led by Joseph Smith in 1844.

 

[Javl]

Originally Posted by dianaiad
But that’s the thing: when you get outraged over this idea, you aren’t taking into consideration the whole of the belief, just as you are objecting here to my representation of God having once been man, because of course you are thinking of Jesus Christ, not His Father,

Do you think that, just perhaps, those people who are getting all upset over our beliefs in this area aren’t getting the whole picture either?

The phrase “God was once a man” is not objectionable to traditional Christians when we are thinking that “God” is referring to the Son/Jesus Christ. This is the same as when we refer to Mary being the “Mother of God”, since we are of course referring to Jesus Christ and the Incarnation, and not the Father.

The problem here is that, in the context of Mormonism, when we here “God was once a man”, we are thinking of the Mormon belief that the Father

was once a man, hence why he has a body of flesh and bones like Jesus does. This is the issue that traditional Christians have. We agree with Mormons that God the Son was once a man, however we strongly disagree that God the Father (a distinct Person from the Son) was ever once a man, or that he has a body of flesh and bones.

Not only Catholics, but mainline Christians also object to the Mormon statements that Adam is our God and that he had celestial wives before he came to this earth. The Mormon “God” is NOT the God of the Christian Bible. The God described in the scriptures is pure spirit without bodily form. When He is described with human attributes, it is the only way that mere man can understand some of His actions. It does not mean that He has a flesh and blood body ( except for God the Son, who lowered Himself for our sake. ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[catholic-rcia]

Zaff, we are talking apples and oranges. The great apostacy was just that…Great. It implies everything Parker said and more. However, dianaid is talking about apostacy with a small A. So, those that left their faith are apostates and are in a state of apostacy.

Throughout the Scriptures we see the deposit of faith given to the church in a way others such as you can not yet see. You can see this when you or Prker bring up the Apostasy, or failures within our Church. This puts claims such as the full Apostasy to rest. Right here in these passages. Along with all of the rest. There is no special breed of people why me. We all our sinners together being saved by the Grace of God.

Lk 7:36–50

A Pharisee invited him to dine with him, and he entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at table.
Now there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster flask of ointment,
she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Tell me, teacher,” he said.
“Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred days’ wages and the other owed fifty. Which of them will love him more?”

Simon said in reply, “The one, I suppose, whose larger debt was forgiven.” He said to him, “You have judged rightly.”
Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.
You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.
So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.”
He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
The others at table said to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
But he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Very Catholic, very Christian. It strikes to the core of who we are because we know who we are not, what we have done and what we have failed to do. . Who the LDS can become lie in the passages above.

 

[Stephen168]

What I am “here for” isn’t the issue, Stephen.

I was reacting to Returning Home (an anti if I ever saw one) telling everybody what the “Mormon Church says.” about the question.

I can confidently say that whatever Returning Home says the “Mormon church” will say bears little resemblance to what it actually DOES say.

Diana, who wonders why she EVER takes you off ignore.

Atleast we are not talking about the Mormon Church accepting Catholic Church authority anymore; which was your goal.

 

[SirThomasMore]

uhmn…how is our definition of ‘apostasy’ different from the dictionary one? IT says “abandonment of one’s religions faith, a political pary, one’s principles, or a cause.” That’s the internet dictionary definition.

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says that apostasy is the 'abandonment or renunciation of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance."

Then by that definition there was no “Great Apostasy”. We can read from the time of Christ until today that people were following, worshipping, praising, teaching, all about God and His love for us and about Jesus, the Savior. Thank you for clarifying

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6724343:

As expected your criticism is blind without any consideration to the explanation of your opponent!

You are not an opponent. At least not to me. I am not fighting. I am correcting and teaching, as you have shown that you follow a false god and false prophet. But, my "criticism was in perfect consideration to your red herring.

You did not read what I posted. If you carefully read it you will see that the text above says that the passage Joseph changed in the BOM applies to the Jew and gentiles as Dr. John Tvedtnes says. It does not apply to the dark lamanites.

I read your red herring very carefully. I showed its flaw.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Zaff, we are talking apples and oranges. The great apostacy was just that…Great. It implies everything Parker said and more. However, dianaid is talking about apostacy with a small A. So, those that left their faith are apostates and are in a state of apostacy.

The “Great Apostasy” is just another LDS invention. And, as with all LDS inventions, it has no basis in fact.

Why is it that Mormons can never pick something they can show us?

They have the Book of Mormon…yet cannot tell us where it took place, or anything from it

They have the Great Apostasy…yet cannot tell us exactly when it took place and how it could have done so worldwide

it must be difficult to believe in things you can never place on a map or calendar

 

[Returning_Home]

The JST is in their bible. It is footnoted. And so why buy it when it is in their bible already?

That’s odd because in my quad (1996 edition), I have only the JST notes, not the entire edition. That’s only 17 pages of added material, but I did find something of note: in the revised Genesis 14:30, I find that holders of the Mechizedek priesthood have the ability to ‘break mountains, divide the seas, to dry up water and to turn it out of its course.’

Does this mean that Smith foresaw the show The Last Airbender? And why haven’t we ever seen one single Mormon man do any of these things?

 

[dianaiad]

No Mormons on this board do not define it that way when pressed on when the apostasy occurred. When pushed to show just when “everyone” abandoned the gospel they turn to the Mormon definition of “withdrawal of authority to act in Gods name” and “the loss of authority to administer ordinances”. Mormons here have said directly that the great apostasy does not mean everyone abandoned or renounced their faith but actually means this withdrawal of authority. ParkerD has said it on more than one occasion.

No…the withdrawal of authority wasn’t the apostasy…it was the result of the apostasy. It was the first external evidence of that internal apostasy that was going on. Do you really think that, if people were still LISTENING, that revelation would have ceased?

To believe that is to truly think that it really was God doing the abandoning, as so many of you claim WE believe. However, that’s not what we believe, and I think that ParkerD and all the other Mormons on this post would agree.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s odd because in my quad (1996 edition), I have only the JST notes, not the entire edition. That’s only 17 pages of added material, but I did find something of note: in the revised Genesis 14:30, I find that holders of the Mechizedek priesthood have the ability to ‘break mountains, divide the seas, to dry up water and to turn it out of its course.’

Does this mean that Smith foresaw the show The Last Airbender? And why haven’t we ever seen one single Mormon man do any of these things?

Jesus said, in Matt. 17:20 that anybody with ‘faith as a grain of mustard seed’ would be able tell a mountain (or in Luke, make that a Sycamore tree) to get up and move somewhere else. Why haven’t we ever seen someone actually, y’know, DO that?

 

[Returning_Home]

I posted a few of his letters to his wife on this thread or a recent thread…they show him to be rather limited in grammar. And they were written when he was an adult.

As a sidenote: if sidney wrote the book of mormon as some claimed, i wonder what he was thinking sitting in that prison. And how could Joe and sid keep a straight face?

And that jibes with exactly what I already stated that, that he was of fair intelligence but not much formal education.

In fact, it doesn’t sound so different from this:

“For behold, it came to pass that after my father had made an end of speaking the words of his dream, and also of exhorting them to all diligence, he spake untop them concerning the Jews: How that after they were destroyed, yea, even that great city Jerusalem; and that many were carried away captive into Babylon; that according to the own due time of the Lord, they should return again; yea, even be brought back out of captivity; and after they are brought back out of captivity, to possess again the land of their inheritance.” (BOM 1830 edition, p 22, my personal photocopy from church archives)

This passage is an absurdly long run-on sentence, using multiple semicolons, a very clunky stream-of-consciousness style that includes words that were either corrected or deleted in later editions.

Since the BOM is a literal translation, there should be a high quality of work here instead of this mess passed off as divinely inspired.

I’ve never claimed that Rigdon had any knowledge of the BOM beyond what Smith told him it was. I also have no reason to believe that Rigdon knew Solomon Spaulding because the two have never been connected and thus the logical conclusion is that they probably weren’t aquainted. No, I believe that the BOM is entirely Smith’s creation that used the KJV, folk magic, and his own world around him as a springboard.

 

[Returning_Home]

Jesus said, in Matt. 17:20 that anybody with ‘faith as a grain of mustard seed’ would be able tell a mountain (or in Luke, make that a Sycamore tree) to get up and move somewhere else. Why haven’t we ever seen someone actually, y’know, DO that?

Unfortunately, back in reality, the Bible is using symbolism for being able to accomplish feats that are as big as mountians.

Smith goes on bragging in the next verse, telling his cronies that they’ll be able to “…put at defiance the armies of every nation, to divide the earth, to break every band, and to stand in the presence of God…”

Since none of those things have happened either, we have a problem. Either God lied to Joseph or Smith made it all up. With the accumlated evidence presented thus far, it looks like the latter is far more likely.