Mormon shift toward more traditional Christianity?

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

How so?

Again, I think the most important part of my comment was about the witness of the church and Peter contained in the Bible associated with his vision.

What Peter and the rest of the church would have said if they read Matthew 28 while discussion Peter’s vision I do not know. But we do know a few things.

Jesus told the Apostles to go only to the gentiles. Peter’s vision precipitated the change to extend the gospel to non-Jews.

One truth associated with this whole event is that gentiles could become Jews through accepting the gospel and being circumcised. Also, the Jews were not merely those in Jerusalem there were Jews everywhere. So “all the nations” does not require that non-Jews are being targeted. And it is certainly true that the apostles (Peter included) did not think “all the nations” included gentiles before his vision.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

$47.95 isn’t that bad. A little expensive, but not crazy-expensive. though, that’s another story for a college student. If my LDS studies continue to grow, I think that would be a good investment.

That Skousen guy has been working on that project full-time for 17 years?!?!?!?!? That’s A LONG time!

That last link is to a book!

The book describes why Skousen is taking so long. It has been a complicated project chasing down fragments in various archives and then trying to restore them enough to read off of them.

If you wait a few years, Skousen is putting out a CD (or DVD?) that should have the OM, the PM, and all the editions on it for side by side comparison.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Tmaque:

BJ, Here you go. Please take the time and actually read these verses. What I have posted here is simply a commenting summary on each one. These were put together by John Salza.

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

BJ,
As you can see, on the subjects of marriage and celibacy, the LDS Church focuses on one commandment given to Adam & Eve, a married couple, and then ignores the rest of the Bible.

I did not have time to read all of the scripture you quoted, but Matt. 19:v 11 and 12 do not say that God says celebacy is a gift from Him at all.
11. All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
12. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kindom of heven. He that can take let him take it.

To me this says that there are men who for no fault of their own ca n not marry or produce children. These men God is forgiving and saying the laws of marriage and childbearing do not apply to them.
Just as they would not apply to a mentally, or physically handicapped man, or person. No where does it say that God is praising celibacy.

Matthew 22v 30 For in the ressurection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

This means that whomever has not married before the ressurection comes, it is too late for them to marry,and if they are good people but never had the opportunity to marry, they will still be as the angels of God in heaven, but without the blessings of marriage.

Where do you come up with the extra words that God said for Priests to be celibate? It does not mention priests at all, unless they are all eunuchs.
I will read all the other scriptures you sited when I have more time. and possibly comment.
In case you say I took the scripture from the KJV, I did not, I took it directly from the Catholic Bible.
BJ

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

The book describes why Skousen is taking so long. It has been a complicated project chasing down fragments in various archives and then trying to restore them enough to read off of them.

If you wait a few years, Skousen is putting out a CD (or DVD?) that should have the OM, the PM, and all the editions on it for side by side comparison.

What’s the PM?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

oat soda:

mormons are faced with the painful fact that the BOM is a total hoax as well as the BOA and D&C. DNA and archeological evidence prove every historical event in the BOM is a lie. so why does anyone expect mormons to be reasonable with their take on the trinity?

as long as they believe something as blatantly fabricated as the BOM, how can we expect to have a serious dialogue with them. this is why i don’t expect the catholic church to ever have a serious dialogue with the mormon church -they are just too far out there.

Oat soda, Do you ever wonder why no one responds to you? Except to call you a bigot? You embarrass your fellow Catholics with your off the wall remarks. Have some Charity

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Jesus told the Apostles to go only to the gentiles.

HUH??? I think you mean Jews, not Gentiles. Right?

Also, the Jews were not merely those in Jerusalem there were Jews everywhere. So “all the nations” does not require that non-Jews are being targeted. And it is certainly true that the apostles (Peter included) did not think “all the nations” included gentiles before his

vision.
Actually…one downfall to only acknowledging the KJV is that you miss some of the translations directed more toward the actual meaning of the words that the literal translation of the words. Other versions say such things as “all nations”, “all peoples”, “everyone you meet”, “all countries”.

Webster’s definition of nation - 1) a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture, and language in common; 2) the people of a territory united under a single government. Using this definition, it is clear that Jesus is talking about all people, not just the Jews in the diaspora. Also, Webster’s gives a definition of “nations” as found in the Bible - 1) the non-Jewish nations, Gentiles; 2) all the peoples of the earth. Jesus is talking about everyone, not just Jews.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

What’s the PM?

The Printer’s Manuscript. Oliver Cowdery and some others made a copy of the OM and non-Mormon, John Gilbert, added punctuation to the PM. Gilbert was the foreman at the Grandin press that the first edition of the Book of Mormon came from.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

I did not have time to read all of the scripture you quoted, but Matt. 19:v 11 and 12 do not say that God says celebacy is a gift from Him at all.
11. All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
12. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kindom of heven. He that can take let him take it.

To me this says that there are men who for no fault of their own ca n not marry or produce children.

Here is the exact wording of Matthew 19:12 KJV style "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Verse 12 denies your commentary. It says there are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Making themselves eunuchs does not make it “through no fault of their own”. It means they chose that way, and it says that not everyone can accept this way.

Matthew 19:10-11 “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”
Here Jesus tells them that not everyone can accept marriage. Either that, or not everyone can accept celibacy. It has to be one or the other. Either way, He is making the case for celibacy. If not everyone can accept marriage, then there are those who must be celibate. If not everyone can accept celibacy, then there is a special vocation for those who are celibate.

Again, a problem with the “only KJV” idea is that you only get a pretty literal translation of the English used at that time. Other versions talk about being celibate, or denying marriage, not about being a eunuch.

Add to all that that Paul makes a pretty good case for staying single.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

The Printer’s Manuscript. Oliver Cowdery and some others made a copy of the OM and non-Mormon, John Gilbert, added punctuation to the PM. Gilbert was the foreman at the Grandin press that the first edition of the Book of Mormon came from.

The printer’s maunscript ought to be the same as the 1830 version shouldn’t it?

 

[ex-mormon]

BJ Colbert:

Oat soda, Do you ever wonder why no one responds to you? Except to call you a bigot? You embarrass your fellow Catholics with your off the wall remarks. Have some Charity

BJ Colbert,

That’s the pot calling the kettle black. I will give some examples from your earlier posts on this thread.

Originally posted by BJ Colbert
Do you wonder why God does not rescue His Catholic Church from the calamity that is befalling it worldwide?..

It seems the priests should be the first to show the way to their parishners by having wives and children, and learning themselves what God wants them to learn. It seems to me they take the easy way out by not having the responsibility of families, and letting the church support them. That to me, seems like committing suicide, to just withdraw from normal life and hide behind the church…

It is going to be funny to see the looks on all faces when the things you laugh and ridicule now are shown to be true.

BJ

To paraphrase you, You embarrass your fellow Mormons with your off the wall remarks. Have some Charity.

God Bless,

ex-mo

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

The printer’s maunscript ought to be the same as the 1830 version shouldn’t it?

I think there is quite a few discrepancies. The handwriting had to be type-set. I thing the type-setters occasionally ran into difficulty reading the handwriting. Sometimes the handwriting didn’t make any sense (i.e., left out words, etc.) so the printer would do some creative fixing.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

I think there is quite a few discrepancies. The handwriting had to be type-set. I thing the type-setters occasionally ran into difficulty reading the handwriting. Sometimes the handwriting didn’t make any sense (i.e., left out words, etc.) so the printer would do some creative fixing.

So the PM and the 1830 version could be significantly different…Sounds like a bit of a problem. You have the OM, then you have the PM which could be different than the OM, then you have the 1830 published version which could be different from the PM which could be different from the OM. Holy smokes!

 

[mormon_fool]

ex-mormon:

That’s the pot calling the kettle black. I will give some examples from your earlier posts on this thread.

To paraphrase you, You embarrass your fellow Mormons with your off the wall remarks. Have some Charity.

ex-m,

I am not sure that BJ’s posting style consistently resembles Oat Soda’s. There is some past history here you may not be aware of. . . I like Oat Soda. I see Oat’s contributions on threads not related to mormonism and they seem to me to be level headed. Sometimes it is refreshing for people to speak their minds and say what we are all thinking. BJ may get fiesty sometimes, but she is usually apologetic afterwards. Anybody whose hardest hitting criticisms all start out with “It seems to me” can’t be all bad. I personally learn a lot about catholicism when posters respond to BJ and her questions. I enjoy her perspectives and I am no more embarassed about her posts than I am my own.

Anyway, I will try to take both your’s and BJ’s advice and have some Charity.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

So the PM and the 1830 version could be significantly different…Sounds like a bit of a problem. You have the OM, then you have the PM which could be different than the OM, then you have the 1830 published version which could be different from the PM which could be different from the OM. Holy smokes!

Hey it gets even worse than that! Joseph Smith made some handwritten corrections on the PM to help him prepare the 2nd (1837) edition. He found some spots that weren’t copied right and fixed them in a different way then he would have if he had consulted the OM. The 3rd edition (1840) shows some corrections that read more like the OM.

Now here’s the tricky part. Now that 72% of the OM is lost, how does one figure what the missing parts said where there is obvious copyist errors? Skousen is using the same textual criticism methods they use in Bible studies to try to reconstruct the original text.

I think the next official edition the LDS church puts out will use Skousen’s conclusions and change some of the Book of Mormon text so it reads more like the OM.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

Hey it gets even worse than that! Joseph Smith made some handwritten corrections on the PM to help him prepare the 2nd (1837) edition. He found some spots that weren’t copied right and fixed them in a different way then he would have if he had consulted the OM. The 3rd edition (1840) shows some corrections that read more like the OM.

Now here’s the tricky part. Now that 72% of the OM is lost, how does one figure what the missing parts said where there is obvious copyist errors? Skousen is using the same textual criticism methods they use in Bible studies to try to reconstruct the original text.

I think the next official edition the LDS church puts out will use Skousen’s conclusions and change some of the Book of Mormon text so it reads more like the OM.

OH THE HUMANITY!!! OH THE CONFUSION!!!

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

OH THE HUMANITY!!! OH THE CONFUSION!!!

LOL! Obviously there are bigger difficulties than what can be solved with a few footnotes, as ex-m suggested.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mormon fool:

CD,

I hope you are not advocating that Latter-day Saints shouldn’t think, pray, and study the scriptures for themselves. Why should the LDS be “bound” to simultaneously believe in apparently contradicting doctrines? That sounds mentally painful!

I read the posts following this and realized something. I didnt realize that LDS doctrines are not as “binding” as it appeared to me. When I think of a binding Catholic doctrine, I know that if I dont accept it Im simply not Catholic.
Tom N:

At the same time we as individuals are responsible for our own relationship with God. We are not saved by believing the words of the Prophets, by partaking of the sacrament, by baptism, by celestial marriage, by … The ordinances I listed are two way agreements between God and the individual. The reliance upon Christ that allows us to keep these agreements results in our becoming one who is united with Christ. This is an individual path aided most importantly by Christ, but also by a community of saints. Thus, we rely on Christ, but also “follow the Prophet.”

I dont get this, how can you not be saved by believing what your own prophet said, or being Baptized as Jesus said?

I really do not see the Catholic Church as being radically different. Right belief does not save the Catholic

. It is the relationship with Christ. And while I believe the two way nature of LDS and early church ordinances was something partially lost in the Catholic sacraments, I still do not believe that the Grace afforded the believer who partakes of the sacraments automatically saves in Catholic theology. Salvation for a Catholic is also an individual path relying upon Christ, but aided by the community of fellow Catholics.
Right beliefe DOES save the Catholic. This right beliefe includes a relationship with Christ, as well as doing what He said. For Catholics, the Sacraments are the hight and foundation of a relationship with Christ. As for the person who partakes automatically, yet doesnt believe, I dont know if thats possible. Can a person continue to sit through a Church service, go to confession, change his life, etc, and yet not really believe? They go hand in hand. As you said, the Grace afforded to those who partake, Grace is the key to becoming closer to Jesus! It would never turn someone astray. At the same time believing and perseverance is directly proportional to how you recieve that grace.
I have more to say, but I got to go right now.

**Also I saw that OD1 thing keep getting mentioned and didnt realize what it was, so I looked on lds.org, and looked it over, then I clicked back and I noticed that a section138 was sandwiched between the 2 ODs, decided to look in the OD2 first. However Im not sure what it is saying. So up until 1978 (about 150 years after) the priesthood was restricted to who? Why did this change happen all of the sudden? How could the lds go into other nations and get converts for all that time, yet restrict the priesthood?

About the sec138, whats the difference between a section and OD? Anyway I looked at sec138 and saw this:
http://scriptures.lds.org/themes/graphics/spacer.gif
[Scriptures](javascript:selectVerse(38,164678)38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all, document.write(drawVerse(38,164678)); 38
I have heard this phrase before and I followed the link it gave to this:
Daniel7-13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14
And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Im not sure, but it looks like Adam and the Ancient of Days is the same thing.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Fool and TOm:

Thanks for answering questions about official doctrine, common consent, etc. I have a curiousity question (don’t kill this cat please)…Let’s say a doctrine/teaching goes out for common consent (however that happens) and some people support and some don’t. What happens to the doctrine/teaching at that point? Is it “moved forward” as official, or is there more discussion, or is “squashed”? Has there ever been an example of a doctrine/teaching going out for common consent and not receiving the consent of the people?

A very interesting question. I am going to have to deviate from your scenario a bit to ones that are more realistic to illustrate some dynamics.

I think some doctrines that are purely belief oriented might not have the same urgency to be canonized as some item that requires immediate changes in practice. Matters of orthopraxy probably create more tension than do matters of orthodoxy. Teachings can be strongly influential without making them binding.

I would place the Pearl of Great Price and the last two sections (137-8) in the Doctrine and Covenants in such a category. There was quite a delay between the original revelation to canonization. I would say the intervening time period allowed for an informal consensus to develop before the formal “vote”. As Tom points out Adam-God teachings may have been squashed by the same type of dynamic.

On the other hand, I think the church has a history of moving fast for canonization of some “binding practices”. Usually the formal common consent vote will go without a hitch once it is presented in conference, although I don’t always know what went on behind the scenes and how exactly dissenting voters are handled. If this turns out to be unpopular, the real contest of wills probably gets carried out informally. In other words, the members will show their consent or not by choosing to follow the instructions.

For tough to follow scripturally-demanded practices I see that there has usually been some kind of grace period so the membership can adjust. Take the Word of Wisdom for instance, it started out not being mandatory but as decades went by it eventually was enforced with tougher consequences. OD-1 is another good example, as some members snuck around and continued to enter in polygamous marriages. Eventually the church started excommunicating and many dissenters then formed their own church(es).

On the other hand, I think the Doctrine and Covenants provides examples where instructions were adjusted based on failures of the church members to follow previous revelations. I don’t have time to go into these, it is sometimes hard to explain what’s going on in the D&C without some lengthy historical background reading.

One interesting case where the common consent vote went against Joseph Smith is when he tried to replace Sidney Rigdon in the First Presidency. The members sustained Rigdon and Smith deferred to their wishes.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

tkdnick:

Here is the exact wording of Matthew 19:12 KJV style "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Verse 12 denies your commentary. It says there are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Making themselves eunuchs does not make it “through no fault of their own”. It means they chose that way, and it says that not everyone can accept this way.

Matthew 19:10-11 “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”
Here Jesus tells them that not everyone can accept marriage. Either that, or not everyone can accept celibacy. It has to be one or the other. Either way, He is making the case for celibacy. If not everyone can accept marriage, then there are those who must be celibate. If not everyone can accept celibacy, then there is a special vocation for those who are celibate.

Again, a problem with the “only KJV” idea is that you only get a pretty literal translation of the English used at that time. Other versions talk about being celibate, or denying marriage, not about being a eunuch.

Add to all that that Paul makes a pretty good case for staying
single.

Dear Tdnick,
Either way KJV or Catholic it says pretty much the same thing.
I quoted the Catholic Bible, the verse you quoted which uses the word"receive",is from KJV "take"is from the Catholic bible. I believe you are quoting out of context when you say that it means priests should not marry. The whole chapter is on marriage and it says if marriage does not work then it is better to be celibate, rather than to engage in sex without marriage, which would be adultery. Do the priests try marriage first and then if it doesn’t work out try celibacy?
I am totally confused on where in this or any chapter it says that God says it is a gift from Him for Catholic priests to be celibate.
I’m sorry, but I do not see it at all anywhere in the whole chapter.
In my viewpoint, celibacy is a lot different than being a eunuch. To me a eunuch is a man who has had his sex organs removed. Do you think all priests have had that surgery by choice? If they did then the part about making themselves eunuchs would make some sense. Celibacy is choosing not to have sexual relations. It has nothing to do with being a eunuch.

Webster’s dictionary defines Eunuch as:" 1.a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace 2. a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals."
Maybe in the early days the church had priests castrated, and it came from that(I’m just guessing). Then they would have chosen to be castrated and “made eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven”. If that were the case then I could accept your version. It would make sense then that all Priests are considered eunuchs, even if they are not castrated. Maybe they are castrated symbolically. As usual I am majorly confused about yours and Tamaque’s interpretation of this scripture to mean that priests are eunuchs.

BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

ex-mormon:

BJ Colbert,

That’s the pot calling the kettle black. I will give some examples from your earlier posts on this thread.

To paraphrase you, You embarrass your fellow Mormons with your off the wall remarks. Have some Charity.

God Bless,

ex-mo

Dear Ex-Mo
I notice you did not quote the post that I was responding to when I said the Catholic church had their own problems. I only repeated what I read in the newspaper and heard on the news. I don’t know if it is true or not about the problems the Catholic Church is having, but if the news is correct then they may be having some problems.
As far as my comment to Oat Soda, I only repeated what I have heard other Catholics call Oat Soda in other posts. I admit it was not nice of me to repeat what they said, but just couldn’t help myself. I am actually human and sometimes respond with a human response which is not always charitable.
The only reason I brought up the Catholic churches alleged problems was because I felt that someone was attacking my Church and my Prophet and I wanted to point out that not all was perfect in the Catholic Church. You should concentrate on following the commandments of God and not in attacking other religions(myself included) The first and foremost commandment is
to "Love the Lord, Thy God with all thy heart, might and mind. the second is like unto it, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
I love you all, even Oat Soda.
BJ