Q for Mormons

[zerinus]

I Nephi 11:18 " And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." B.O.M. copyright 1981, by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

Original Kirtland Edition pg. 25 " And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

In this verse there are two word changes: “Behold the virgin whom/which thou seest”

" mother of the Son of God" " Mother of God" I can give many other examples of verbal alterations, not just punctuation changes.

I have a copy of the original 1830 Kirtland Edition of the Book of Mormon.
I think you are very misinformed.

Well, how many thousand changes was that?

zerinus

 

[Geocacher]

Based on The Articles of Faith I created a new concept I call the Mormon Creed, and here it is in Quotes:

The Mormon Creed:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost, that they are separate individuals in one Godhead, but still ONE God in purpose.

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transression, even though his sin caused our mortality, and that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience, to the laws, and ordinances of the Gospel.

We believe that Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism(by immersion) for remission of sins, and confirmation of the Holy Ghost, are nessesary to enter God’s Kingdom.

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, aposles, prophets, pastors,teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, and that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, also all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel with the restoration of the Ten Tribes, and for Zion(New Jerusalem), to be built in America; that Christ will reign upon the Earth, and that the Earth shall be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the Law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men, and we follow the admonition of Paul, in that We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things, and if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Kinda like the Nicene Creed in length.
This Mormon Creed that I created, is condensed from the Articles of Faith, sums up basically what Mormons believe in.

 

[Harsalter]

Three individuals in one Godhead? Not when I was mormon. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit was three different Gods. And every mormon was striving to be a God, just as mormons believes that our Father and God was a human on another planet at one time.

*From carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm

God, Trinity
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.) *

But look at all their crazy doctrine at the above link. But here is just a few excerpts of some of the bizarre kept from new converts.

*What does Mormonism teach?

Baptism
Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the “newly baptized” person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.
Bible
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . .” 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.
“Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:28).
Book of Mormon
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)
Devil, the
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
God
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (D&C 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)
God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always ‘officially’ taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
“Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
God, becoming a god
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.)
“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them,” (DC 132:20).
God, many gods
There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
"And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3)
God, mother goddess
There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.)
**God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, **(Mormon Doctrine p. 516.)
God, Trinity
**The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. *“That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)

 

[Allweather]

Kinda like the Nicene Creed in length.
This Mormon Creed that I created, is condensed from the Articles of Faith, sums up basically what Mormons believe in.

Good morning, Geocacher. As a former pentecostal, I’m curious about the Mormon view of tongues. Do Mormons speak in tongues? What are the Mormon interpretations of NT Scripture that deal with tongues?

 

[Harsalter]

Do Mormons speak in tongues?

Mormon missionaries speak in “forked tongues”.

 

[Allweather]

Well, how many thousand changes was that?

zerinus

This subject had come up within the past week, and I asked then whether there is a catalog of all the changes that have been done to the BoM over the decades. Someone, I can’t remember who, linked to a listing, but I wasn’t able to make very much out of it. It started out by listing some entire sections, or pages that were deleted from the 1830 edition. Anyways, I wasn’t able to get much from that. But my question remains, particularly for the active Mormons, who, it seems to me, should be interested in this subject so that they can answer this properly for critics:

Does the LDS maintain an exact listing of all the changes, including seemingly inconsequential punctuation marks, that have been accomplished on the BoM (as well as the other “standard works” known as “modern scripture”) since the first editions? If so, where do we find these?

 

[GrammasRose]

Mr. Allweather: I don’t mean to put you off but this topic has been very hotly debated and has lead to the formation of a huge branch of Protestantism: the Baptists. From there, the Annabaptists and the Mennonites and the Amish. I just don’t think I could do the same justice to this argument as the many people who have debated this before.

Let me just summarize: the Catholics view baptism as an infusion of grace. The Protestants and Mormons view it as repentance and being “born again”. The form of the baptism wherein a man goes under water and is brought out again is a symbol of rebirth. If you don’t believe that baptism is for repetance, that symbol doesn’t really hold up. The Mormons follow baptism with the bestowal of the Holy Ghost which is close to what a Catholic woould call an infusion of grace.

You are really pretending to understand baptism in the Catholic church and are failing miserably in doing so

 

[GrammasRose]

funny that prophets and apostles are the highest paid mormon clergy…

as for the original church, the bible tells us that they were paid as they needed. we can see OT and NT teaching on this in many places.

excellent points! I dont’ see whether it matters whether they are paid or not they have to live survive somehow.

 

[GrammasRose]

That is an oversimplification. I could believe that the Earth moon is populated by six-foot-tall men who live for 1,000 years and dress like Quakers. But that wouldn’t be a valid faith, because there is plenty of concrete evidence, if not absolute proof, to know with a large amount of certainty that no such moon-men exist.

Or, I could believe that the Holy Bible as written, collected and ratified by the Holy Catholic Church, is true by means of a mixture of fact and faith. There is plenty of historical, archaeological, evidence to support the Bible. The Bible doesn’t require the sort of blind faith that the Book of Mormon, or its related “modern scripture” require in order to think them to be fact rather than fiction.

God doesn’t require blind faith. Blind faith usually leads down blind alleys. God has given us plenty of concrete evidence, and expects us to use our minds as well as our hearts to know that He is, and that the Church that Jesus established upon the Apostles approximately 2k years ago is the same one that lived throughout the intervening centuries, and is alive today under the authority of the successors of Peter and the other Apostles.

 

[zerinus]

This subject had come up within the past week, and I asked then whether there is a catalog of all the changes that have been done to the BoM over the decades. Someone, I can’t remember who, linked to a listing, but I wasn’t able to make very much out of it. It started out by listing some entire sections, or pages that were deleted from the 1830 edition. Anyways, I wasn’t able to get much from that. But my question remains, particularly for the active Mormons, who, it seems to me, should be interested in this subject so that they can answer this properly for critics:

Does the LDS maintain an exact listing of all the changes, including seemingly inconsequential punctuation marks, that have been accomplished on the BoM (as well as the other “standard works” known as “modern scripture”) since the first editions? If so, where do we find these?

I thought I already answered that question for you in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2097075&postcount=102

What was there in that explanation that you didn’t understand?

zerinus

 

[GrammasRose]

And that makes you an authority on the Jewish canon, right?

How amazing!

That is a ludicrous objection. The Jews recognize Malachi as the last inspired author who wrote in the canon. After him they consider the canon closed. “Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles” come chronologically before Malachi. The fact that they may print it in their books after Malachi is neither here nor there.

That is another absurd comment. There has been heresies ever since there have been true religion. No responsible, divinely inspired religious leader has ever declared the canon of scripture closed for fear of heresies. Imagine what would have happened if Moses had declared the canon closed for fear of heresies—then there would have been no more scripture after Moses; or if Solomon had declared scripture closed for fear of heresies—then there would have been no more scripture after Solomon; or if Jesus had declared the canon closed—then there would have been no more scripture after Jesus. It is the hallmark of an apostate religion that declares the canon of scripture closed. It knows that it has no power to add to the canon; therefore what better way to get round that problem than to declare the canon closed.

She neither put the Bible together; nor would that give her the authority to declare the canon closed. If the canon is the word of God, then only God has the authority to declare the canon closed; and He has not done so.

zerinus

Your ignorance of the Jews is astounding here.

 

[GrammasRose]

I am not an Egyptologist. I do not have an explanation for that. I accept it on faith, because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true—in the same way that I accept the Bible on faith, even though there are numerous scientific theories attempting to prove that it is not true.

zerinus

My question would be who are you really trying to convince here us or yourself?

 

[GrammasRose]

I’m sorry you have a misguided faith in something that has been proven to be a religious swindle.
When I was a Baptized member of the LDS church, I too, accepted all the LDS dogma as true because I felt a burning in my bosom.

was it heartburn?

 

[CCM08]

Actually your description of an Orthodox baptism contains a number of errors, and it is nothing like Mormon temple rituals. Smith knocked those off from the free masons, not Orthodox Christians. Furthermore, there were no Orthodox apostates (pun intended) among the early Mormons. For all the anti-Catholic rhetoric there is zero reference to the Orthodox Church among early Mormon writers, as one might expect ignorant rural folks didn’t know anything about it. Most Americans today, despite the access to so much information, know little about the Orthodox Church.

 

[GrammasRose]

I was a Mormon for most of my life, and was always taught the evils of paid clergy. Since becoming Orthodox I realize how much of a complete sham and lie these beliefs are. The truth is you pay for what you get. Orthodox Bishops, priests, and deacons are committed to their ministry and pastoral roles full time with the proper education, training, and experience to be shepards to their flocks. Mormon “clergy” are simply ineffective and more often then not are simply unqualified. When I was in the process of leaving the Mormon church the bishop and his consulors came over and blithered for 30 minutes in a contrived address about the Sultan of Brunei. No, it didn’t make any sense to me either. I’m sure they meant well, but the reality was they knew less about Mormonism and its history than I did at that point and were completely unable to answer any of my questions or address any of my concerns. When I was inquiring into Orthodoxy my priest never had any trouble answer any question I posed. That’s simply the benefit of having someone that has graduated Seminary, which is no easy prospect. When you have a problem to address with your priest you know he’s had years of experience first as a deacon and only then was he allowed to take on a parish, not to mention that he may well have college degrees in pyschology. If you went to talk to a Mormon bishop you’re talking to just another lay member who could be anything from a car salesman to a manager at McDonald’s with no experience or qualifications to advise you on any issue, spiritual or temporal. Which is to say that is if you can even get in to see a Mormon bishop. With full time jobs and families at home it’s little wonder that their “clergy” duties are taking a back seat.
Outside of saving the Mormon church money there isn’t a single area in which a paid full time clergy isn’t superior to unqualified volunteers leading full lives with little time to pretend to be “clergy.”

 

[GrammasRose]

Fair enough. You put your trust in reason, and I will put my trust in God, and in His Holy Spirit. The Lord said: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). That is what I will put my trust in. I don’t care what you put your trust in.

zerinus

Mormons do not have a corner on the Holy Spirit! You act as if you own him.

 

[GrammasRose]

I have already given my reasons why I believe the early church apostatized. I am not going to repeat them again. If you choose to ignore them, you can.

Jesus didn’t seem to have any doubts that His disciples might be deceived about being instructed by the Spirit, and neither do I. If you had been taught by the Spirit, you would know. You wouldn’t need to ask that question.

zerinus

Pride cometh before the fall and the fall of it shall be mighty.

 

[CCM08]

Your objections to Mormonism are so shallow, so childish, so superficial that it is embarrassing. Okay, there were 3,000 punctuational changes in the Book of Mormon. Big deal. There were no punctuations in the original manuscript. Other people did the punctuations, and it is subject to improvement.

zerinus

Don’t know about the expression of the point, but it is a valid one. Why is the Mormon god so inept that he can’t even spell and punctuate his sentences correctly? According to the translation accounts when Smith stuck his head in the hat a new sentence wouldn’t come up until the old one was written correctly. You can try to blame the printer, but the truth is the manuscript Smith submitted was even worse with many more glarring errors that the printer corrected. Which is more likely, that the all powerful God doesn’t understand Jacobian English and can’t spell or that a rural New Yorker trying to use Jacobian English would produce such rubbish? It’s not a difficult answer.

 

[GrammasRose]

Your objections to Mormonism are so shallow, so childish, so superficial that it is embarrassing. Okay, there were 3,000 punctuational changes in the Book of Mormon. Big deal. There were no punctuations in the original manuscript. Other people did the punctuations, and it is subject to improvement.

zerinus

It involved more than punctuation and you know it.

 

[CCM08]

That’s quite correct, a change had to be made to correct the order of chronology regarding royal decsent, offensive racial remarks were removed, and so on. The bulk of the 3,000 changes are spelling, grammar, and puncuation related. On first glance that might seem to be a petty criticism, but one has to review the nature of the claims regarding the BoM’s origins. Smith claimed direct divine assistence in the translation. The scrib’s accounts we have of the process are clear that Smith dropped seer stones in a hat, and stuck his face into the hat. Lines of text would appear in the hat and would not go away until copied correctly. Logic would dictate that meant the errors were in the sentences as they appeared in the hat, leaving only two possible conclusions. One is that the Mormon god isn’t very smart and the other is that the BoM is a fictional work authored by Smith. Sure, there are more intellecutal ways to attack the BoM. Such as everything we know about pre-Columbian American directly contradicts it, DNA evdience disproves it, and so on.