Q for Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter sterryfamily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zerinus said:
It is a book. You “find it” in book stores, libraries, or on-line. Was that really hard to figure out?

zerinus
Click to expand...
Thank you. I will look for that and buy it.

BTW, do you own this critical text edition of the BoM?

I’m thinking not, since you had to go to Wikipedia to get information about it. If you owned it, then you’d be able to just grab it and tell us all about it. So I reckon you don’t own it. Which, if true, seems odd to me. I would’ve thought that a Mormon expert, such as yourself, would own a critical text edition of the BoM which had all the changes that have been done to the BoM and who did them, when, and why.

I mean, you’re able to wax on and on at considerable length here about other Mormon things. But, when it comes to changes that have been made to the BoM since 1830, all you can come up with is a vague opinion that these changes “aren’t very significant” and an “extract” from Wikipedia which, as most people know, isn’t a very reliable source of information, especially considering that you’re using it as a source of info about the religion which you’re so enthusiastically selling.
 
majick275 said:
i was never a big fan of the testimony meetings. too amwayish for me and they appear to be the typical vehicle for creating groupthink.
Click to expand...
Oh, my! That’s quite different than my experience. To me it’s like being able to listen in on people’s prayers.

Majick, do you also deny the BITB? The reason why I ask is that last conference Glenn L Pace was giving an address and while he was telling the story, I could have sworn I saw the letters “Majick275” pop up and flash in my mind. I don’t think it was about you (it was a woman) but it made me really think about if you’d tell a similar story.

I might be all wrong, I don’t know you that well, but if you want to read the talk, it’s at lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-690-28,00.html. Starts at “Our missionaries are trained” and runs for four paragraphs.
 
Allweather said:
That is true, you didn’t provide a link, but rather this ridiculous “extract:”

"“Since 1989, BYU has published a critical text edition in four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2, published 2001, contains transcriptions of all the text variants of the English editions of the Book of Mormon, from the original manuscript up to the newest editions. Volume 4, in four parts (3 already published since 2005) contains a critical analysis of all the text variants. Meanwhile, volume 3, not yet published, is to describe the history of all the English-language texts from Joseph Smith to today.”"

In other words, Zerinus doesn’t know the answer, but is unwilling to come right out and say so. Earlier, I commented on the weirdness of the statement “Since 1989, BYU has published… Volumes 1 and 2, published 2001…” I guess this makes perfect sense to Zerinus, and he considers this a perfectly good answer to a legitimate question. I wondered what was going on over at BYU between 1989 and 2001. I mean, this question of changes to the BoM isn’t new, it has been around for 150 years at least. The Mormons are just now getting around to collecting the data? In 1989? And nothing is published until 2001? And it still isn’t finished in 2007? And Zerinus can’t link us to an article? Velly Intelestink.

Plain English is one thing. Zerinus English is something else entirely! Zerinus still hasn’t produced a shred of data on changes to the BoM, in English, or any other language.

And why is that? Why don’t you provide precise information about your BoM? Is it because you’re ignorant? Or because you’re afraid to make too easily available the real poop on the changes to the BoM that have been done by Joseph Smith and his successors?

This one: ““The two original manuscripts previously mentioned have also been published, if I remember correctly with detailed comparison of the differences, but I can’t recall the title and author of the books.””

Zerinus can recall that the two manuscripts have been published, and that they contain “detailed comparison of the differences” but he “can’t recall the title and author of the books.” He isn’t interested in helping us to understand the differences by examination of them, but rather wants us to accept his opinionated statements that they are “insignificant.” That is cryptic.

And typical.
Click to expand...
Things were not kosher at BYU and there was an uprising of sorts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six
 
Allweather said:
Thank you. I will look for that and buy it.

BTW, do you own this critical text edition of the BoM?

I’m thinking not, since you had to go to Wikipedia to get information about it. If you owned it, then you’d be able to just grab it and tell us all about it. So I reckon you don’t own it. Which, if true, seems odd to me. I would’ve thought that a Mormon expert, such as yourself, would own a critical text edition of the BoM which had all the changes that have been done to the BoM and who did them, when, and why.

I mean, you’re able to wax on and on at considerable length here about other Mormon things. But, when it comes to changes that have been made to the BoM since 1830, all you can come up with is a vague opinion that these changes “aren’t very significant” and an “extract” from Wikipedia which, as most people know, isn’t a very reliable source of information, especially considering that you’re using it as a source of info about the religion which you’re so enthusiastically selling.
Click to expand...
I am not an “expert on Mormonism,” and have never claimed to be. Your ignorance does not translate into my expertise.

Here is more information about the BYU publications on Book of Mormon manuscripts:

magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=712
fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

and other interesting publications:

amazon.com/Book-Mormon-1830-Joseph-Smith/dp/083090025X

zerinus
 
rmcmullan said:
Oh, my! That’s quite different than my experience. To me it’s like being able to listen in on people’s prayers.

Majick, do you also deny the BITB? The reason why I ask is that last conference Glenn L Pace was giving an address and while he was telling the story, I could have sworn I saw the letters “Majick275” pop up and flash in my mind. I don’t think it was about you (it was a woman) but it made me really think about if you’d tell a similar story.

I might be all wrong, I don’t know you that well, but if you want to read the talk, it’s at lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-690-28,00.html. Starts at “Our missionaries are trained” and runs for four paragraphs.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how you define BITB. I don’t deny the witness of the holy Spirit. He is God and does interact with us. Catholics “receive the Holy Spirit” at confirmation. I don’t think God usually just let’s you pray “is it true” and boom feel good = truth. Humans are way too emotional for that and if it were true then all kinds of folks would have claim to the truth. Radical muslims willing to blow themselves up for the cause experience this. Pentecostals do on a regular basis too. Many people pray “is my church true?” and feel their heart swell with joy. that’s human nature.

The Bible tells us what the truth is and sacred tradition gives a context that I fond necessary for understanding the Bible. It is important to know who was writing a scripture, who they were addressing and why and what was going on around them. (to me at least) That being the case, “BITB” style personal revelation cannot conflict with these things and truly be from God. (my opinion) I firmly believe in personal revelation and I think I understand it well enough now to understand that God has led me to the Catholic church for good reasons. I believe he has shown me that mormonism is false. as to your experience in testimony meetings, i don’t disagree that you have had that experience. my own was mixed as I said. I believe that any time anyone turns to God in sincere prayer they will feel something “good” because they connect with him at some level. that is regardless of religion. I think some misinterpret that as “proof” that their view is correct.

I will read your link and get back with you on that.
 
okay I read that link and I think that doesn’t help your case. It seems to imply that whatever you feel is God telling you that mormonism is true. The part of the missionaries being “trained” to show you that whatever you are experiencing is the holy ghost telling you they are right seems blatantly manipulative.
 
zerinus said:
I am not an “expert on Mormonism,” and have never claimed to be. Your ignorance does not translate into my expertise.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid it does, since I am almost thoroughly ignorant of Mormonism… but learning more and more every day. You may not realize how much I depend on our arguments to stuff knowledge into my head. I’ve said before that I find the BoM and other “modern scriptures” impossible to read. They put me right to sleep. But in the midst of argument, I get information, and manage mostly to stay awake. Honestly, I really do appreciate the effort you spend on educating me. Of course, and I’ll be totally honest, I’m not least interested in being a Mormon, but there are many Mormons around me, and I want to be able to engage them intelligently.
Here is more information about the BYU publications on Book of Mormon manuscripts:
Click to expand...
magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=712
fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
Click to expand...
FYI I just got off the phone with the local Deseret Bookstore. The two people there never heard of this critical text edition, or for that matter, any publication dealing with changes to the BoM. I see the second link refers more directly to these volumes, and says they are published by FAIR, now part of BYU. When I have time, later or tomorrow, I’ll study that article and see where I can obtain these books.
and other interesting publications:
Click to expand...
amazon.com/Book-Mormon-1830-Joseph-Smith/dp/083090025X
Click to expand...
zerinus
Click to expand...
Thanks. Have already ordered the 1830 edition.
 
zerinus said:
I call that burying your head in the sand. The early Christian church did apostatize. The best witness to that is the fact that there is no church today (apart from the LDS Church) that resembles the church that Jesus established in ancient times. Let’s note some stark differences. Firstly, in the earliest church there were no paid or professional clergy. People were elected to serve in various priesthood capacities or callings from the members of the congregation, without prior schooling or preparation; and it certainly was not a lifelong profession. You didn’t choose such a career for yourself for life. All of that developed later on as the apostasy set in. Secondly, the early Christian church was led by revelation, through the prophets and Apostles of the Lord. It was never part of the program that that institution, and the ability to lead the church by revelation should be done away. If it cannot be lead by direct and immediate revelation from the God, through His chosen ministers and servants, the prophets and Apostles of God, then it is not the church of God, period.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Sorry zerinus but this is the most illogical thing I have ever seen you post.

You are saying that while the Apostles were still alive, and the Church was active and not apostate, that the priest were chosen from the congregation, and not trained, and not committed to a lifelong profession of preaching.

Where are your statistics that everyone who was chosen to be a priest back then did not die still as a priest?

Of course there was no training for these people to do back then, the Church was in infancy, the Apostles were still alive, they had all day to talk to would-be priests about the teachings of Jesus. You don’t consider that to be their teaching or training?

Now after 2000 years, our priests need training, as they have history to learn about our church, such as the line of papacy etc.

There was no history back then to learn.

Are you saying because the Catholic Church today does not act like the Apostles did, that means we are Apostate?? Because we don’t act exactly the same way with how we elect priests and how they are trained??

We can’t do everything the same way as the church back then, wow, we even have electricity now.

Maybe we shouldn’t use electricity in our chuches to give it the true authenticity of what the early church was like.

That is how bizarre your point is on how priests are trained.

So long as they are trained with the correct teachings, what difference does it make whether it takes them seven years in a seminary? And what difference does it make to how suitable they are to be priests if they decide it will be a lifelong job?
 
Frankly, I’d rather be led by a priest that’s spent time training at seminary and learning history, tradition, etc than some joe off the street who is there because it’s his turn. My mormon friend teaches young kids in his church and he seems to know very little about the bible, church history, etc. He can barely explain the LDS to me, how’s he going to teach young kids in his religion? I guess when you belong to a religion that doesn’t want its members to know a whole lot about their history or question that history, that’s the way to go.

I’ve seen some very outlandish assertations by not only mormons but protestants alike that get their info from their reverand or pastor or other laity that has had little formal training. Which is how, imo, ignorance of Jesus’ true teachings gets perpetuated. Whether you’re believing in someone’s personal interpretation of scripture, or someone’s made up religion, it pales in comparison to 2000 years of knowledge, tradition, foundation, and guidance by Jesus himself. Holy Mother Church has got it all, and is deep in her faith.
 
If one merely looks at the way the Mormon church is involved in business it’s clear that accusations against paid clergy are dishonest attempts to smear others while not addressing serious issues about how the Mormon church handles money. My parish includes all the financial details in the monthly news letter, the Mormon church on the other hand refuses to give any outline of what it’s doing with member donations.
 
thomasf said:
Frankly, I’d rather be led by a priest that’s spent time training at seminary and learning history, tradition, etc than some joe off the street who is there because it’s his turn. My mormon friend teaches young kids in his church and he seems to know very little about the bible, church history, etc. He can barely explain the LDS to me, how’s he going to teach young kids in his religion? I guess when you belong to a religion that doesn’t want its members to know a whole lot about their history or question that history, that’s the way to go.

I’ve seen some very outlandish assertations by not only mormons but protestants alike that get their info from their reverand or pastor or other laity that has had little formal training. Which is how, imo, ignorance of Jesus’ true teachings gets perpetuated. Whether you’re believing in someone’s personal interpretation of scripture, or someone’s made up religion, it pales in comparison to 2000 years of knowledge, tradition, foundation, and guidance by Jesus himself. Holy Mother Church has got it all, and is deep in her faith.
Click to expand...
That is another way of saying that you would rather ditch Peter and Paul, James and John, and Jesus and the rest, and reject the gift of the Holy Ghost, and settle for those who “teach for hire and divine for money” (Micah 3:11). That is a terrible indictment.

zerinus
 
majick275 said:
okay I read that link and I think that doesn’t help your case. It seems to imply that whatever you feel is God telling you that mormonism is true. The part of the missionaries being “trained” to show you that whatever you are experiencing is the holy ghost telling you they are right seems blatantly manipulative.
Click to expand...
Well, if I missed the mark with this one, okay, I wasn’t sure. Maybe you’d care to continue this on the BITB thread? I would like to discuss this because, as many have pointed out, it’s easy to misintepret these sort of experiences yet they are real. But to me (and you know the Mormon doctrine), they’re essential.
 
zerinus said:
That is another way of saying that you would rather ditch Peter and Paul, James and John, and Jesus and the rest, and reject the gift of the Holy Ghost, and settle for those who “teach for hire and divine for money” (Micah 3:11). That is a terrible indictment.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Peter, James, John, and the other Apostles, and even Paul in a different sort of way, were trained directly by Jesus himself over a period of approximately 3 years. According to the Gospel accounts, they had many ups and downs during that period. They were clearly in training.

Then, at the Last Supper, those Apostles (except Paul) were ordained as priests by Jesus himself. Having chosen them, trained them, he ordained them.

Don’t belittle the training these men had. It was tremendous.
 
Allweather said:
Peter, James, John, and the other Apostles, and even Paul in a different sort of way, were trained directly by Jesus himself over a period of approximately 3 years. According to the Gospel accounts, they had many ups and downs during that period. They were clearly in training.

Then, at the Last Supper, those Apostles (except Paul) were ordained as priests by Jesus himself. Having chosen them, trained them, he ordained them.

Don’t belittle the training these men had. It was tremendous.
Click to expand...
They trained on the job, assisted by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. They did not go to college. LDS priesthood leaders receive the same training. They also did not “choose” such a profession for themselves. They were called to that position by others above them acting under the inspiration of heaven.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
They trained on the job, assisted by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. They did not go to college. LDS priesthood leaders receive the same training. They also did not “choose” such a profession for themselves. They were called to that position by others above them acting under the inspiration of heaven.

zerinus
Click to expand...
First, I am not necessarily demeaning the preparation of the LDS leaders. The ones I know are pretty good at what they do. There’s a former bishop in my fiance’s immediate family. I know him to be a man of impeccable thought, fine manners, kind, all the things one would expect of a Christian leader.

Yet, when we speak of the Apostles, we are speaking of a different class of men. True, no college, though Paul was very well educated, bearing in mind that “college” in that era meant something different than what it means today. It would be several centuries before the Catholic Church founded the first university.

These men were tutored directly, intimately, by Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus called them, patiently taught them for 3 years, and then ordained them. The gospel accounts show this process very clearly, to my way of understanding. At the end, before the crucifixion, Jesus ordained them personally. Yet, they STILL didn’t have the power that they would come to possess after the infilling of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. So, yes, the Holy Spirit is essential, but it was Jesus who instructed the Apostles.

Paul is a special case, yet even HE was instructed by Jesus through direct vision. After the Road to Damascus event, Paul spent a long period of time in training, learning the meaning of Jesus and beginning his working out of Jesus within the context of the Judaism in he was so well-trained.

Of course, another distinction between the LDS and other Protestant clergy and Catholic priests, is that our priests mostly are celebate, unmarried. They can devote their full lives to the Church. LDS and Protestant clergy can’t, because they have families to support and nurture. Paul was unmarried, and spoke highly of the unmarried state. There is a high place for unmarried clergy. And when you speak of “paid clergy” you must know that Catholic priests are paid almost nothing in terms of cash.
 
rmcmullan said:
Well, if I missed the mark with this one, okay, I wasn’t sure. Maybe you’d care to continue this on the BITB thread? I would like to discuss this because, as many have pointed out, it’s easy to misintepret these sort of experiences yet they are real. But to me (and you know the Mormon doctrine), they’re essential.
Click to expand...
Experience of the Holy Ghost is of course indispensable to the Christian life. Without the Holy Ghost, there is no Christian life. The sorts of BITB experiences you are speaking about, it seems to me from your descriptions, that these are commonplace among people of all the Christian sects. Some, as you know, such as the Pentecostals, go further and claim a special “baptism” of the Holy Ghost subsequent to the salvation moment and water baptism, the sign of which is speaking in tongues. For most of us, however, we’re talking about an intimate knowledge that what we are trying to believe about Jesus and what Jesus taught is true.

The REAL question, for me, is this: Why would the Holy Ghost witness one truth about the Church to one person, and another truth to another person? Doesn’t make a bit of sense. God is not a God of confusion. Jesus spoke and prayed fervently for our unity. Things which lead to disunity of doctrine and practice CANNOT be of God.
 
Allweather said:
Yet, when we speak of the Apostles, we are speaking of a different class of men.
Click to expand...
They were special only in the sense that they were the pioneers; they set an example for the rest to follow. They were not so special that we should go on a different track from them.
True, no college, though Paul was very well educated, . . .
Click to expand...
Yes, but look at all the trouble that that caused him! In the end he had to “unlearn” what he had learned in order to become an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
They trained on the job, assisted by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. They did not go to college. LDS priesthood leaders receive the same training. They also did not “choose” such a profession for themselves. They were called to that position by others above them acting under the inspiration of heaven.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Priests receive the calling.

It is God that calls them to be priests.

Men often say they feel the calling, and pray on it for some time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top