Questions for Mormons..

[PaulDupre]

Ok, and the method of doing that matters to anybody, why, precisely?

For one thing, because the bible says that God created everything out of nothing.

Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.

• 2 Maccabees 7:28

To deny this denies the bible.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi, Michael,
I suppose you know through your studies that the word which was translated into the word “created” in Genesis 1 is more correctly translated into the word “organized” or “formed.”

Hardly convincing. The word “formed” could just as easily mean “formed from nothing”.

In your mind, when did the War in heaven described by John the Revelator happen? (Rev. 12:7-9) When did “all the sons of God shout for joy” as described in Job 38:7?

In both passages, “the sons of God”, as in other passages, refers to the angels, who in Christian belief are not humans but a seperate order of creation, created before mankind.

How was Jeremiah known by God before he was formed in the womb? (Jeremiah 1:5)

Easy. God, who created time, lives outside of time. Everything past, present and future is eternally “now” to God. He knows everything and everyone that will ever exist, because God wills them, and they are contained in His Divine Will from eternity. The fact that God knew us all before He created us should be no surprise to anyone who believes in a truly infinite God.

I’m OK with your beliefs that evidently God made the Big Bang happen and that started everything off exactly as He had planned. But the Bible does support there having been a pre-mortal life,

No, it does not. It describes Jesus (God the Son) as having existed from all eternity. And it describes the angels (who are not humans), including Lucifer and the fallen angels, as having been created long before mankind. The bible never describes man as existing before birth.

and that Lucifer rebelled during that pre-mortal period of eternity,

No, Lucifer (an angel, not a human) rebelled before the earth and mankind were created.

and that Christ was the First Born of all the children of God.

Ridiculous. You have mis-quoted the bible, and that is a very dishonest Mormon tactic. It does not say that at all. It says Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15). The term “first-born” in Jewish (and all middle eastern) cultures is a legal term meaning “heir to”. Even an only child was called “first-born” to denote that he was the legal heir to the father’s estate. Col 1:16 says that all things were created by Him and for Him. Therefore Christ is heir to all creation. Read all of Colossians 1 in context and you will see that this is so. It does not mean that God the Son is a created being, nor does it mean that He was “born” to God the Father and one of his goddess wives as a spirit baby.

 

[why_me]

So he did what we all knew… He did not translate the plates, but stared at stones in a hat…
Wasn’t he convicted for using that thing in another case?

“People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowell on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he did not professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowell several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowell had been engaged in digging for them; that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he has occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes - made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business… And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.”

You will need to know just a little about this case. Bridgeman was a nephew of Stowell and believed that Joseph was taking advantage of him. A disorderly person back then was considered to be anyone pretending to have the skill in recovering lost goods. And the said Stowell defended Joseph by saying that Joseph was ’ a fine likely young man and at that time did not Profess religion he was not a Profain man although I did once in a while hear him swair, he never gambled to my knowledge…I never new him to git drunk’.

And in 1843, Stowell wrote through his son that: ‘he never knew anything of him but that was right also know him to be a Seeer and a Phrophet and Believe the Book of mormon to be true’. (from Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling pages 52-53)

Now that is interesting.

And if you would read about the cultural norms of that time, searching for treasure was not that uncommon. In fact, it was not too far off the normal for upstate New York. Many people were involved in it.

Also Joseph Smith was twenty years old when all this was taking place.

 

[mjf001]

Hardly convincing. The word “formed” could just as easily mean “formed from nothing”.

In both passages, “the sons of God”, as in other passages, refers to the angels, who in Christian belief are not humans but a seperate order of creation, created before mankind.

Easy. God, who created time, lives outside of time. Everything past, present and future is eternally “now” to God. He knows everything and everyone that will ever exist, because God wills them, and they are contained in His Divine Will from eternity. The fact that God knew us all before He created us should be no surprise to anyone who believes in a truly infinite God.

No, it does not. It describes Jesus (God the Son) as having existed from all eternity. And it describes the angels (who are not humans), including Lucifer and the fallen angels, as having been created long before mankind. The bible never describes man as existing before birth.

No, Lucifer (an angel, not a human) rebelled before the earth and mankind were created.

Ridiculous. You have mis-quoted the bible, and that is a very dishonest Mormon tactic. It does not say that at all. It says Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15). The term “first-born” in Jewish (and all middle eastern) cultures is a legal term meaning “heir to”. Even an only child was called “first-born” to denote that he was the legal heir to the father’s estate. Col 1:16 says that all things were created by Him and for Him. Therefore Christ is heir to all creation. Read all of Colossians 1 in context and you will see that this is so. It does not mean that God the Son is a created being, nor does it mean that He was “born” to God the Father and one of his goddess wives as a spirit baby.

Thanks Paul, couldn’t have said it better myself.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[PRmerger]

Jerusha, bringing up this subject (anything to do with the Temple script) wins your debate for you, if your goal is to get me to leave the conversation.

Please don’t leave, Diana!

Yes, I’m a “Joannie-Come-Lately” to this conversation, but I’ve been 'round this CAF a long time…and I have to echo the OP’s sentiments that you’re “one lean mean Mormon machine!”

I enjoy reading your posts immensely–firstly, you know your stuff. Secondly, you’re articulate. Thirdly, you conquer the very difficult job of being sassy without being disrespectful to those with whom you dialogue. Love that!

I think you’re one classy lady and I hope you stay around here some more.

And, I don’t think I’ve ever read one irreverent or rude comment about my faith that you’ve ever made. Kudos to you for coming to our “home” and not insulting your hosts!

(Yes, it’s true, that I hope and pray that the more you stay around here the more the Truth of the CC will grace your heart and mind…but that’s just me. I think your respect for the Blessed Mother is quite clear–she’s *your *Mother,too after all!)

 

[majick275]

You will need to know just a little about this case. Bridgeman was a nephew of Stowell and believed that Joseph was taking advantage of him. A disorderly person back then was considered to be anyone pretending to have the skill in recovering lost goods. And the said Stowell defended Joseph by saying that Joseph was ’ a fine likely young man and at that time did not Profess religion he was not a Profain man although I did once in a while hear him swair, he never gambled to my knowledge…I never new him to git drunk’.

And in 1843, Stowell wrote through his son that: ‘he never knew anything of him but that was right also know him to be a Seeer and a Phrophet and Believe the Book of mormon to be true’. (from Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling pages 52-53)

Now that is interesting.

And if you would read about the cultural norms of that time, searching for treasure was not that uncommon. In fact, it was not too far off the normal for upstate New York. Many people were involved in it.

Also Joseph Smith was twenty years old when all this was taking place.

which means that JS had supposedly had years of personal instruction from an angel by then…yet this alleged “prophet” was going around conning people into having him search for buried treasure…hmmmmm

 

[PaulDupre]

Jerusha, bringing up this subject (anything to do with the Temple script) wins your debate for you, if your goal is to get me to leave the conversation.

Can’t you discuss something that is no longer in the endowment script? If it has been disavowed, then it is no longer LDS teaching and no longer sacred, right?

Or perhaps, like polygamy, it has not been disavowed, and is therefore still taught but not openly practiced.

 

[why_me]

Please don’t leave, Diana!

And, I don’t think I’ve ever read one irreverent or rude comment about my faith that you’ve ever made. Kudos to you for coming to our “home” and not insulting your hosts!

(Yes, it’s true, that I hope and pray that the more you stay around here the more the Truth of the CC will grace your heart and mind…but that’s just me. I think your respect for the Blessed Mother is quite clear–she’s *your *Mother,too after all!)

It is unfortunate that we can not say the same about some of the catholic posters, many of the catholic posters are rude nd disrespectful to the mormon faith which has nothing to do with the catholic church and has nothing to do with truth. But has much to do with them representing the catholic faith.

 

[why_me]

which means that JS had supposedly had years of personal instruction from an angel by then…yet this alleged “prophet” was going around conning people into having him search for buried treasure…hmmmmm

And there is also some debate as to whether this court case actually took place. If you read the document posted by janet, it actually does not make sense.

Background to the trial
In the spring of 1825 Josiah Stowell visited with Joseph Smith “on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.”[1] Josiah Stowell wanted Joseph to help him in his quest to find treasure in an ancient silver mine. Joseph was reluctant, but Stowell persuaded Joseph to come by offering high wages. According to trial documents, Stowell says Joseph, using a seer stone, “Looked through stone and described Josiah Stowell’s house and out houses, while at Palmyra at Sampson Stowell’s correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man’s hand painted upon it by means of said stone.”[2]

Joseph and his father traveled to southern New York in November of 1825. This was after the crops were harvested and Joseph had finished his visit to the Hill Cumorah that year. They participated with Stowell and the company of workers in digging for the mine for less than a month. Finally Joseph persuaded him to stop. “After laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations.”[3]

Joseph continued to work in the area for Stowell and others. He boarded at the home of Isaac Hale and met Emma Hale, who was one “treasure” he got out of the enterprise.

What is the 1826 trial?
In March of the next year, Stowell’s sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely. The supposed trial record came from Miss Pearsall. “The record of the examination was torn from Neely’s docket book by his niece, Emily Persall, and taken to Utah when she went to serve as a missionary under Episcopalian bishop Daniel S. Tuttle.”[4] This will be identified as the Pearsall account although Neely possessed it after her death. It is interesting that the first published version of this record didn’t appear until after Miss Pearsall had died.

William D. Purple took notes at the trial and tells us, “In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, …were greatly incensed against Smith, …saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire… They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood.”[5]

Whereas the Pearsall account says: “Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, [Josiah Stowell’s nephew] who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter…brought before court March 20, 1826”[6]

So, we have what has been called “The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith”, even though the records show that this wasn’t actually a trial. For many years LDS scholars Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley and others expressed serious doubts that such a trial had even taken place.

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_trials/1826_glasslooking_trial

 

[why_me]

… And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty."

Are you sure?

Conclusion
A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:

The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination
The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph’s religious claims.
There were seven witnesses.
The witnesses’ testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.
Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight
It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell. Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed. The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture.

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_trials/1826_glasslooking_trial#What_verdict_was_brought_against_Joseph.3F

 

[Religio71]

It is unfortunate that we can not say the same about some of the catholic posters, many of the catholic posters are rude nd disrespectful to the mormon faith which has nothing to do with the catholic church and has nothing to do with truth. But has much to do with them representing the catholic faith.

 

[why_me]

Religio71:
Religio71
Junior Member Join Date: April 11, 2009
Posts: 827
Religion: former LDS, currently Catholic

Re: Questions for Mormons…

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by why me
It is unfortunate that we can not say the same about some of the catholic posters, many of the catholic posters are rude nd disrespectful to the mormon faith which has nothing to do with the catholic church and has nothing to do with truth. But has much to do with them representing the catholic faith.

All true. I have said it before and I will say it again, some catholic posters on the mormon threads misrepresent the catholic faith through their bashing and mocking. Itis uncatholic.

But don’t make this about me, Religio. Stick to the topic and if you want you can comment about what I posted. But don’t make this about me.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71
Junior Member Join Date: April 11, 2009
Posts: 827
Religion: former LDS, currently Catholic

Re: Questions for Mormons…

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by why me
It is unfortunate that we can not say the same about some of the catholic posters, many of the catholic posters are rude nd disrespectful to the mormon faith which has nothing to do with the catholic church and has nothing to do with truth. But has much to do with them representing the catholic faith.

All true. I have said it before and I will say it again, some catholic posters on the mormon threads misrepresent the catholic faith through their bashing and mocking. **Itis uncatholic.
**
But don’t make this about me, Religio. Stick to the topic and if you want you can comment about what I posted. But don’t make this about me.

 

[imkingdad]

Mary and 'the Elohim guy?"

Janet, I’ve done with you. I have already explained what we believe about this issue, and you are going to argue with me about it, claiming that you know better what these men ‘meant’ than we do, and we are the actual believers?

Do you have any idea just how silly that is?

Another Failed But effective Mormon Tactic. Be dismissive of those who know you faith as well as yourself. Run & hide. Janet had you boxed in by your own words & teachings. To refute her would have been to refute John Smith and the Prophets Including the last 3 “presidents” of the LDS Church.

I have lived near Palmyra all my life. I am intimately familar with their beliefs & practices. I’m still waiting for just 1 scintilla of real physical evidence of either of the 2 lost tribes, any of their Great Battles up to & including the final one. I’ve been waiting almost 60yrs. During that time I’ve seen Blacks admitted to the Mormon Priesthood and many changes in the Instructions given to the young & new converts. Issues that you & the others like to sidestep or downplay.

Yes Mormons lie especially when it comes to trying to deal with the double-think required to hold two mutually exclusive POV simultaneously. They Lie to themselves more than others. Its required for them to maintain a grasp upon their Privileged state of Being Mormon & having the Only true & real means to understanding the Godhead.

I do notice how you have avoided all Mention of the Heavenly WIFE of GOD and her Conception of the Spiritual Jesus that occurred before his incarnation on Earth. Boy I’d hate to have the bill for your song & dance lessons much less pay for your dancing shoes. .

 

[ParkerD]

Charlotte408,
Since I noticed you came back to this thread yesterday wondering about Joseph Smith when he became a topic of discussion, and would probably be wondering now about how it comes about that after someone has asked genuine questions such as you did, why other Catholics begin posting with such furor and rancor and bitterness. It becomes like a “theater of the absurd”.

They manifest underpinnings of fear–those who have deep fear themselves want to spread their own fear around. Such people, with such bitterness, seem to have little sense of peace within their own heart. The tension that comes across in their writing is palpable. Christ offers peace, but they seem to want none of the peace He offers. I wish their current religious beliefs would bring it to their hearts, so they could share peace rather than the ongoing tension that never seems to dissipate from their communications. That’s why this medium ends up being a poor one for someone such as yourself to get honest, sincere questions answered. God bless you in your research, and may you have peace in your own life. What a lovely daughter you have. I’ll bet she’s the joy of your life.

 

[Jerusha]

As I posted on the Baha’i thread, I find this discussion to be extremely stressful and unpleasant. I have finally exposed my agenda, and the unpleasantness it exposes is as expected. Given internet research capabilities, you are perfectly capable of looking up my sources, most are easily available. And when it comes time to publish my book, you can read it and fact-check it yourself.

I refuse to re-engage in this debate, at least for a while.

 

[dianaiad]

For one thing, because the bible says that God created everything out of nothing.

To deny this denies the bible.

Paul, we both have a similar problem. We have the books of scripture that are contained in the (for instance) KJV. We both agree that those books are scripture.

You, as a Catholic, also have books that you consider to be scripture that I consider to be apocryphal.

I, as a Mormon, have books that I consider to be scripture that you consider to be pure fiction.

Now I will quote from the Book of Mormon and other books that I consider to be scripture, but only to prove that something we believe is actually something we believe—but not to prove that the belief is actually *true. *

That would be rather silly of me. It would be like insisting that you agree with me that elephants fly because Disney said so.

By the same token, it doesn’t work for you to quote a verse from something I think is ‘less than’ scripture in order to prove that your belief is true. All it does is prove that you believe it. But a statement like “to deny this denies the bible” is really begging the question, don’t you think?

Since Maccabees isn’t IN the bible I use?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Since Maccabees isn’t IN the bible I use?

Why is that?

 

[dianaiad]

Please don’t leave, Diana!

Yes, I’m a “Joannie-Come-Lately” to this conversation, but I’ve been 'round this CAF a long time…and I have to echo the OP’s sentiments that you’re “one lean mean Mormon machine!”

I enjoy reading your posts immensely–firstly, you know your stuff. Secondly, you’re articulate. Thirdly, you conquer the very difficult job of being sassy without being disrespectful to those with whom you dialogue. Love that!

I think you’re one classy lady and I hope you stay around here some more.

And, I don’t think I’ve ever read one irreverent or rude comment about my faith that you’ve ever made. Kudos to you for coming to our “home” and not insulting your hosts!

(Yes, it’s true, that I hope and pray that the more you stay around here the more the Truth of the CC will grace your heart and mind…but that’s just me. I think your respect for the Blessed Mother is quite clear–she’s *your *Mother,too after all!)

Thank you for your kind words.

I’m not leaving the thread or the group, though. I will not discuss the Temple script, or the Temple ceremonies, with anybody outside Temple walls, though. I promised not to, you see.

I am perfectly comfortable with discussing WHAT we do in there, and WHY…but not how. It’s a sacred thing for me. Besides the fact that I promised not to, I wouldn’t do it if I hadn’t promised. Conversations about LDS beliefs can get very heated; if I allow that heat to enter into Temple matters, then I’m afraid I’ll take it with me the next time I go. That could cause me some problems getting the spirit…and frankly, I need a place where the antis can’t come after me, even in my head.

For me, that is the Temple (at least, once I get past the picketers and the idiots waving garments like flags…and actually get INSIDE—though that happens mostly only in SLC).

 

[dianaiad]

Can’t you discuss something that is no longer in the endowment script? If it has been disavowed, then it is no longer LDS teaching and no longer sacred, right?

Or perhaps, like polygamy, it has not been disavowed, and is therefore still taught but not openly practiced.

I have to admit that this is one of the slickest loaded questions I’ve seen in awhile. Paul, you know where the line is drawn, since you claim to have been LDS at one time. Since you do, I think that your question, above, is more than a little disingenuous.