Questions for Mormons..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlotte408
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, Paul, for your supporting comment. Like I said, I’m out of here for a while. My PTSD is roaring right now. :eek:
 
RebeccaJ said:
Why is that? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Oh, come on, Rebecca. We use the KJV and other translations that do not include the apocryphal books that Catholics accept.

We probably respect those books more than the average Protestant might, but we do not put them in the same level as those that made the final cut.

I am simply requesting that for ‘prooftexting’ purposes (that is, arguing about the truth of a belief) that we restrict ourselves to scriptures that we both agree ARE scriptures. Since that means I’m leaving out a lot more stuff than I’m asking you to, I don’t think that this is an unfair request.
 
dianaiad said:
Oh, come on, Rebecca. We use the KJV and other translations that do not include the apocryphal books that Catholics accept.

We probably respect those books more than the average Protestant might, but we do not put them in the same level as those that made the final cut.

I am simply requesting that for ‘prooftexting’ purposes (that is, arguing about the truth of a belief) that we restrict ourselves to scriptures that we both agree ARE scriptures. Since that means I’m leaving out a lot more stuff than I’m asking you to, I don’t think that this is an unfair request.
Click to expand...
Skimming the surface.
 
dianaiad said:
We probably respect those books more than the average Protestant might, but we do not put them in the same level as those that made the final cut.
Click to expand...
The final cut?? You mean the cut made by the Protestants in the 17th century? In all the centuries prior to that, the Catholic bible, including the deuterocanonicals, was considered to be the “final cut”.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Skimming the surface.
Click to expand...
No, agreeing on parameters.

Discussions on this forum seem to have two levels: first, about what beliefs actually are, and second, whether those beliefs are true,

Most of the time, I’ve noticed, the conversations get stuck on ‘level one.’ as in “Mormons believe (or Catholics believe…) in this or that…” with the Mormon responding (or the Catholic) “no, we don’t believe this. We believe THAT.” …and the argument is off to the races.

For THAT discussion, anything that the believer thinks of as scripture is OK. After all, the idea isn’t to show that a specific belief is* true*, just that…hey, this is what we believe and why.

If anybody gets to the second level (rare anywhere, but it sometimes happens…) then ‘prooftexting’ has to, necessarily, be restricted to sources that all participants agree are good. In the case of scripture, that would be the books that everybody believes are scripture. A Mormon quoting the BoM to a Catholic in order to prove that some LDS doctrine is true is begging the question…and by the very same token, a Catholic quoting from the book of Maccabees is begging EXACTLY the same question.

Now Paul was quoting from the book of Maccabees (which I don’t believe quite rises to the level ‘scripture’) in order to “prove” that anybody who denies a particular verse in it is ‘denying the bible.’

Which begs the question of whether Maccabees belongs in the bible. Before he can use a quote from it as a proof text, he first has to get me to agree that it, well…does.

But hey, I’ll let him prooftext from the book of Maccabees if he’ll let me do the same from the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. After all, fair is fair.
 
PaulDupre said:
The final cut?? You mean the cut made by the Protestants in the 17th century? In all the centuries prior to that, the Catholic bible, including the deuterocanonicals, was considered to be the “final cut”.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then…

"final cut’ means the “the last compilation made” in this case. It doesn’t really matter what you think of the change, Paul. It was made. I understand that, as a Catholic, you resent it. I would, were I you. It’s not fair, and if Catholicism is ‘true,’ then it’s not right, either.

But…it is what it is.

After all, I believe that the BoM, the D&C and the PoGP are scripture, too—but I’m not getting all bent out of shape because you no longer believe that they are.
 
PaulDupre said:
The final cut?? You mean the cut made by the Protestants in the 17th century? In all the centuries prior to that, the Catholic bible, including the deuterocanonicals, was considered to be the “final cut”.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Hellenized Jewish Bible was messing up Luther’s rejection of purgatory.
 
Stephen168 said:
Yes, the Hellenized Jewish Bible was messing up Luther’s rejection of purgatory.
Click to expand...
Whatever the reason…things are as they are.

However, is the new 'question for Mormons" why we don’t accept all the books that you do?

If so, that’s fine. We can do that.
 
ParkerD said:
We are talking thousands of years ahead of us in our current view of time, when we look at the potential to be “like Christ”.
Click to expand...
If you get another chance to become like your Jesus during that time, why did he die on the cross? Wouldn’t that be a waste of time if nobody has to believe because everybody sees and kind of learns all they need in the spirit world?
My Jesus died for my sins.
ParkerD said:
“Creation” is meaningful. It need not be thought of derogatorily. I take it to mean a “beautiful, fascinating earth” with mountains and water and vegetation and animals and then having spirits go to that “earth” which (thousands of years from now) I can have the opportunity to have helped “create”. This would be done by the power of faith (the kind of faith Jesus said could move mountains) and the knowledge of how matter and energy in the universe obey the commands of God. It would also be in complete harmony and unified action with the will of Heavenly Father, the Savior, and the Holy Spirit. To “create” does not detract from Them. It adds to their joy, just as when we observe a child learning to “create” and use their talents, we as a parent have joy in observing that process.
Click to expand...
So you are definitely telling me that you will be like God?
Will you ascend to heaven, raise your throne above the stars of God? Will you ascend above the heights of the clouds and be like the Most High?
 
dianaiad said:
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).
Click to expand...
You don’t have to talk about temple script… There are enough ex-mormons out there who gladly talk about it and some even put it online…

This LINK is about the endowment ceremony…

I just found this one and it is quite interesting too… a LINK with “101 Reasonable Doubts About Mormonism”
 
Janet1983 said:
You don’t have to talk about temple script… There are enough ex-mormons out there who gladly talk about it and some even put it online…

This LINK is about the endowment ceremony…

I just found this one and it is quite interesting too… a LINK with “101 Reasonable Doubts About Mormonism”
Click to expand...
I’m certain that there are, Janet. The script is on the internet all over the place. For that matter, WE are the folks who put it in the congressional record, and it’s a little difficult to get more 'public record-y" than that.

Go knock yourself out. Enjoy. You did not, after all, make any promises.
 
dianaiad said:
I’m certain that there are, Janet. The script is on the internet all over the place. For that matter, WE are the folks who put it in the congressional record, and it’s a little difficult to get more 'public record-y" than that.

Go knock yourself out. Enjoy. You did not, after all, make any promises.
Click to expand...
Well all I said that you don’t have to talk or reveal anything… It’s on the internet and this here is a pretty accurate description (it was not taken from the record) as far as I have heard from ex-mormons who I asked…
I didn’t promise anything so I can freely talk about it all day long if I wish (though it would be a complete waste of time because anybody can read it here).
 
Janet1983 said:
You don’t have to talk about temple script… There are enough ex-mormons out there who gladly talk about it and some even put it online…

This LINK is about the endowment ceremony…

I just found this one and it is quite interesting too… a LINK with “101 Reasonable Doubts About Mormonism”
Click to expand...
The problem is that mormons would find you posting the temple ceremony offensive. For mormons the temple ceremony is sacred. And you broke that sacredness. Now of course, people can trample on other peoples’ faith by not respecting what they feel to be sacred but…people do deserve respect.
 
Janet1983 said:
Well all I said that you don’t have to talk or reveal anything… It’s on the internet and this here is a pretty accurate description (it was not taken from the record) as far as I have heard from ex-mormons who I asked…
I didn’t promise anything so I can freely talk about it all day long if I wish (though it would be a complete waste of time because anybody can read it).
Click to expand...
It is about sensitivity to what someone’s believes to be sacred. Perhaps as a ‘bible believing’ christian, you can not understand that idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top