R
rmcmullan
Guest
Well, okay, I’ll answer your question if you promise to convert to Mormonism if the answer is to your satisfaction. Shall I start filling the baptismal font?
- Status
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
Will Alexaustralia also have to join the Masons too?
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Chris, you actually brought up something interesting. Apparently, Catholics are forbidden to join the Free Masons. At least according to this website theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/freemasonry_catholics.htm. They also mention the Knights of Columbus and disavow any relationship between the two organizations. Did FreeMasons plot against the Catholics? I know this is going back in American history but was there something going on between the Catholics and the Masons?
As to all the “points” everyone is making, yeah, I get them but I don’t think you get mine. Or maybe you just don’t want to entertain it. Believe me, if all the honey bees, horses, iron and steel suddenly turned up in an archeological find in America, you’d all be moved not a single bit. And I am still surprised there are so many people qualified to speak authoratatively on early North American archeology.
As to all the “points” everyone is making, yeah, I get them but I don’t think you get mine. Or maybe you just don’t want to entertain it. Believe me, if all the honey bees, horses, iron and steel suddenly turned up in an archeological find in America, you’d all be moved not a single bit. And I am still surprised there are so many people qualified to speak authoratatively on early North American archeology.
M
majick275
Guest
well I would be impressed if all of the sudden archaeologists found those things. What I find just as disturbing as these anachronisms though is the ABSENCE in the BoM of the things that we know were common to the pre-columbian people of the americas. We can see vast evidence of them and their cities. we know much about their religion, lifestyle and culture. We don’t find any of this described in the BoM. One would think that if it were true we would at least see some mention of their neighboring Incas, Mayans, etc. If LDS leaders are to be believed then those peoples were predominantly lamanite and definitively should have been described in the BoM. They aren’t. That coupled with the things in it that we believe did NOT exist then cast doubts on it’s veracity.
A
Allweather
Guest
Personally, I would find it interesting, but not terribly so, if some archaeological evidence supporting the BoM turned up eventually.
I don’t base my rejection of Mormonism on such things. I base my rejection upon the fact that Mormonism rejects the authority of the Catholic Church and refuses to submit to it. In this sense, I don’t find the Mormons very much more out-of-whack than the various Protestant sects, or the various other cults and sects, Chrisitian and otherwise, that roam the lands.
Rmcmullan has a good point, that few, if any, here are qualified to comment authoritatively on archaeology, or, for that matter, on theology, or history, or anthropology, or any other discipline. Most of us are just religion junkies who read a little, some more than others.
The real argument is about authority. To me, the truth is fairly easy to see. One doesn’t have to be Brainiac to see through the odd claims of the sects and cults, nor does one have to be brilliant to sense that the Catholic Church has the only claim to fame in the authority game. Anyone here who is depending upon his mental abilities to lead him into religious truth is probably screwing up.
I don’t base my rejection of Mormonism on such things. I base my rejection upon the fact that Mormonism rejects the authority of the Catholic Church and refuses to submit to it. In this sense, I don’t find the Mormons very much more out-of-whack than the various Protestant sects, or the various other cults and sects, Chrisitian and otherwise, that roam the lands.
Rmcmullan has a good point, that few, if any, here are qualified to comment authoritatively on archaeology, or, for that matter, on theology, or history, or anthropology, or any other discipline. Most of us are just religion junkies who read a little, some more than others.
The real argument is about authority. To me, the truth is fairly easy to see. One doesn’t have to be Brainiac to see through the odd claims of the sects and cults, nor does one have to be brilliant to sense that the Catholic Church has the only claim to fame in the authority game. Anyone here who is depending upon his mental abilities to lead him into religious truth is probably screwing up.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
I certainly agree with that last statement although I would add the word “solely” after the word “depending”, I think that’s what you meant.
I should like to point out, (although I don’t expect you to accept it) that the Mormons also have a claim to Apostolic authority which makes them unique from Protestant religions. Even though Mormons arose from a Protestant culture, we don’t consider ourselves Protestant. The Catholic church claims it inherited the Apostolic authority from, well, the original Apostles and that it passed to the Magisterium. The Mormons claim their Apostolic authority from Peter, James and John who bestowed it on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (as resurrected beings scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/7,8,12#7.) It lives on in a modern day council of 12 Apostles. Protestants claim their authority from the Bible, but Mormons make (almost) the same claim as the Catholics.
Allweather, I know that won’t change your mind or anything, because of the “odd claims” part of your statement, I just wanted to make that distinction, fine though it might be.
A
alexaustralia
Guest
HAHAHAHA I like your humour … if you explain it to satisfaction I can begin to think of Mormonism as credible with the possibility of being true … it then has to stand up against the Bible and Early Church Teaching … I then have to weigh up who’s testimony to be more credible … the disciples of the apostles with their guidance or Joseph Smith’s …and there will prob be more things to think about…
For now though:
To believe in the BoM is faith without a foundation…
Imagine if 10 Joseph Smith’s came with their own BoM (with completely diff stories and none check up with historical accounts), which one would you believe and why … imagine now all have followers claiming the “burning in the bossom” effect … and the followers are trying to convince you to join them because of their claim they got the “burning in the bossom” … who is correct ?.. how can one distinguish? …
What criteria would you use to know if one (if any) is correct?
Alex
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
A secret society that dabbles in the occult and requires its members to make blood oaths is obviously in contradiction to Jesus’ teachings.
A
Allweather
Guest
Thanks for the edit, and you’re correct in making it. I wrote hastily yesterday afternoon before leaving OKC for a 10 hour road trip to ABQ, having just now arrived at midnight. I surely don’t mean that “mental” work isn’t needed. If anything, it is more important than anything else. What I meant to refer to is the tendency that many people have to need to “understand” something completely before they can “accept” it.
Some Protestant sects also claim to have apostles and bishops. I don’t know if their systems claim the same sort of apostolic succession that Mormons and Catholics do, but they use the names.
Bear in mind, the word Catholic refers to the universal Church, and was in use most likely while John was still alive. So it is ancient. The term Catholic used as a means to distinguish the larger, orthodox Church from the sects that arose didn’t come to be until much later. I think our understanding of the word Catholic today is different from what it was in 300 A.D.
Understood. The major problem for this theory is that it relies on the claims of a two or three people, and has nowhere near the historical attestation of the similar claims of the Catholic Church. And, since the Mormon church went forward into significant deviation from orthodoxy, not to mention the eventual excommunication/apostasy of Cowdery, as well as the abandonment of Smith by most of his chosen leaders before his murder, it appears that the Mormon claims are tenuous.
True, but Protestant reliance on the Bible, specifically the New Testament, derives from acceptance of the Catholic canon. Therefore, they tacitly acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church to establish the Scriptures, even if they don’t always realize they’re doing that.
No, I’m immune to being distracted by the sects.
Remember, the “odd claims” refers to not just Mormons, but to all the other sects and cults as well. The thing is, if Mormonism was the only sect that arose in 19th century America, I’d look at it more closely. The fact that Mormonism is one among many, all different, leads me to believe that it is different from the others only in the degree and quality of error.
Given the fact that Jesus called emphatically for unity among his followers, the trends towards disunity are indicators of error.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Hmm, that sounds a lot like the questions Joseph Smith was asking that eventually lead to the First Vision. There are answers of course but, to make a long story short, (and to keep within the forum rules), I’ll only say that ther are missionaries in Australia too. Feel free to call on them! (a little more humour)
A
Allweather
Guest
Yes, there are answers. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith, Jr didn’t seek those answers in the right places.
The sorts of questions Joseph, Jr was asking are common questions most 12 year old children ask. I asked, them, and I’ll bet you did, too. Joseph said that he started wondering about religion at the age of 12, and that this continued on throughout his childhood. He was apparently given over to a religious zealotry unusual even in an age when there wasn’t much else for people to do day-to-day EXCEPT work and do religion.
Joseph claimed that he said almost nothing to his parents about the First Vision, but that at some point he discussed it with a Methodist minister. The minister, according to Joseph, reacted negatively. For whatever reasons, Joseph kept the First Vision mostly to himself for some 12 years before beginning to reveal it, first in 1832, in a piecemeal fashion that grew and elaborated during the years between 1832 and 1844. Most early Mormon converts never heard about the First Vision, which seems a bit odd to me in view of how important it is for Mormon theology today.
If the story about the Methodist minister is true, then Joseph would’ve been a lot better off by listening to that minister and taking advice from him. Even better, if there’d been a Catholic priest, or better yet a bishop, nearby, a visit to him could have cleared up a lot of anxiety for the little boy visionary.
Most likely, though, the whole First Vision story is a concoction that emerged in the early 1830s, and was elaborated over time, in order to offer supernatural support for the growing body of revelations flowing from the mind of Joseph, Jr.
A
alexaustralia
Guest
I’ll do that … would be interesting to know what the answer will be…although they don’t come here that often … then again I work till late so very little chances of encounters of the first kind
(a little humour of my own)Cheers, have a nice weekend
Alex
J
jazzy_987
Guest
Wow, Mormonism is like that? How could it be Called the Church of Jesus Christ then? It should be the Church of Joseph Smith.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
You are closer than you know. It is mormon teaching that Joseph Smith possesses the keys to heaven and that no one achieves heaven without the leave of Joseph Smith.
- Status