Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Are you SERIOUS??? You don’t hold your scriptures to be inerrant??? How can you claim to believe them then? How can you believe something that you don’t claim to be the truth?

If you will remember, I discussed how the human element involved in receiving and communicating an experience or revelation is subject to error. I still adhere to the scriptures even if they are not perfect as a matter of faith that they are good enough to lead me to the truth.

Even teachings found in the Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP? What the prophet says now trumps all of that?
Just for hypothetical play…What would you do if President Hinckley (sorry if I misspelled) came out tomorrow and said he received revelation from God that the LDS church is not the true church and JS was wrong? What would that mean for you?

For your first question, yes. The current prophet can receive a revelation and with the consent of the members canonize a statement that supercedes (in some way) past scripture. I can think of three examples. 1) Official Declaration 1 which supercedes the provision in Doctrine and Covenants 132 to practice polygamy. 2) The decision by the prophet and the members to de-canonize a section in Doctrine & Covenants that seems to discourage polygamy. 3) And finally Joseph Smith’s editing in between Book of Mormon editions for clarification speaks to this principle also.

Historical examples are much better than considering hypotheticals, but I will comment on yours. If the current prophet had such a revelation as you describe–suspending my disbelief that God would give contradictory revelations of this magnitude of apparency–the new revelation would have to pass through the common consent of the members, who would be highly prejudicial (in less exteme cases they would not be so much) . Most members would probably want to receive personal revelation before going along with such a notion. A safe gaurd against false revelation is that the current prophet could be removed from his position by the quorum of the 12.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Are you SERIOUS??? You don’t hold your scriptures to be inerrant??? How can you claim to believe them then? How can you believe something that you don’t claim to be the truth?

To not be inerrant is not the same as being not true. I have suggested that the Bible is sufficient. I believe the same for our other scriptures (although there are potentially less “translation” issues).

The BOM says that if there are any errors they are the errors of men and we should not hold God responsible for them.

We do not have a guarantee of inerrancy and we do not claim that our scriptures are inerrant. That does not mean that we regularly say there are errors.

tkdnick:

Even teachings found in the Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP? What the prophet says now trumps all of that?

The answer to this in my mind is yes and no. The prophet when acting as a prophet can receive any message from God, God deems necessary. God is not constrained in what he reveals by tradition or scripture. But according to HBL revelation will be presented first to the highest quorums then to the body of the church. I would suggest that this is the best indicator of when a prophet is acting as a prophet.

Before this, HBL building upon the common consent teaching from the D&C tells us that if anyone teaches something not found in the scripture they are teaching their opinion.

Since I sustain the Prophet, I feel that I will always make room for the opinion of the prophet until the Holy Spirit counsels me to not do so. I do not expect this to ever happen and I am not overly concerned about this.

tkdnick:

Just for hypothetical play…What would you do if President Hinckley (sorry if I misspelled) came out tomorrow and said he received revelation from God that the LDS church is not the true church and JS was wrong? What would that mean for you?

I do not know. I would begin to pray to know the truth. I would also observe what happened. If the church as a whole presented evidence for the extensive of a basement library of Joseph Smith, the couple dozen learned conspirators, and a few other things (that may be impossible to provide, but if they were) that explained the BOM into a 19th century fabrication (and the acceptance of this among the highes quorums and the body of the church), I suspect I would be Catholic.

Another scenario one I would enjoy immensely would be if the Pope ordained Hinckley and Hinckley ordained the Pope. I would be happy to unite with the children of the Early Church, and I would not care if the Pope or the Prophet was at its head.

The biggest Catholic doctrine that I would have trouble with is creation ex nihilo, but I could certainly accept it.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

oat soda:

in makes absolutely no theologic sense that God would tell joe that people shouldn’t drink “hot drinks”. it’s retarted. your missing out, Jesus drank wine!

mormon fool, here is a good website the refutes everything about mormonism. i encourage you to take a serious look at it. irr.org/mit/
what’s of particular interest is an article which shows that the DNA of indians is totally different then hebrew DNA proving the BOM false. irr.org/mit/Lamanites-DNA-Book-of-Mormon.html

Oat,

I thank you for your continued concern for my well-being. In the interest of respectful dialogue, can we refer to Joseph and not Joe? I would appreciate that.

IRR is certainly one of the better critical sites against the LDS church out there. However I don’t subscribe to their philosophy and in many cases their methodology has already been refuted by faithful LDS sites such as FARMS and FAIR.

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholic-RCIA,

Let me make a deal with you. I will let you define what CCC460 means if you will let me and Mormon Fool define what LDS scriptures mean AND help me encourage other Catholics to do the same.

I assure you that I can make Catholic teachings look silly and contradictory if I try. I would never do that. When I was seeking I first tried to find the best possible read of the Catholic Church so I could compare “best to best.” In doing this I sought the help of Catholics and ultimately read On the Development of Christian Doctrine by Cardinal Newman. Before reading his book, I considered Catholicism to likely be “fatally flawed” in the emphasis upon tradition and the obvious development of doctrine. I still believe that most Catholic’s concept of tradition, words of Catholic leaders who condemn Newman, and the stretching of the concept of “conforming to tradition” done by Newman are weaknesses, but these are largely balanced by Newman’s 7 characteristic of a true development apologetic.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

TOmNossor:

Perhaps Mormon Fool with have something to say about his beliefs regarding the former manhood of God. But President Hinckley said that we do not know very much about that. I believe this to be true. I believe President Hinckley and Irenaeus have cautioned about speculation on this subject and one linked too it by many critics.

What TOm has said about the subject, I can heartily agree with. The Doctrine and Covenants section 20 must be dealt with before any wild speculation can occur. I think my earlier post on section 19 shows away around it that mormon thinkers sometimes take. Whether it is justified or not is a matter left up to the individual.

A solid mormon belief is the anthromorphic (but not exclusively anthromorphic) nature of both God the Father and Jesus. Just because we label something man, it doesn’t preclude him from being God(-like). The Snow couplet is a metaphor, the “as” words should clue us in.

"As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”

If we replace God in the statement with Jesus, I think we would have a statement that would readily be affirmed by ECFs such as Justin Martyr. Since Jesus is a model for understanding the Father, I don’t think the original statement is much of a stretch from there.

Again it is a metaphoric analogy and not an exact comparison of states of being then and now. I agree with President Hinckley that this something we don’t know much about.

Later,
fool

 

[catholic-rcia]

”emphasis upon tradition”

Last Sunday we were still celebrating the birth of Christ, Christmas. For most it had passed. Catholic Apostolic Traditions, Good Traditions spoken of in Scripture, Christmas and many more Christmas days to enjoy. Now we move daily towards Easter, but first we will experience Lent, the desert. The Holy days will soon arrive and in these days more days to cherish in my life. Holy Thursday, the meaning of the washing of the feet, Holy Friday were we process to the Cross and embrace it, cherish its meaning, on to Holy Saturday, the Easter Vigil, Baptisms, the resurrection, Sundays Feast, praise for our Savior. A yearly procession that has its movement in Christ’s daily Word to us. “Love each other as I have loved you” Its not complicated. It’s just reality.

God Bless Tom

If you ever want to talk you can always e-mail me.

When I was just twenty it gave me great satisfaction that I managed to read, and understand, the Ten Categories of Aristotle without a teacher. I would mention the book at every opportunity, slipping the title in with a touch of awe, smiling to myself when lecturers would comment how difficult it had been for them to answer it.

And much good it did me! Indeed, it was harmful, because it encouraged me to think of You, O Lord, as if you were part of what you had made, instead of being its essence and origin. Sadly, I had my back toward the light and my eyes fixed on the darkness. I could understand without difficulty logic, rhetoric, geometry, music, and arithmetic, but I did not see that my intelligence itself was a gift of God and that all the true things I learned came from him, their source. What advantage was it to me that I had a nimble wit when all the while I turned from good and clung to evil? Little did I realize then how much better off were all those (as I saw them) “simple” souls who lacked my native intelligence but put their trust in God.…Saint Augustine

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

The biggest Catholic doctrine that I would have trouble with is creation ex nihilo, but I could certainly accept it.

So you don’t have problems with things such as praying to the Saints, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Mary Ever Virgin, Mary’s Assumption, Mary’s Coronation? Those are typically some of the things most people have the biggest problems with.

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

And much good it did me! Indeed, it was harmful, because it encouraged me to think of You, O Lord, as if you were part of what you had made, instead of being its essence and origin. Sadly, I had my back toward the light and my eyes fixed on the darkness. I could understand without difficulty logic, rhetoric, geometry, music, and arithmetic, but I did not see that my intelligence itself was a gift of God and that all the true things I learned came from him, their source. What advantage was it to me that I had a nimble wit when all the while I turned from good and clung to evil? Little did I realize then how much better off were all those (as I saw them) “simple” souls who lacked my native intelligence but put their trust in God.**…**Saint Augustine

At the risk of further demonstrating what you can already see so clearly let me comment on what St. Augustine said.

I have quoted this passage (or a similar one from Augustine) in the past. You see Augustine through his intellect was lead to Manichæism. If I recall correctly the passage you quote was associated with his recognition that his intellect had lead him into error and that what you call orthodoxy while not necessarily as in line with reason was in fact true. It was the spiritual nature he observed in orthodoxy that he felt was lacking in Manichæism that brought him to what you call orthodoxy.

I wish to point out that it is interesting that a Catholic is appealing to a LDS to not be so ruled by reason and logic. It is most definitely a message custom designed for me, but in a way I see it as an acknowledgement of the position I am advocating here. That position is not that all who read this must become LDS, but that being a LDS is a reasonable thing.

Toward following your council, I truly did realize that I could have been wrong upon the force of my intellect. A crisis of faith resulted and I emerged with the spiritual witness that I had previously lacked. I am a LDS because of spiritual AND intellectual reasons. I do not see the Manichæism/Catholicism conflict as being equivalent to the CoJCoLDS/Catholicism conflict. Among the general members I will take the commitment I see in the average LDS over that which I see in the average Catholic. Among those who partake of extraordinary grace I see a much closer balance, but certainly no reason to choose St. Thomas Aquinas over Elder John H. Grohberg.

I am acutely aware of my supposed “learning.” I am acutely aware of my pride failings. I do try and remember that whatever intellect I may possess it is a gift from God. However, I have discovered that those things my LDS wife just knows I learn through study and effort. My way is different, but not necessarily worse.

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

I thank you for your continued concern for my well-being. In the interest of respectful dialogue, can we refer to Joseph and not Joe? I would appreciate that.

i don’t want to confuse him with the father of Jesus.

he’ll always be crazy joe smith with the peep stone. who else could convince 10 men to let him marry there wives. what a scammer. did you know he, like russel of the JW and mohammed were all salesmen??? crazy joe would have been an awesome used car salesman.

 

[mormon_fool]

oat soda:

i don’t want to confuse him with the father of Jesus.

he’ll always be crazy joe smith with the peep stone. who else could convince 10 men to let him marry there wives. what a scammer. did you know he, like russel of the JW and mohammed were all salesmen??? crazy joe would have been an awesome used car salesman.

Well for that matter, I hope no one confuses anybody named “Joseph” as Jesus’s Father.

Joseph Smith or JS will do. If you insist on calling him joe, I will take it that you are not interested in respectful dialogue. Please reconsider.

Joseph Smith did spend some time as a salesman, but he was lousy at it. He would frequently give things away for free out of the goodness of heart without regard for profit.

Later,

fool

 

[oat_soda]

Joseph Smith did spend some time as a salesman, but he was lousy at it. He would frequently give things away for free out of the goodness of heart without regard for profit.

so nice in fact that he would marry them despite of having a husband and childern -what a guy.

irr.org/mit/neely2.html
1826 Bill of Justice Albert Neely
this is the court document that shows j.smith was convicted of scamming people with a peep stone.

2.18

 

[catholic-rcia]

Go here and take a look at this video trailor
All things are possible with Christ
feazell.smartwriters.com/index.2ts?page=endtime

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

So you don’t have problems with things such as praying to the Saints, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Mary Ever Virgin, Mary’s Assumption, Mary’s Coronation? Those are typically some of the things most people have the biggest problems with.

Actually, none of those would cause me any large heartache.

I think we could use some greater respect for Mary. I have little problem with dulia, hyper-dulia and latria designations.

I also think that if you have ever put your name on a prayer list or asked someone to pray for you that you should not have a tremendous problem with praying to saints.

I think there are a few Catholics who remain farther separated from the Trinity because they view God as unapproachable in an unhealthy way, but this is a very uncommon problem.

This does not mean that as a LDS I embrace all the Catholic beliefs concerning Mary (or that I pray to Saints or Mary for that matter), but if I were to embrace the authority of the Catholic Church, it would not be a stretch to embrace the rest of these things.

I am not a fan of Calvinistic double predestination. I see this as a logical outgrowth of Creation ex Nihilo. Were I Catholic, I believe I would embrace creation ex nihilo, and consider ones “free response” to grace to His grace to be a wonderful belief I cannot right with creation ex nihilo.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

oat soda:

so nice in fact that he would marry them despite of having a husband and childern -what a guy.

I believe that TOm already gave you some links that rebuts both your charges of polyandry and the 1826 trial in post 203.

I will add a brief response. I hold that Joseph Smith didn’t have, um, relations with any of the women he was “sealed” to who were at the same time with their husbands. I think that when the churched received further knowledge about “sealing” and polygamy such practices were discontinued. I think Joseph Smith should be commended for following such an unpleasant and unpopular revealed commandment to the best of his knowledge.

irr.org/mit/neely2.html
1826 Bill of Justice Albert Neely
this is the court document that shows j.smith was convicted of scamming people with a peep stone.

IRR is hardly the last word when it comes to mormon historical studies. Yes the court document exists proves Joseph Smith had some sort of trial. I don’t think he was tried for “scamming” as you say because, as Gordon Madsen points out, the witnesses are never questioned about whether money changed hands. The witnesses testify that Joseph Smith claimed to see buried treasure through a seer stone, some believed he was pretending and others didn’t. Joseph Smith Sr. thinks Jr. can better use his gifts for spiritual purposes, to which I say amen.

There are some indications it was a preliminary hearing, because Joseph is called a prisoner instead of a defendant in the trial notes. Dan Vogel, a critic of the LDS church, notes that, in the early 1800’s, the use of word “guilty” in one of the court documents probably means a decision was made to hold a formal trial. There is evidence that the formal trial was never held, so the justices involved reversed the decision.

Bottom line: Joseph was never convicted of scamming people and it is hardly a crime to go on treasure hunts.

Later,
fool

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

Go here and take a look at this video trailor

All things are possible with Christ

http://feazell.smartwriters.com/index.2ts?page=endtime]

After about 20min, I was really confused as why you wanted me to watch folks talk about the end of the world.

I found the trailer you meant after that though.

When people move closer to Christ I rejoice. I have even rejoiced when folks who fundamentally misunderstood the CoJCoLDS and through their departure came closer to Christ.

The last exit from Mormonism book I read was by a lady who claims that the devil tried to prevent her questioning and ultimate departure from the church. When she finally let go and considered it might not be true, she felt that Jesus Christ had rescued her. I told her that part of me was thankful for her freedom from the legalism and burden she felt. I also told her (and do believe) that I had similar experiences, but my conclusions were radically different than hers.

On a slightly related note:

You might notice that you are calling upon me to see the fruits of the Saints, to look to the spirit of the Catholic Church, and to get past where my reason has directed me. But Oat Soda is mocking, name calling, and telling me to use solid reasoning and that LDS are ridiculous.

Oat Soda seems uninterested in requests from Mormon Fool and me to act differently. Perhaps you might note the damage he does to your apologetic and see if you can convince Oat Soda to change his methods (not to mention the damage he does with things such as his Clement test). I might suggest that a comparison of the deportment of Mormon Fool and Oat Soda makes for an easy call.

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

But Oat Soda is mocking, name calling, and telling me to use solid reasoning and that LDS are ridiculous.

you think everyone is out to get you. it’s pathetic.

joesph smith was so crazy i feel sorry for him. here are eyewitness accounts how he came up w/the BOM.

Emma Hale Smith, Joseph’s wife, was the first person to serve as his scribe. Here is her testimony as recounted to her son Joseph Smith III:
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."** 3**

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.

to buy into this buffonery you have also have to “put your head into a hat” or the sand.

 

[catholic-rcia]

When people move closer to Christ I rejoice. I have even rejoiced when folks who fundamentally misunderstood the CoJCoLDS and through their departure came closer to Christ.

“In all humility Tom, it was the Nature of Christ that they were wrong about, and as said, if your wrong about that you will be wrong about everything else. You are not in the light of this Church. You may have wonderful friends in that faith, and this at times can make it harder to move on, if that ever becomes your will. But it’s not about gaining or loosing friends, families, etc… Christ has to be enough, plus you yourself will always love them anyway if you are led by Christ. Others will not be priority; Christ will be, placing others in a very good position.”

“My thoughts as to the above, what you have written about coming closer to Christ would be, the Jesus that my grandmother taught me about. The Jesus that is the brother of Lucifer, or the Jesus I have come to know as the creator of Lucifer, all powers whether in heaven or on earth. Johns Gospel, Colossians, Hebrews, and in many other areas of Scripture. As far back as Genesis, “let us make man in Our Image, onto Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Sprit”. Which Jesus are you speaking about? Tell me who Jesus is clearly.”

You might notice that you are calling upon me to see the fruits of the Saints, to look to the spirit of the Catholic Church, and to get past where my reason has directed me.

“I am not trying to get you to see the Spirit of the Catholic Church, only Jesus. The rest follows along. The Body of Christ includes all Christian Churches. It has been the Mass, Jesus that has overflowed to them. The Catholic Church being the Mother.”

I must admit positively that it was through my heart that I began to investigate the Catholic Church. It was the Scriptures that confirmed what my heart was telling me. I have not once been let down in this matter. It is amazing. Here is what I was once taught:

1. Catholics worship Mary
2. Catholics pray to dead Saints
3. Catholics Worship a Wafer
4. Catholics invented the Mass
5. Catholics invented the Trinity
6. The Catholic Church Apostatized
7. Catholics worship Statues

As I opened each one of the doors above I found Beauty and reasoning. I was given some very large doors to enter. Although it was nothing new, only new to me.

the damage he does to your apologetic

“In time he will learn all about the tares that are within Him. I take the good with the bad. I have no problem with this. Nor should you, you are smarter than that. “ Lately we have had larger issues as you know.”

 

[catholic-rcia]

Not a tool for death, but rather the tree of life.

“…having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” Colossians 2:14

“God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Galatians 6:14 "

…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

“He said to them all, 'If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.”
Luke 9:23 "…

by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." Colossians 1:20

“…that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.” Ephesians 2:16 "

And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel…" Col 1:21-23

"Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” Mark 10:21

“… he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” Matthew 10:38

“Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.” 1 Corinthians 1:17

“…if I still preach circumcision [conforming to accepted cultural standards], why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.” Galatians 5:11

“As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” Galatians 6:12

“For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame – who set their mind on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven…” Philippians 3:1

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Actually, none of those would cause me any large heartache.

I think we could use some greater respect for Mary. I have little problem with dulia, hyper-dulia and latria designations.

Wow, not often you hear someone other than a Catholic say we need greater respect for Mary!

I confess I have no idea what dulia, hyper-dulia, or latria are.

I also think that if you have ever put your name on a prayer list or asked someone to pray for you that you should not have a tremendous problem with praying to saints.

THANK YOU!!! Gosh, if only everyone could see and understand that logic!!!
I think there are a few Catholics who remain farther separated from the Trinity because they view God as unapproachable in an unhealthy way, but this is a very uncommon problem.
I don’t think this is uncommon, and I don’t think it’s limited to Catholics either. I think there are lots of people who struggle to connect with God because they see Him as unapproachable, or mean, or they have some “issue” with it, or any number of other things. And I think you can find these kinds of people in every religion (and those with no religion).

Gosh TOm I confess that you sound more Catholic than some Catholics I know.

 

[catholic-rcia]

If you can spend a bit of time here using the links

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Eucharist.html