Z
Zundrah
Guest
Do you some times wonder if some of the book was inspired but the apostacy was just a lie though?
Have you read the book of mormon, pnewton?
- Status
Have you read the book of mormon, pnewton?
Z
zerinus
Guest
The LDS Church does not “debate” with people. Mormon missionaries will be happy to preach to you the gospel if you allow them to. If not, they will be equally happy to give you a copy of the Book of Mormon if you ask them, and be on their way.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The Book of Mormon can not be inspired as public revelation is closed. This is a teaching of the Catholic Church and I also believe that many protestants believe that the Bible is it for inspired texts.
No thank you. I do not wish to have it hand delivered and anyways, it would not look good to have Mormon missionaries show up at a Carmelite Priory.
Also, in my Catholic in a Global Context we had to attend a religious service of a different tradition, one of my classmates got in touch with the LDS Church and yes they did tell her how she has gotten it wrong but you are correct, they did not debate as they did not wish to hear anything she had to say that did not support what the LDS Church believes.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes I have. On both counts. I was not raised Catholic, but rather Baptist. Therefore, the historical accuracy of such things have been of great interest to me.
Z
Zundrah
Guest
I’m methodist, but I’m sure baptist is the same, right?
Z
zerinus
Guest
It is the sign of a dead religion to declare the canon of scripture closed. Whenever there has been a true and living church in the world, it has been charcterized by continuing revelation and an open canon of scripture.
That is not the LDS Church that I recognize.
P
pnewton
Guest
Pretty darn close. The history of both groups are rather parallel, as are many of the beliefsI’m methodist, but I’m sure baptist is the same, right?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Well we will have to disagree on this. Where I see an open canon I see confusion and the claim that anything can be done as inspiration is open to what every one wishes.
It might not be, but that does not mean it is not true.
Z
Zundrah
Guest
I’m off now but I’ll get back to you, promise!
R
ricko
Guest
That’s nonsense Parker. Read what your Mormon site has to say about the translation:
“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. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother **Joseph would read off the English **to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and **when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, **and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”
In the above process there is nothing about J Smith putting it in his own words. It is straight dictation according to your own church. That leaves two possibilites for the bad grammer and the use of the KJV. The Mormon god is not too smart or Joseph Smith made the entire thing up. Since the Mormon god does not exist we are left with the latter possibility. Smith invented the whole thing and your response is certainly not an answer and shows how Mormons will invent nonsense answers for serious problems with the false LDS church.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rick,
That’s nonsense for you, and this is just fine with me. I am very familiar with how the Holy Ghost is involved with people through their mind and heart. Their own mind is involved. Joseph Smith’s mind was involved. His faith was involved. His use of language was involved. God works through people, through their mind and through their heart.
But if it’s nonsense to you, that is your right. Have a good evening.
R
ricko
Guest
That is so sad. Sometimes I think a little common sense seeps into your mind here and there. Parker, it’s not about my right or your right. So sad that you boil it down to that. It’s about what is truth and what isn’t. I used your LDS quote stating that what JS saw by god’s actions he then DICTATED to a writer. Really Parker, all I have done is use your church’s historical records and point out to you what it says. Doesn’t make sense does it? I supposed that is why you came back with your quote above. Does any of the truth sink in at all? Doesn’t that make you THINK a little? How could you actually say that J Smith or anyone for that matter would take what god has revealed and CHANGE it? Is that what the LDS teach you? Writing it off as a Holy Spirit thing is really ignoring your reasoning power. You talk about the Holy Spirit all the time but you ignore and refuse to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Think about it Parker. A man claims the most “correct book ever written” is translated to him by god himself yet the book has errors in it. Then the LDS states that is because Smith CHANGED gods revealed word and substituted his own words instead!! Hear any bells and whistles?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rick,
I really appreciate your sincerity here. Perhaps you have given more “credit” to the David Whitmer description of how Joseph Smith used the seer stone for translating the Book of Mormon than I do. Earlier on, he used a Urim and Thummim, but in either case his own faith was involved, and his mind was a conduit for bringing the words into English from the ancient language used by the Nephite prophets. He never said he received a perfected dictation from God. The ideas and concepts and gospel message in the Book of Mormon are what make it the “most correct of any book on earth”, not whether there were grammatical errors in the initial translation. He said it was translated by the “gift and power of God,” not done by God himself doing the translating. God does not work that way. If He did, we would have a Bible written by God Himself.
R
ricko
Guest
Funny how Mormons disagree with their own documents when we find holes in them. You are giving your opinion. The statement by Whitmer is part of LDS history. To add your opinions for faults found within that statement is indignant of you. I’ve seen the Mormons take their own documents and statements by their own prophets and disown them by claiming they are only the “opinions” of individuals. Doesn’t appear that the LDS is as “rock” solid as they would like everyone to believe.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Then you do not understand the meaning of an open canon of scripture. Was that the case in the days of the Apostles when there was an open canon of scripture? Was that the case in the days of Moses when there was an open canon of scripture? Was that the case throughout the history of the Jews when they had an open canon of scripture, and many great prophets who added to it over many centuries? What makes you think an open canon of scripture today should be any different from those days? Alternatively, if you cannot stomach an open canon of scripture today, how are you able to trust the open canon of yesteryear? What is the difference? I don’t understand.
R
ricko
Guest
The difference is that anyone can proclaim that he is a prophet of God and can and will introduce false teachings. No new revelations are needed nor are any forthcoming. One example is the LDS “revelation” that blacks are now permitted in the priesthood. The Catholic Church received that revelation back in the days of the Apostles in the form of that all men are equal in the sight of God.
Christ came to fulfill two missions, that of teacher and of redeemer. He taught especially the Apostles who He then sent out to spread what He taught. There is nothing in the bible that indicates that His teaching was insufficient. In fact the bible states that it was complete:
“…and encourage you to fight hard for the faith delvered ONCE for all to the saints” Jude 3
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And you, as Rick has pointed out, do not understand Catholic Teaching.
From the Dogmatic Constitution on Diving Revelation - Dei Verbum
Chapter 1, paragrah 4 (bold emphasis added)
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, “now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son” (Heb. 1:1-2). For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18). Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as “a man to men.” (3) He “speaks the words of God” (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4). To see Jesus is to see His Father (John 14:9). For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover He confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal.
The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).
And open Canon means that any nonsense can be added or changed and there is much proof of that out there.
Z
zerinus
Guest
That scenario existed in the days of the Apostles, in the days of Moses, and throughout the history of the Jews. If it did not conflict with the principle of an open canon then, why should it do so now?
That is hardly a valid argument. We don’t know why the Lord had withheld the priesthood from Blacks in the early days of the Church. God has the right to give a commandment to His Church at one time, and different commandment at a later time.
That is just false teaching. There is nothing in the Old or New Testaments that suggests there should be no more prophets and revelations after Jesus.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I think I do understand it, but don’t agree with it. Let’s not confuse the two, shall we.
It is no good throwing your dogmas at me. Why should I accept your dogmas when it is out of harmony with the revealed word of the God?
I still don’t understand. If that was not a problem in the days of the Apostles, Moses, or throughout the history of the Jews, why should it be a problem now?
R
ricko
Guest
For your answer, look in the mirror.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations.”
- Status