The Book of Mormons and the Bible

[flameburns623]

Wow OK, thanks.

I guess I was wondering more why they don’t completely rewrite the Bible, leaving out the “errors” and combining it with the BOM, and so getting rid of the KJV altogether.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) was an effort to do this, but Smith perished before the project could be completed. Modern editions of the King James Version distributed by the LDS Church, (since 1979, I believe), will have footnotes referring the reader to brief emendations of the KJV as represented by the JST. Longer abridgements are noted in the footnotes and included in a separate section in the back of LDS Bibles. You can also purchase the Joseph Smith Translation as a separate edition, though it is rather costly and is not considered fully ‘authoritative’ since it was never completed in Smith’s lifetime and no subsequent ‘prophet’ has stepped up to finish the work. Look for this to happen if the LDS Church does not implode from the sheer weight of it’s own absurdities, sometime in the next century or so. (Not in my lifetime, probably, only because the LDS Church isn’t raising up that sort of leadership these days. Mormon prophets in present times tend to be administrators and public-relations icons rather than charismatic leaders known for bold strokes. If our culture changes, LDS leadership will likely change as well).

By the way: my use of the word "absurdity’ was judicious and not meant to be inflammatory. The fact is that there is increasingly zero evidence that the Book of Mormon is any sort of historical document, and likewise zero evidence for the Book of Abraham as an authentic ancient record. Unless that situation changes–unless we clearly identify Nephite artifacts or unless non-LDS scholars arrive at an agreed system of encryption by which Abraham veiled his writings under the guise of fragments of Egyptian papyri–the weight of scholarship is going to render current LDS claims about these documents truly absurd. Of course, the LDS Church may find some palatable way to redefine these portions of their ‘standard works’–identifying the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and Book of Abraham as ‘pious fiction’ for example–but any such softening of the present insistence of those books as works of history is likely to inaugurate a crises of faith within the LDS fold.

I think most converts to Mormonism tend to initially favor the use of the “Quad” or “Quadruple combination” that I depicted earlier. They want to stress the “oneness” of all of the LDS Scriptures, which Mormons refer to as their “Standard Works”. Later, one finds that if one really wants to follow cross-references and do a topical study in the LDS Scriptures, a ‘Triple Combination’ set is more convenient. (The "Triple Combination, if you haven’t guessed, are the three books of LDS scriptures unique to the Mormon Church; a “Triple Combination set” is a matched pair of volumes comprising the Holy Bible in one volume and the LDS scriptures in the other. Go to Deseret Books if you want to see different editions of the LDS scriptures). I own both versions of the LDS Standard works, and frankly I find the LDS edition of the Bible to have a very useful topical referencing system for personal study–even though I am no longer a Mormon I still sometimes use my LDS Bible. They haven’t tampered with the KJV text itself, and the cross-referencing system is rather similar to the Thompson Chain Reference system, which I’m told Mormons once favored before the LDS Church produced it’s own cross-referencing Bible.

 

[zerinus]

So how did a Jesus-established church apostatise? It just did. How do you know? You just know it did!

That is not what I have said at all. You can tell if a church is true or not by the way it is run, governed, and organized. If it is led by revelation from God, if it is governed by true prophets and Apostles of the Lord who are in direct communication with Him, have divine authority from Him, and are able to lead it by revelation directly from Him, then you have a church that is acknowledged by Him, which He recognizes to be His church. It is the true church. If, on the other hand, you have a church that says that the heavens are closed, the canon of scripture is closed, God has done His work and left it to man to get on with it without further revelation, direction, or direct communion with Him, then you have a false church. It is an apostate church. It is not a church that God acknowledges to be His church; otherwise He would talk to it, and lead it by revelation from Him, as He has always done throughout the history of mankind. That is the pattern by which you can tell the true church from a false one. So how does the Orthodox Church fit into that category, the first or the second? Obviously the second, therefore it is not the true church. How about the Catholic or the Protestant churches? Where do they fit in? Obviously the second, therefore they are not a true church. Is there any church on earth that fits into the first category? I only know of one—the LDS Church—therefore it is God’s only true church. If it isn’t, then the true church doesn’t exist, because that is how you can tell the true church from the false one.

Imperfect though you may think Jesus is, I for one don’t believe that he would come to earth establish the procedures for protecting his message - because the Holy Spirit guided them.

We believe that Jesus is perfect, but man isn’t. Just as the people that came after Adam apostatized, and were destroyed in the flood, and God raised up a new generation of men on earth through Noah; and just as the descendents of Noah apostatized too, and God raised up a righteous branch through Abraham; and just as that generation apostatized also, and God periodically raised up prophets to lead them back to Him. So the church that Jesus established in His day apostatized (as was predicted), and true to pattern God has now established a new church by revelation to replace the old one.

Indeed! How does he know this truth? The Book of Mormons tells him it is, based on the fact the book authorises itself.

Not at all. The Holy Ghost authenticates the Book of Mormon. If you can’t tell the difference, than you don’t understand plain English.

zerinus

 

[Montalban]

zerinus:

That is not what I have said at all. You can tell if a church is true or not by the way it is run, governed, and organized. If it is led by revelation from God, if it is governed by true prophets and Apostles of the Lord who are in direct communication with Him, have divine authority from Him, and are able to lead it by revelation directly from Him, then you have a church that is acknowledged by Him, which He recognizes to be His church. It is the true church. If, on the other hand, you have a church that says that the heavens are closed, the canon of scripture is closed, God has done His work and left it to man to get on with it without father revelation, direction, or direct communion with Him, then you have a false church. It is an apostate church. It is not a church that God acknowledges to be His church; otherwise He would talk to it, and lead it by revelation from Him, as He has always done throughout the history of mankind.

a) how has he done this throughout the history of mankind when you believe the Church was Apostate from c.70AD-18 whenever?
b) your only proof that your church is a church that does this is your claim that this is so.

zerinus:

That is the pattern by which you can tell the true church from a false one. So how does the Orthodox Church fit into that category, the first or the second? Obviously the second, therefore it is not the true church.

How do you know ‘obviously the second’? You have no idea about the Orthodox Church. When I asked you to discuss it (on baptism) you simply said that it’s Apostate. How do you know? You just do. Until you’re serious about discussion over these issues, then few will take YOU seriously. You don’t engage on a single point but instead continue to couch your answers in circular logic and you don’t care beyond this.

SO you’ve got to make up your mind what kind of conversation you are going to have. One where you just deride everyone’s belief and don’t attempt to discuss real reasons, or actually develop an argument based on evidence.

I take it from your responses so far you prefer the first. It’s much safer of course to simply declare everyone else’s beliefs are false, but you should have a reason for doing so.

And if you want to study about Orthodox mysticism and the real physical change in the people who practice Hesychasm that’s up to you, but I seriously
a) doubt you’ve even heard of it
or
b) wish to know what it is you’re talking about - because for you, it’s easy just to summarily declare it to be part of a false church, that way you never have to delve any further into evidence.

It’s so simple just to say that all this going on is false, because your church says so, because it does, because it does.

zerinus:

How about the Catholic or the Protestant churches? Where do they fit in? Obviously the second, therefore they are not a true church. Is there any church on earth that fits into the first category? I only know of one—the LDS Church—therefore it is God’s only true church. If it isn’t, then the true church doesn’t exist, because that is how you can tell the true church from the false one.

Again, why obviously? You don’t care, it just is so.

zerinus:

We believe that Jesus is perfect, but man isn’t. Just as the people that came after Adam apostatized, and were destroyed in the flood, and God raised up a new generation of men on earth through Noah; and just as the descendents of Noah apostatized too, and God raised up a righteous branch through Abraham; and just as that generation apostatized also, and God periodically raised up prophets to lead them back to Him. So the church that Jesus established in His day apostatized (as was predicted), and true to pattern God has now established a new church by revelation to replace the old one.

There’s several differences. Jesus came as a once and for all kind of event. Second you believe your church over my church, therefore you accept the possibility that a church with imperfect men in it is capable of conveying the word of God. Only you believe in your church because it says it does, because it does, because it does.

So you’re willing to bend this criticism about imperfect men, based on a priori and circular logic. Your criticism is therefore invalid.

Anyway, it’s up to you;

evidence based argument
or
circular logic allowing you to simply criticise everyone else, without actually having a reasoned discussion.

zerinus:

Not at all. The Holy Ghost authenticates the Book of Mormon. If you can’t tell the difference, than you don’t understand plain English.

zerinus

How do you know the Holy Ghost authenticates it? It’s in the Book of Mormon. How do you know the Book of Mormon is correct? It says so. It authenticates itself. Sorry if you don’t understand circular logic.

Perhaps you genuinely feel that this sort of non-argument brings people to the LDS church

 

[kellie]

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) was an effort to do this, but Smith perished before the project could be completed.

flameburns623:

You can also purchase the Joseph Smith Translation as a separate edition, though it is rather costly and is not considered fully ‘authoritative’ since it was never completed in Smith’s lifetime and no subsequent ‘prophet’ has stepped up to finish the work.

Isn’t this exactly what the Mormons say happened to us? That the Apostles and prophets died leaving no one in authority.

If Joseph Smith died halfway through completing his bible, and no one else has finished this job which would be considered to be God’s will, then aren’t the Mormons in apostasy too?

 

[kellie]

That is not what I have said at all. You can tell if a church is true or not by the way it is run, governed, and organized. If it is led by revelation from God, if it is governed by true prophets and Apostles of the Lord who are in direct communication with Him, have divine authority from Him, and are able to lead it by revelation directly from Him, then you have a church that is acknowledged by Him, which He recognizes to be His church. It is the true church. If, on the other hand, you have a church that says that the heavens are closed, the canon of scripture is closed, God has done His work and left it to man to get on with it without further revelation, direction, or direct communion with Him, then you have a false church. It is an apostate church. It is not a church that God acknowledges to be His church; otherwise He would talk to it, and lead it by revelation from Him, as He has always done throughout the history of mankind. That is the pattern by which you can tell the true church from a false one. So how does the Orthodox Church fit into that category, the first or the second? Obviously the second, therefore it is not the true church. How about the Catholic or the Protestant churches? Where do they fit in? Obviously the second, therefore they are not a true church. Is there any church on earth that fits into the first category? I only know of one—the LDS Church—therefore it is God’s only true church. If it isn’t, then the true church doesn’t exist, because that is how you can tell the true church from the false one.

The Holy Spirit, who Catholics believe is God, through the Trinity, works through the Pope, and always has done.

This is how we know God is working with us and leading His Church. This is how we get direction.

Where is it written that the true church must be continually led by revelation?

How do you tell what a “true prophet” is?
Do you just accept that when he says “Hey everyone, God just spoke to me and told me I am to lead His church…” ?

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, God Himself. That is how we know we are the true church.

 

[Allweather]

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
   The object of such devotion.
3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
   The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Using this definition you, yourself, provided, I’d say Mormonism qualifies easily as a cult. You must be fairly unaware of Mormon history. It may be true that the Mormonism YOU know today is a kinder, gentler form of what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young gave the world. It did manage to morph itself after 1900, and survive. Yet, even today, it retains an awful lot of the cultish manifestations that it had 100+ years ago.

 

[wussup]

Alas, stuck in an ice storm.

Some general observations…It is interesting to see the protestant influence on the Catholic psyche, assuming the posters at this thread are representative of the current Catholic. My experience with the Catholic of the past, (the one that almost one my conversion) approached teaching with the aspect of ‘I will teach the truth and let the spirit guide the humble’. The bigotry, lies, and vitriol I see here are quite surprising. I am faced with the prospect of committing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, the Cahtolic’s here are either liars (knowing the truth but teaching falsehood) or so influenced by the very protestants they revile that they truly do not know the truth.
Certainly the former has some truth in it. Here are examples of overt lies that I cannot believe the person is unaware of the truth:

-Kelli said: Isn’t this exactly what the Mormons say happened to us? That the Apostles and prophets died leaving no one in authority. (referencing the death of the prophet). Is she suggesting we felt Joseph Smith would never die? The Apostles were all alive. They prayed to God, in the name of Jesus, and the mantle of the Presiding Office, the Prophet on the Earth fell upon Brigham Young. To clarify our position with respects to the Bible. We believe the Bible to be the word of God. Father Carapi has even stated the Bible does have errors in it. I would add to Father Carapi’s statement that even the Bible claims within itself it is missing books. Furthermore, interpretations of the Doctrine taught in the Bible is as diverse as mankind. Look at the simple concept of how baptism, or the sacrement (communion) vary from Church to Church.

-Montalban says: how has he done this throughout the history of mankind when you believe the Church was Apostate from c.70AD-18 whenever? We believe that John the Revelator (and others) have been permitted to remain on the Earth until they will pass from death to a resurrected being at the time of Christ. These men have had the authority on the Earth, and it has never left.

and he says: “imperfect though you may think Jesus to be”, this statement makes Montebalm a liar and an adulterer. Different views we may have, but he knows we believe Jesus to be Perfect in all aspects of His Being. (That’s a period at the end of this statement). I suggest you go to mass and confess.

he also says, “What we’ve learnt from one Mormon is that the Bible is both seriously faulty, and not so at the same time. How do we know this?” If the Bible did not have faults, why does the Catholic Church make a new translation every few years? The Catholic Church makes a big deal about the ‘newest’ translation being the most accurate, etc… We feel the KJV we use (one the Catholic faith also holds to be so good that the Revised Douay Bible of 1749 plagiarized it) contains the Gospel of Christ in sufficient clarity that we can use it in faith. Clearly, a lie. He is altering the truth to make a straw man, this is dishonest. Have you made your appointment for confession?

he further says, “For them its an action that washes away Original Sin. For us, we don’t believe in Original Sin, and baptism is seen as the entry into the life of the Church”. Now who is trying to tell us what we believe Baptism does. We do believe in original sin to the point that 'even as in Adam, ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." Christ’s death took away original sin. We believe Baptism to be the introductory ordinance of the Gospel. Baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection and should only be by immersion. We believe that sprinkling does not adequately illustrate this concept. The purpose of Baptism is the remission of personal sin, entrance into the fellowship of the Church, and is the doorway to personal sanctification. As for your church, you don’t believe in original sin? You are at odds with a basic teaching of Catholicism. The catechism teaches, “ORIGINAL SIN: The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God’s will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the “new Adam,” came to redeem us”.

he continues, “the Book of Mormon tells him”, You can SAY that all you want, but it won’t make it any less a lie. He and I believe because we have had a personal revelation of the Holy Ghost. You may not believe it (at your peril), you may make ad hominem attacks, or call us crazy, or deluded, but we do NOT claim to believe because we read a book and blindly believed.

Erich say, “Oh, so now I’m bashing your religion when I ask questions you can’t answer?” A lie, I said you bash the Church because you read a statement proving an aspect of the Book of Mormon to be true, but quote it out of context to illustrate it as untrue. This makes you a liar and an adulterer. Get in line with Ricardo.

 

[Allweather]

You are correct, I am surprised. LDS apologetics is far superior to non-LDS apologetics.

I agree. Mormons do do a better job of having a dedicated missionary cadre, and training them well-enough in the mechanics of converting poor, suffering, weak-kneed people at the door.

Mormons and Catholics view evangelization quite differently. Mormons are like the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this. Both cults practice the door-knocking. Mormons must have a growing church. Even if they are neither growing nor shrinking, they are dying. Growth is the imperative. And so, no effort is spared to that end. Catholicism doesn’t see things this way. Growth is OK, and the Catholic Church grows fabulously worldwide, FAR outstripping any hopes that the puny Mormon operation could have for converts. We don’t need door-knockers.

 

[wussup]

Allweather, if you wish to be insulting, so be it.

Kellie-
Actually, we are taught that we are to pray about every prophet. From Adam to Moses to Obadiah to Alma etc… The principle is that even though we may know the Church is true based on one experience. We are taught to pray about every word of scripture, to constantly renew and strengthen the knowledge imparted by God. Please try to be not so obstinate. It does your cause little good to here the same thing over and over and over again and then act as if you never heard it.

The reason I asked about your testimony is because I have recently had an interesting experience. I have attended other church services over the years, and have felt the spirit testify to various truths they taught. However, last week I was listening to Father Carapi discussing repentence and then later the Catholic Answers show discussing a similar subject and felt the spirit so strongly it was amazing. The next day Father Carapi was discussing prayer and being guided by the Spirit when reading scripture. I am sitting there feeling the spirit tug at my heart, I am fighting it. “NO, this is a priest, what does he know about prayer?” Father Carapi then told a story about a Protestant professor who gave his class books on Spirituallity and all were written by Catholics. The protestant professor’s students were complaining about reading catholic books and the professer explained to them that protestant church’s were not spiritual, but the Catholic Church was very much so. Folks, the Spirit was so strong. I (a fairly brawny trucker, ex-sailer with a mouth to match) had tears in my eyes. I am at this sight to see the kind of person Father Carapi wants in the Catholic Church. I want to feel your Testimony and teaching in the Spirit filled environment promised. All I am getting here is hate and vitriol. Frankly, your arguments are so childish as to be completely boring. Tell me of your faith, your experiences. If you wish to use this forum as an opportunity to bash great, go for it. I will find a forum where a Catholic practices his belief of Patience, tolerance and spirituallity.

 

[Allweather]

Spare me. The damage done? Pray tell…

Oh yes. Much damage. Rather than give you personal stories from people I know, I’ll limit my desription of the damage done to the Church. Mormons damage the Body of Christ, and this is the worst damage.

Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (who BTW do a FAR better job at damaging the Body of Christ than the Mormons do), Mormons steal souls away from Christ. By “lying for the Lord” they mislead people about the truth of their cult. They deceive people into thinking that they are Christians, when, in fact, they are pagans.

Mormons defy the genuine authority of Peter. They refuse to submit to the valid authority vested in the Church by Jesus. They follow strange, invented versions of “modern scripture” and teach honest seekers to do the same. They help to scandalize Christianity, by means of their disunity.

They damage the Body of Christ. They can’t really hurt it, no. But they waste valuable time, and resources, that could otherwise be spent converting a rapidly secularizing world. They contribute to the disunity that makes the secular world doubt the Church. Think how much more we could get done if we all dropped our peculiar, personal interpretations, submitted to Rome, and got with the program!

 

[Allweather]

Allweather, if you wish to be insulting, so be it.

Sir, I tell the truth as I see it. If you find that insulting, perhaps it is truth that you find insulting, rather than me.

I see from the remainder of your post, which I did not quote, that you are finding the same truth in Catholicism that you think you find in Mormonism. That’s a good thing! Keep searching.

However, don’t expect all Catholics to be of the same order as those poor, weak things your children find at the doorstep. In this place, you’ll find Catholics who know their faith, and are not afraid to defend it. You call that “insulting.” Stick around. You’ll get used to it, and then it won’t seem so “insulting.”

 

[majick275]

Allweather, if you wish to be insulting, so be it.

Kellie-
Actually, we are taught that we are to pray about every prophet. From Adam to Moses to Obadiah to Alma etc… The principle is that even though we may know the Church is true based on one experience. We are taught to pray about every word of scripture, to constantly renew and strengthen the knowledge imparted by God. Please try to be not so obstinate. It does your cause little good to here the same thing over and over and over again and then act as if you never heard it.

The reason I asked about your testimony is because I have recently had an interesting experience. I have attended other church services over the years, and have felt the spirit testify to various truths they taught. However, last week I was listening to Father Carapi discussing repentence and then later the Catholic Answers show discussing a similar subject and felt the spirit so strongly it was amazing. The next day Father Carapi was discussing prayer and being guided by the Spirit when reading scripture. I am sitting there feeling the spirit tug at my heart, I am fighting it. “NO, this is a priest, what does he know about prayer?” Father Carapi then told a story about a Protestant professor who gave his class books on Spirituallity and all were written by Catholics. The protestant professor’s students were complaining about reading catholic books and the professer explained to them that protestant church’s were not spiritual, but the Catholic Church was very much so. Folks, the Spirit was so strong. I (a fairly brawny trucker, ex-sailer with a mouth to match) had tears in my eyes. I am at this sight to see the kind of person Father Carapi wants in the Catholic Church. I want to feel your Testimony and teaching in the Spirit filled environment promised. All I am getting here is hate and vitriol. Frankly, your arguments are so childish as to be completely boring. Tell me of your faith, your experiences. If you wish to use this forum as an opportunity to bash great, go for it. I will find a forum where a Catholic practices his belief of Patience, tolerance and spirituallity.

hey now… I thought I gave you something to work with and now you seem to be ignoring that to pursue the very path of bashing that you decry. You want testimony? I have studied every mormon prophet from Joseph smith to Gordon Hinkley. I read every LDS scripture… I taught them for years. I tried living my life as if it were all true. I was a veil worker in the temple and served in a bishopric. I prayed daily hoping it was true and wanting it to be true. Something was always missing. I studied Jesus form every angle I could find. History, literature, scripture, theology, tradition. I studied the history of the Jews and their religion as well. I sought understanding prayerfully for years. Finally, the light appeared. slowly and through much effort. I saw a possibility that I might be wrong. I expanded my studies and my prayers. I seized upon the ECF’s, sacred tradition in the Catholic church (roman and orthodox). I found a whole new world in sacred scripture once I saw through these other writings just who these folks were that wrote the various books of the bible. I learned about who they wrote to and why. I learned the historical context that these vents happened in. God the Holy Spirit guided me. God the Father watched over me. God the son…Jesus Christ ransomed me from spiritual death. I came to a thorough knowledge and understanding emotionally, intellectually and spiritually that God founded the Catholic church. He preserved it through all of these years, never abandoning the world. He protected his church through all of the attacks against it both from without and within. evil people have been catholic. evil men have even been priests, bishops and yes…popes. yet in spite of Satan’s best efforts to tempt the leaders, derail the church and denounce the teachings… the Catholic church today teaches the same doctrines as the apostles. in spite of all the terrible things that Satan has thrown at it. God really did build a church that the gates of hell could not prevail against. the sacraments are real. they do convey the grace of God because the catholic priesthood really does act with divine authority handed down by the laying on of hands from Jesus himself to the religious of today in an unbroken line. The church IS one, it IS holy, it IS apostolic and it certainly is CATHOLIC. I testify to the truth of all this in the name of the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit. AMEN!!!

 

[majick275]

I agree. Mormons do do a better job of having a dedicated missionary cadre, and training them well-enough in the mechanics of converting poor, suffering, weak-kneed people at the door.

Mormons and Catholics view evangelization quite differently. Mormons are like the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this. Both cults practice the door-knocking. Mormons must have a growing church. Even if they are neither growing nor shrinking, they are dying. Growth is the imperative. And so, no effort is spared to that end. Catholicism doesn’t see things this way. Growth is OK, and the Catholic Church grows fabulously worldwide, FAR outstripping any hopes that the puny Mormon operation could have for converts. We don’t need door-knockers.

I see a big difference between apologetics and proselytizing. Mormons are very good at the latter. They preach with a strong missionary zeal and send out a lot of dedicated folks to carry their message. It is the former that I find lacking with them. They have enthusiasm but I think little substance. Former mormons make outstanding Catholics because they want to be involved in their church and share their blessings with others. Those are some of the good things that mormonism does so that God can use even the LDS church to further his work on earth. Different folks travel down different paths but eventually all heaven bound roads go through Rome.

 

[Jerusha]

. They follow strange, invented versions of “modern scripture” and teach honest seekers to do the same. They help to scandalize Christianity, by means of their disunity.

They damage the Body of Christ. They can’t really hurt it, no. But they waste valuable time, and resources, that could otherwise be spent converting a rapidly secularizing world. They contribute to the disunity that makes the secular world doubt the Church.

:clapping:

Their BOM mocks American Indian history and the Bible. Their teachings alienate American Indians, Catholics, Muslims, Masons, Jews, blacks, and almost every other group of people. Then many claim prejudice, discrimination, and persecution.

They intimidate people to silence, and many cannot tolerate any kind of criticism of their way of life.

 

[Jerusha]

any kind of criticism of their way of life.

or their version of history, or their beliefs.

 

[Publisher]

Isn’t this exactly what the Mormons say happened to us? That the Apostles and prophets died leaving no one in authority.

If Joseph Smith died halfway through completing his bible, and no one else has finished this job which would be considered to be God’s will, then aren’t the Mormons in apostasy too?

Actually the Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, publishes the Joseph Smith Translation, called the Inspired Version, as one of their standard works. It can be purchased from Herald House.

Price Publishing also sells the Inspired Version. Price Publishing is the arm of the “Restorationist” groups that left the RLDS church after Section 156 of the RLDS D&C was accepted as scripture, which gives the priesthood to women.

 

[Jerusha]

Many splinters.

One reason why I use “many” and “some” in my rants.

Can’t say all. I even have a cautious attitude towards Romney.

 

[Allweather]

Sorry for being tardy, but have been away from Mr. Computer most of yesterday, and yet wanted to reply to this from wussup, who addressed it to me.

Joseph Smith was arrested dozens of times (he was found guilty once but the Judge said the crime he was convicted of was not a crime. What was hedu convicted of? Casting a demon out of someone…) During one of the arrests, the arresting officers left the door of his small house open during the winter, the resulting exposure killed the Prophets child.

Are you aware of what he was arrested for the very first time? And, the outcome?

At the time of Joseph Smiths last arrest by duly appointed officers of the law, the second largest military outfit at the time was that brigade established by the Church to defend Nauvoo. The commanding General at the time wanted to escort Smith to the Jail. Joseph said no, he was being led like a lamb to the slaughter. While under the ‘protection’ of the officers of the law, a mob attacked the Jail, shots were fired, and Smith was killed.

Are you aware of why he was arrested this final time?

BTW, Joseph Smith also fired shots, and, according to my sources, critically wounded a man. I’m not criticising a man for self-defense, but it bears mentioning that Joseph, even though incarcerated, was armed with a six-shooter that was smuggled to him. Also, there is more to this than “shots were fired.” Joseph attempted to appeal to the Masons who he believed might be in the mob, and cried out for them to come to his aid. None apparently did. He was shot at least once, maybe twice, fell from a window, still alive and conscious, and was then executed by the gunfire of four men at the command of the official in charge of the mob.

It is also worth mentioning that Smith sent a message to Nauvoo pleading for assistance, for them to bring all necessary force to rescue him and his cellmates. The request was ignored, and later that day Smith died by mob.

It was not his neighbors who murdered him while in custody, but politically motivated Missourians (remember that the LDS were becoming so populous they were threatening to change Missouri from a pro-slavery voting majority to an abolishionist voting majority).

I’d say these qualify as his “neighbors.” There were lots of annoyances about the Mormons among the Missourians. None of them, according to my sources, had anything at all to do with a perception that the Mormons were very holy people. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Mormons were seen as a violent, sinful, downright unChristian group of people, and were not wanted in that country. The McCullough bio of Harry Truman from a few years ago has a chapter in it dealing with the specifics of what was called “The Mormon Troubles.” I recommend it for you.

Read about the Mormon trail, the death and destruction. Read about how the Missourians locked up people in barns and set them on fire. Would you be strong enough to believe? Maybe.

No doubt, the Mormons suffered at the hands of their false religion. The choice these people made to follow a false and ungodly prophet caused them pain and suffering. This must always be the case. Jonestown. Waco. The list is long, and sad. However, these sufferings are not cause for one, IMO, to think that the religion they were following has merit.

I hated the First and Second Book of Nephi because of the repitious use of ‘and it came to pass’. But unlike you oft quoted prophet, Mark Twain, I ignored my dislike and obeyed God.

I think you should have trusted your initial instincts. They show that you have, or at least used to have, a perception about such things that, if you’d trusted it, you would have found true religion instead of false. There is no shortage of false religion in the world, wussup. Take a look at the roadside as you truck down the highway, see all the various little pretend churches that have popped up… here today, gone tomorrow. Do you honestly believe that God desires this multiplicity of churches? Or is it more likely that Jesus meant what he said when he earnestly desired our unity under the leadership of the Apostles he taught and ordained?

 

[zerinus]

a) how has he done this throughout the history of mankind when you believe the Church was Apostate from c.70AD-18 whenever?

History did not begin in 70AD.

b) your only proof that your church is a church that does this is your claim that this is so.

Maybe. But at least we make the claim. Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant churches don’t even do that.

How do you know ‘obviously the second’? You have no idea about the Orthodox Church. When I asked you to discuss it (on baptism) you simply said that it’s Apostate. How do you know? You just do. Until you’re serious about discussion over these issues, then few will take YOU seriously. You don’t engage on a single point but instead continue to couch your answers in circular logic and you don’t care beyond this.

I know enough to know that it is obviously the second. You don’t need to be Einstein to figure that out.

And if you want to study about Orthodox mysticism and the real physical change in the people who practice Hesychasm that’s up to you, but I seriously

a) doubt you’ve even heard of it

True, I hadn’t heard of it. I am not altogether ignorant about mysticism though. I know something about it.

Again, why obviously? You don’t care, it just is so.

Too obvious. No explanation required.

There’s several differences. Jesus came as a once and for all kind of event.

True, Jesus was a once for all kind of event. There won’t be another Jesus. But that didn’t mean that the church He established couldn’t apostatize. The fact remains that it did, and now He has restored it in its full glory once again on earth.

How do you know the Holy Ghost authenticates it? It’s in the Book of Mormon. How do you know the Book of Mormon is correct? It says so. It authenticates itself. Sorry if you don’t understand circular logic.

You are putting those words in my mouth. I never said that.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

True, Jesus was a once for all kind of event. There won’t be another Jesus. But that didn’t mean that the church He established couldn’t apostatize. The fact remains that it did, and now He has restored it in its full glory once again on earth.

Some glory! Founded by an adulterous money digger, and a liar to boot. He lied for years about practicing adulterous relationships with other mens’ wives before finally “revealing” the command to be polygamous.

And, BTW, which version of the Mormon religion is the one “in its full glory”?

Last night, me and the fiance watched a program on TV about a breakaway polygamous sect in AZ. Seems they don’t care much for the Salt Lake City crew. They say that it has fallen away from the Lord’s command to practice polygamy. Then, there is the FLDS, whose charming “prophet” today languishes in jail, awaiting trial on child abuse charges related to his polygamous teachings. Besides these two, there are others. Which of these, the SLC crew, or the yet polygamous ones, are the “full glory” versions of Mormonism?