The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[mwok]

Excellent points! All I can say is I’m glad we have a prophet who has told us that the Bible is the word of God.

Well, that’s only partly true. JS said that even the KJV had “plain and precious things” that were missing that only HE had access to. I wonder, though, if he was so sure of his revelations he didn’t just authorize a pure Bible with all the “plain and precious things” included in the correct context, rather than added as a different section labeled JST?

 

[mtolympus]

Mormons need to read history of Constantine for what it really is, not reinterpretative and misrepresenting form by Mormonism.

The more truth seeking Mormons come to the truth by reading historical facts based on true events rather than falsehoods…the more they will come to the true faith in Christ.

I read *The Story of Christianity *by Gonzalaz and *The Belief of Christendom, A Commentary of the Nicene Creed *by John Burnaby niether of these are Mormon authors.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Mormons need to read history of Constantine for what it really is [snip misstatements about mormons]

Kathleen, without specifics, your recommendations that we “read history” aren’t helpful. if there are any specific sources that you’d recommend for a history of Constantine, I’d appreciate links and references.

NewSeeker:

Part of me wishes the old, confrontational Mormonism of Bruce R. McConkie was still dominant in the church.

The problem with Elder McConkie isn’t that he was confrontational, but that he was usually right, but that he was sometimes spectacularly wrong. And that lots of Mormons, and some non-mormons, like to pretend that McConkie’s statements are authoritative, even when McConkie himself disclaimed those statements and said that he’d come to a better understanding.

When I was a missionary during the 1980s, we were specifically forbidden to possess a copy of the book “Mormon Doctrine,” because according to church leaders, “it isn’t.” Sad to say, at least two elders in my mission ignored their leaders and carried the book around.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I see two frightening control issues in Seeker’s discussion; first that his wife wants him to keep his new faith a secret from his sons, and second, that Seeker wishes to make his wife choose between him and her salvation.
"Seeker:

I’d rather she was actually forced to make a choice between going to the Celestial Kingdom and me. I’m confident she would choose the latter. As it is, the new happy face of mormonism makes it easy for her to continue to believe that every unique teaching of Joseph Smith taught is completely irrelevant to salvation.

My suggestion is to avoid having her making that choice. There is nothing to be gained from doing that. This is unsolicited advice.

It’s good advice. That’s something that you Catholics have in common with we Mormons: we’re nosy about some things, in a good way, when it comes to supporting and affirming marriage and family.

Seeker, I suggest that you and your wife speak to clergy, either Catholic, LDS, or both. I’d be quite surprised if an LDS bishop did not try to talk your wife out of the secrecy thing.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

Historical authenticity of the New Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_background_of_New_Testament

I know that this is Wikipedia , that one can go to the Catholic Church for the fullness of this kind of revelation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Without revelation, how did Constantine know which one of the branches had all the truth?

This is based on an assumption that you have been taught in Mormonism.

In contrast, Catholics, east and west, understand that the Holy Spirit guides our bishops, and is present with them at the Councils of the Church. A Council is not a political gathering, it is a liturgical gathering, centered on Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, prayer, and held in communion with the whole Church. This communion is only in Jesus Christ, through Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ.

Peace.

 

[Stephen168]

The office of Apostle, including the keys of the kingdom, was restored to the earth prior to September 1830 which was within six months from the time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized. This is recorded in D&C 27:12-13.

The D&C was (re)written, in 1835, the same year Joseph Smith invented the position of Apostle. Revelation after the fact.

 

[mtolympus]

This is based on an assumption that you have been taught in Mormonism.
In contrast, Catholics, east and west, understand that the Holy Spirit guides our bishops, and is present with them at the Councils of the Church.

So you do believe in revelation. That is how Paul tells us the apostles recieve revelation.

“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery, (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” (Eph. 3:3-5)

 

[Stephen168]

Jesus was on the earth he selected twelve apostles with Peter as the head, when Jesus died the twelve apostles became the central authority of the church on earth. Today, the First Presidency includes the President of the Church and two counselors, each of whom hold the office of apostle. In addition there is the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. When the president of the church dies the Quorum of the Twelve become the central authority of the church until a new presidency is selected.

To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys of the kingdom’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25) and death, the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are: 
a) Witness the resurrected Lord 
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Well, that’s only partly true. JS said that even the KJV had “plain and precious things” that were missing that only HE had access to. I wonder, though, if he was so sure of his revelations he didn’t just authorize a pure Bible with all the “plain and precious things” included in the correct context, rather than added as a different section labeled JST?

That was Joseph’s intent. To translate what he thought was a pure bible. He never finished the project, having been murdered in jail while being held on a mysterious charge of “treason” which was never explained (basically a pretext to hold him to be murdered).

The JST includes Joseph’s unfinished notes, which Emma kept:

The work is the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) with some significant additions and revisions. It is considered a sacred text and is part of the canon of Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), and other Latter Day Saint churches. Selections from the Joseph Smith Translation are also included in the footnotes and the appendix in the LDS-published King James Version of the Bible, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has only officially canonized certain excerpts that appear in its Pearl of Great Price.

Why is most of the JST not canonized by the LDS church? Because:

the death of Joseph Smith and his inability to complete the project means that it is not possible to know whether the margin notes in his Bible were intended as revisions or personal notes.

The translation was intended to restore what Smith described as “many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.”[1] But the work was not a literal translation from ancient documents, as the term translation is commonly used by scholars. Neither was it an automatic and infallible process where “correct” words and phrases simply were revealed to Smith in final form. As with Joseph Smith’s other translations, he reported that he was forced to “study it out in [his] mind”[2] as part of the revelatory process.[3] Sometimes Smith might revisit a given passage of scripture at a later time to give it a “plainer translation,”[4] because of additional knowledge or revelation about a subject.

 

[Miriam1947]

That was Joseph’s intent. To translate what he thought was a pure bible. He never finished the project, having been murdered in jail while being held on a mysterious charge of “treason” which was never explained (basically a pretext to hold him to be murdered).

Cowboy Pete, I’m thinking that shooting one’s way out of jail is not martyrdom. He was arrested. He ordered the destruction of the printing press of the local newspaper. He was not an innocent martyr killed for Christ.

The translation was intended to restore what Smith described as “many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.”[1] But the work was not a literal translation from ancient documents, as the term translation is commonly used by scholars. Neither was it an automatic and infallible process where “correct” words and phrases simply were revealed to Smith in final form. As with Joseph Smith’s other translations, he reported that he was forced to “study it out in [his] mind”[2] as part of the revelatory process.[3] Sometimes Smith might revisit a given passage of scripture at a later time to give it a “plainer translation,”[4] because of additional knowledge or revelation about a subject.

Why should I believe anything that JS teaches? He was a modern man (well, as modern as the 1830s could be). Revelation ended with the last TRUE apostle of Christ. JS was not and never could be a TRUE apostle of Christ.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christianity bases its faith on Christ dying on the cross, rising from the dead, and His glory into heaven as atonement for sin.

Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.

We do not revert to a single man, born almost 2,000 years later with a new story and methods and means and symbols not expressed in 5,600 years of JudeoChristianity.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Cowboy Pete, I’m thinking that shooting one’s way out of jail is not martyrdom. He was arrested. He ordered the destruction of the printing press of the local newspaper.

Please explain how that constitutes "treason against the United States Government, Miriam.

He was not an innocent martyr killed for Christ.

Thank you for your opinion, Miriam. For me to argue that Joseph Smith was an innocent martyr killed for Christ would constitute proselytizing, would it not?

Why should I believe anything that JS teaches?

If you honestly want an answer to that question, you should probably ask it on a board where providing an answer isn’t against the forum rules. Need I remind you this is a Catholic board?

Revelation ended with the last TRUE apostle of Christ.

Thank you for your opinion, Miriam. Being unable to answer you without violating my promise not to proselytize, I will leave you with the immortal words of the renown theologian AA Milne:

LINES AND SQUARES by A.A. Milne

Whenever I walk in a London street,
I’m ever so careful to watch my feet;
And I keep in the squares,
And the masses of bears,
Who wait at the corners all ready to eat
The sillies who tread on the lines of the street
Go back to their lairs,
And I say to them, “Bears,
Just look how I’m walking in all the squares!”

And the little bears growl to each other, “He’s mine,
As soon as he’s silly and steps on a line.”
And some of the bigger bears try to pretend
That they came round the corner to look for a friend;
And they try to pretend that nobody cares
Whether you walk on the lines or squares.
But only the sillies believe their talk;
It’s ever so portant how you walk.
And it’s ever so jolly to call out, “Bears,
Just watch me walking in all the squares!”

 

[jundian]

Harrison possessed the most known ability on a total bet to nfl jerseys chinasecure a lineup notice when you greatest designs are usually basically by Sat.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Miriam, You want to argue that isn’t martyrdom, then I suggest you find someone who claimed that it was martyrdom in the first place. I said murdered. Do you understand the difference between murdered and martyred, Miriam?

But do please get the facts straight. Joseph Smith did not “shoot his way out of jail.”

The jail-keeper gave Smith his 2-shooter because the jailkeeper was disgusted at the plot to have him murdered in jail. Smith used the gun to try to keep his murderers from getting up the stairs. He was protecting the lives of his own brother and two other friends who had come to visit him in jail. When out of ammo, Smith jumped from the bedroom window right in the middle of more than a hundred men with guns and their faces painted black. Escape? Obviously not; they emptied their guns into him. What he did accomplish was saved the lives of the two friends who had come to visit him. He gave up his life to save his friends.

 

[Outspoken]

Please explain how that constitutes "treason against the United States Government, Miriam.

I’m not Miriam, but I felt a strong urge to respond to this post. I hope you don’t mind.

Running for the office of President of the USA in order to set yourself up as it’s ‘theocratic king’, is, most certainly, considered to be treasonous. It was the belief of his former followers that that was his true intention, if elected, based on what he had told them. He apparently told them that he was ‘called’ to set up the ‘kingdom of god’ on earth, with him as it’s self-proclaimed ‘king’. He believed that the best way to do that was to run for President and completely take over, once he was elected. That was also why he wanted to destroy the printing press of the local paper, before it could publish a scathing article about his polygamy, and his true political motives. That’s why he was arrested on the very serious charge of treason. If there was no truth to it, why would he want to destroy the press? To any politician worth his salt, ‘all publicity is good publicity’ when you’re running for public office. If it gets people talking about you, it’s usually considered to be a good thing.

Thank you for your opinion, Miriam. For me to argue that Joseph Smith was an innocent martyr killed for Christ would constitute proselytizing, would it not?

No, it would be considered to be responding to a claim that you disagree with in a discussion of your church’s belief system. That’s exactly why you’re supposed to be here, is it not? Do you deny that the LDS church claims that JS was a ‘martyr’?

If you honestly want an answer to that question, you should probably ask it on a board where providing an answer isn’t against the forum rules. Need I remind you this is a Catholic board?

I seriously doubt that there’s any chance of anyone in this discussion being converted to Mormonism by anything you might offer as personal ‘proof’ or speculation in regards to Joseph Smith’s worthiness of belief. If there’s a problem, I’m sure the MOD would remove anything that he/she thought might violate those rules.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’m not Miriam, but I felt a strong urge to respond to this post. I hope you don’t mind.

Running for the office of President of the USA in order to set yourself up as it’s ‘theocratic king’, is, most certainly, considered to be treasonous.

Treason is actually defined by the United States Constitution:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Attempting to become the democratically elected president, and then transform that office into a kingship, does not seem to apply. The most he would have been guilty of would have been something like sedition, but even that is debatable. I think it would depend on whether he planned to use democratic and constitutional means to accomplish the transformation of the presidency into kingship.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

That was Joseph’s intent. To translate what he thought was a pure bible. He never finished the project, having been murdered in jail while being held on a mysterious charge of “treason” which was never explained (basically a pretext to hold him to be murdered).

The JST includes Joseph’s unfinished notes, which Emma kept:

Why is most of the JST not canonized by the LDS church? Because:

Why haven’t later LDS prophets finished the translation?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Running for the office of President of the USA in order to set yourself up as it’s ‘theocratic king’, is, most certainly, considered to be treasonous.

1. Smith did not run in order to set himself up as a "theocratic king, and 2. what you said is legal nonsense, because TREASON against the US is specifically defined in the United States constitution. Smith never took up arms against the US government, nor did Smith ever render aid and comfort to military enemies of the USA, therefore it is clear that Smith was charged with Treason with the sole pretext of holding him in order to be murdered in jail.

What you said evinces not just astonishing ignorance of the facts and law, but horrific callousness about democracy. Aren’t you just a little embarrassed to claim that peacefully running for public office can in itself constitute treason?

Wow. If this was a mormon board, and you said something that cold-blooded about a Catholic candidate, I’d be all over you.

No, it would be considered to be responding to a claim that you disagree with in a discussion of your church’s belief system. That’s exactly why you’re supposed to be here, is it not?

Nope. I’m here to clarify misstatements about what my church teaches, and also to inform myself on Catholicism. I am NOT here to prove my church’s doctrines, nor to argue against any claim that I disagree with.

Do you deny that the LDS church claims that JS was a ‘martyr’?

Of course the church sees him as a martyr. We also see him as a prophet. If you want to argue those points, then go find someone to wants to argue them with you.

Given your reasoning about “treason,” I’d just as soon not continue any conversation with you. Let alone one that might be construed as Proselytizing.

---

To others that may be reading: I think that Joseph Smith made a serious mistake in endorsing the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. But it’s quite clear that those that murdered him, had wanted to do so for some time, long before any rumors of polygamy had cropped up. The destruction of the Expositor was just an opportunity for a long-awaited murder. I don’t think there’s any other honest and informed way to see it.

OTOH, I think that an honest and informed person might reasonably disagree with the LDS opinions that Joseph Smith was a prophet and a martyr.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I seriously doubt that there’s any chance of anyone in this discussion being converted to Mormonism by anything you might offer as personal ‘proof’ or speculation in regards to Joseph Smith’s worthiness of belief. If there’s a problem, I’m sure the MOD would remove anything that he/she thought might violate those rules.

I have given my word that I would not proselytize here. Period.