To Mormons: Did the gates of Hell prevail against the 'Church' when your president taught false doctrine?

[BrotherofJared]

Care for me to ask you about the people of dark skin in the early times of your church (before the revelation that negated the old revelation) that were banned from having the chance of ‘sealing’ a spouse?

Because of these human Mormon ‘revelations’, they would be spouseless; according to your theology, I presume.

You forget we perform these marriages for the dead? In any case, they would not be spouseless.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Restoration movements solve all confusions, by claiming to have the restored, non-confused answer.

GOD IS AN ALL MALE COMMITTEE!

There.

No more confusion.



ETA: Obviously the confusion has moved a degree higher. Maybe next we can say GOD IS DEAD!..no more confusion.

Well, we know this one isn’t true. God is not an all male committee.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, we know this one isn’t true. God is not an all male committee.

Council/committee, all the same. Three Gods, at least, countless Gods possible. Goddesses are not priesthood holders, so aren’t included in the oneness-via-committee of your godhead.

 

[iepuras]

Council/committee, all the same. Three Gods, at least, countless Gods possible. Goddesses are not priesthood holders, so aren’t included in the oneness-via-committee of your godhead.

Exactly. Heavenly Mother(s) was never included in the narrative of the Great Council of Heaven. It seems that her opinion didn’t matter or needed to be heard.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Let me offer another unsolicited olive branch.
I have posted on why I think the BOM could not possible be produced by Joseph Smith or any other 19th century man. The evidence behind this belief supports a great deal of weight in my journey of reason (attempted reason).
That being said, what I presented (hopefully buried on the 8th page of a dopey thread) is IMO a powerful reason to reject infallibility claims. However, I think the coming forth of the Book of Abraham is a powerful reason to reject the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. I am encouraged by the direction being taken in LDS thought circles concerning this, but without the BOM (or some other stuff that I consider positive), the coming forth of the BOA would tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
I struggle to know if the arguments I offer on this thread that tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the Catholic Church are so related to the arguments against the BOA that I perhaps should not make them.
I tell myself that I am sharing with you how I weight the evidence and it is just true that I find the Catholic truth claims difficult to accept in ways that I do not find the CoJCoLDS truth claims. I tell myself that the posts here by Catholic attacking my church seem to evidence a disconnect between what they have in their closet and what they attack in my closet. So my purpose is to create a consistency. Maybe I am and maybe I am not.

But, it seems that if I do not acknowledge that explaining the coming forth of the BOA is a skeleton in my closet, I am not being consistent. So the coming forth of the BOA is a problem.
Charity, TOm

Why would you say such a thing? “…according to a newfound non-Mormon eyewitness account, the Book of Abraham seems to have been on a very long and completely intact roll and therefore not even on the same scroll as the fragments we have.” and “Critics of the church have presumed that the Book of Abraham must be on the fragments that we currently have. Why they assume that is beyond me. Historical evidence is against such a conclusion.” This from John Gee, 2012 FairMormon Conference.

I said in another post that the jury is still out on this.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Why would you say such a thing? “…according to a newfound non-Mormon eyewitness account, the Book of Abraham seems to have been on a very long and completely intact roll and therefore not even on the same scroll as the fragments we have.” and “Critics of the church have presumed that the Book of Abraham must be on the fragments that we currently have. Why they assume that is beyond me. Historical evidence is against such a conclusion.” This from John Gee, 2012 FairMormon Conference.

I said in another post that the jury is still out on this.

Why would Gee say this??

Egyptologists have either not read the literature on the Joseph Smith Papyri or they have not understood it. They seem to think that Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith somehow translated the Book of Abraham from the Document of Breathings made by Isis, but we don’t. Therefore they think that all they have to do is translate the Document of Breathings Made by Isis and that it will convince Latter-Day Saints to give up their religion because they have demonstrated that what they think we believe is not true

Why would an Egyptologist care about what a Mormon believed, it’s just grasping for more persecution, finding it where none exists.

 

[KathleenGee]

BrotherJared…after all of Hyrum’s questions were posted…and I think they were done so for a reason…

Are you the former Hyrum???

Just wondering as we were waiting for his response…after a number of questions…and so I thought the thread was being used to glean information for rebuttal.

Likewise, my apologies if I am mistaken.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Why would you say such a thing? “…according to a newfound non-Mormon eyewitness account, the Book of Abraham seems to have been on a very long and completely intact roll and therefore not even on the same scroll as the fragments we have.” and “Critics of the church have presumed that the Book of Abraham must be on the fragments that we currently have. Why they assume that is beyond me. Historical evidence is against such a conclusion.” This from John Gee, 2012 FairMormon Conference.

I said in another post that the jury is still out on this.

Joseph Smith made up the BoA out of whole cloth. The proof is simple - we have the facsimiles from the scrolls and we have Joseph’s interpretation of them in the BoA. Joseph’s so-called translation of the facsimiles is so wrong as to be comical. Case closed.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[KathleenGee]

Answers already given to Hyrum?..otherwise, ditto – case closed.

 

[twopekinguys]

Editing the Book of Mormon is our prerogative.

Rather convenient don’t you think?

I have not seen one edit that changes the meaning of the passages or the doctrine…

How about the change from “white and delightsome” to “Pure and delightsome”.

It seems some of the people whom that was directed weren’t exactly becoming “white” now were they?

Rather a doctrinal point don’t you think?

 

[twopekinguys]

The problem with the Bible is we have no original manuscripts that we can go back to see what was actually written in the first instance, much less what was actually said. With the Book of Mormon we can go back and review much of the original content as written by the scribes and determine for ourselves the extent of the changes and if anything new was introduced or old was removed.

Actually, there are portions of original Bible manuscripts that are intact.

Wiki can be your friend. Read it hereen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

I’ll help you about a bit, and give you a quote. (emphasis mine)
“Every book of the Tanakh is represented except for the Book of Esther; however, most are fragmentary. Notably, there are two scrolls of the Book of Isaiah, one complete (1QIsa), and one around 75% complete (1QIsb). These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE to 70 CE.[1]”

You really shouldn’t make outlandish claims that can easily be refuted

 

[RebeccaJ]

With the Book of Mormon we can go back and review much of the original content as written by the scribes and determine for ourselves the extent of the changes and if anything new was introduced or old was removed.

You have the mythical golden plates?

 

[Stephen168]

Editing the Book of Mormon is our prerogative. I have not seen one edit that changes the meaning of the passages or the doctrine.

The theotokos is a title given to Mary by Christians for over 1600 years as a statement of faith in the trinity. The original Book of Mormon called Mary by that title. Seven years later, after Joseph Smith changed his dogma of God, this title was dropped from the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon was dictated by God, you do not have the ‘edit’ it.

 

[Stephen168]

I haven’t really seen where the OP clarified his question.
no
Never Mormon Doctrine
No
Never Mormon Doctrine

Changing practice doesn’t not imply changing doctrine. ie. Work for the dead must be done in temples, yet in the beginning they did baptismal work for the dead at the river just like they did regular baptisms. Change practice, but same doctrine. We still practice polygamy. Serial monogamy in a eternal marriage relationship is polygamy. It is only offensive to you when all the wives are alive. Fine, Different practice same doctrine. I’m not sure what doctrine was changed when the ban was lifted. .

These were in fact Mormon Doctrine at the time they were taught by the Mormon President. Some changes in practice require a change in dogma, as the the removal of the priesthood ban. I also list changes in dogma which were not a practice.
There are Mormons who claim the great thing about Mormonism is the ‘prophet.’ Yet this is the cause of changing dogma which requires one of the ‘prophets’ to be wrong. And there seems to be no way for you to know who it is.
Mormonism claims that changing dogma is the sign of a false church, yet they remain Mormon.

These two things confirm the irrational and hypocritical nature of Mormonism.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Editing the Book of Mormon is our prerogative. I have not seen one edit that changes the meaning of the passages or the doctrine. It is interesting that everyone really loves to point out the changes made in the Book of Mormon, but can you tell me how many different versions there are of the Bible? How many editing changes and readability changes there are? The problem with the Bible is we have no original manuscripts that we can go back to see what was actually written in the first instance, much less what was actually said. With the Book of Mormon we can go back and review much of the original content as written by the scribes and determine for ourselves the extent of the changes and if anything new was introduced or old was removed.

It is interesting that you state this about the Bible, yet it is inspired for you Mormons, too.

 

[KathleenGee]

However, Joseph Smith is the interpreter and focus of Mormonism, not Christ…and His Church as interpreter.

Mormonism in itself competes with Catholicism and envies its stature…even going so far as to build their temple in Rome…what Rome doesn’t know about Mormonism history and its position against Catholics who have had to live through it.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Rather convenient don’t you think?

How about the change from “white and delightsome” to “Pure and delightsome”.

It seems some of the people whom that was directed weren’t exactly becoming “white” now were they?

Rather a doctrinal point don’t you think?

I think that’s stretching it a bit. White is symbolic for pure. That we’d clarify the meaning of white doesn’t change doctrine IMO.

 

[BrotherofJared]

However, Joseph Smith is the interpreter and focus of Mormonism, not Christ…and His Church as interpreter.

Mormonism in itself competes with Catholicism and envies its stature…even going so far as to build their temple in Rome…what Rome doesn’t know about Mormonism history and its position against Catholics who have had to live through it.

I’m sure the Vatican is very aware of Mormon History and it’s position against the Catholics (mind you that was ONE man’s interpretation and that man wasn’t Joseph Smith.)

Please give me a reference where Joseph Smith is the focus of Mormonism.

 

[BrotherofJared]

These were in fact Mormon Doctrine at the time they were taught by the Mormon President. Some changes in practice require a change in dogma, as the the removal of the priesthood ban. I also list changes in dogma which were not a practice.
There are Mormons who claim the great thing about Mormonism is the ‘prophet.’ Yet this is the cause of changing dogma which requires one of the ‘prophets’ to be wrong. And there seems to be no way for you to know who it is.
Mormonism claims that changing dogma is the sign of a false church, yet they remain Mormon.

These two things confirm the irrational and hypocritical nature of Mormonism.

The removal of the priesthood ban was a change in practice, not a change in doctrine. The church never took a position as to the reason for the ban and frequently taught that it would be lifted at some future time. We just didn’t know when. There was a reason for the ban, we just don’t know what it was. Doctrine never changed. The same is true of polygamy, the doctrine hasn’t changed. You’d have to show me a reference where one leader said another leader was wrong and changed the doctrine to fit his vision of it. If you mean limits on the length of time served in callings, that isn’t a change in doctrine, it is a change in practice.

When the church started, there were two Elders of the church and no Apostles, then there were Apostles, the Seventy was once an office held in every stake, now it is only held by leaders in Salt Lake City who are considered Area or General Authorities. All of these are part of a growing church, the doctrine didn’t change, the practice did. I am sure we have not seen the end of changes. Women in our church hold the priesthood, that has always been taught ever since the doctrine of eternal marriage was revealed. Women perform priesthood ordinances in the temple every day. But under the direction of our prophet today, that is the extent they are allow to exercise that priesthood. Should a prophet authorize women to join in blessing the sick, that will be a change in practice, not in doctrine. Certainly, during the millennium, there will be changes, I doubt anyone will question the changes then as Christ will be here himself, but the type of work we’ll be doing will require changes in practice in order to accommodate the the doctrine that is already in place.

So, of the items listed so far, I see no changes in doctrine in evidence. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The theotokos is a title given to Mary by Christians for over 1600 years as a statement of faith in the trinity. The original Book of Mormon called Mary by that title. Seven years later, after Joseph Smith changed his dogma of God, this title was dropped from the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon was dictated by God, you do not have the ‘edit’ it.

Oh how wrong you are on that point. Ever play the phone party line game? Joseph dictates to a scribe, the scribe (not necessarily the one who took the original dictation) creates the printers manuscript, the printer typesets and you see nowhere in there for human failure? We are imperfect beings trying to do a perfect work, there are going to be errors. God, for all we know, did not dictate punctuation.

If you mean the English translation for theotokos, then I can see your point. We put that in, not took it out. Mary is the mother of God and Mary is the mother of the Son of God are technically the same thing since the Son of God is God. It is only clarification, not a shift in doctrine (to a Catholic it may seem to be that way, but to a Mormon it is not). It is obvious to Mormons that Mary could not possibly be the mother of the Father of the Son of God, My understanding is that Catholics could work this out since for you, they are the same being. For Mormons they are not and never were.