What do Mormons REALLY Believe?

[willi8]

Wow, there was alot of responses to my post. Your responses were insightful seeing that you have some knowledge of the Greek and Aramaic language. I don’t profess to be a scholar of any sort, I just read what ever I can get my hands on. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is much appreciated. I do have one question. I understand that Jesus spoke Aramaic, however most of the NT was written in Greek. Why wouldn’t the writers of the NT use the original Aramaic to avoid confusion about Petro and Petra. I know that we probably could never know, but if you have any insight that would be great.

As for the Seer Stones, I did’nt really understand the comment about Lev 8:8. Some clarification would help. I was merely pointing out that many people make fun of Joseph Smith for using “Magical seer-stones”, but those seer-stones have biblical reference and seem to have been used to recieve revelation similar to how Joseph used them. (1 Sam 28:6, Num 27:21)

 

[RebeccaJ]

The urim and thummim are described as being stones that were cast as lots. You threw them, and how they landed gave you a “yes” or “no” answer. There is no reference to them being used as JS used them.

 

[Nan_S]

Wow, there was alot of responses to my post. Your responses were insightful seeing that you have some knowledge of the Greek and Aramaic language. I don’t profess to be a scholar of any sort, I just read what ever I can get my hands on. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is much appreciated. I do have one question. I understand that Jesus spoke Aramaic, however most of the NT was written in Greek. Why wouldn’t the writers of the NT use the original Aramaic to avoid confusion about Petro and Petra. I know that we probably could never know, but if you have any insight that would be great.

We don’t need linguists to discern Petros/Petra. Jesus did it for us:

Jn 1:40-42 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter).

 

[willi8]

The urim and thummim are described as being stones that were cast as lots. You threw them, and how they landed gave you a “yes” or “no” answer. There is no reference to them being used as JS used them.

Rebecca: Where did you get the info about the stones being cast as lots? …Thanks.

 

[willi8]

We don’t need linguists to discern Petros/Petra. Jesus did it for us:

Jn 1:40-42 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter).

Nan S:

Thanks for your insight, but I believe the scripture you brought up could pose a potential problem. Jesus named Peter Kephas and as others have noted this could be translated as a small stone or a large foundational bedrock. Which did Jesus mean. I understand that Petra is feminine and, therefore not a suitable name for a man, but is it not possible that in Jn 1:42 where the writer says, “which is TRANSLATED or INTERPRETED Peter or Petros/stone” he meant to give the true meaning of the Lord’s words. This is very plausible in my opinion since I don’t believe that the Lord would make the mortal man Peter the foundation of his church. In context with the rest of Matt 16:13-19 it would seem that the true foundation or Petra which the Lord was speaking of was the witness through revelation that Jesus is the true Son of God (Matt 16: 16-17). The Lord revealed is the true foundation of Hischurch…

 

[Nan_S]

Nan S:

Thanks for your insight, but I believe the scripture you brought up could pose a potential problem. Jesus named Peter Kephas and as others have noted this could be translated as a small stone or a large foundational bedrock. Which did Jesus mean. I understand that Petra is feminine and, therefore not a suitable name for a man, but is it not possible that in Jn 1:42 where the writer says, “which is TRANSLATED or INTERPRETED Peter or Petros/stone” he meant to give the true meaning of the Lord’s words. This is very plausible in my opinion since I don’t believe that the Lord would make the mortal man Peter the foundation of his church. In context with the rest of Matt 16:13-19 it would seem that the true foundation or Petra which the Lord was speaking of was the witness through revelation that Jesus is the true Son of God (Matt 16: 16-17). The Lord revealed is the true foundation of Hischurch…

Petra is sometimes, in obscure Greek, translated “small stone.”

Kephas is ROCK. Big massive ROCK. Kephas (or Cephas if you want) is never, ever, ever translated “small stone.”

When Jesus said “you are Kephas” he meant ROCK. Period. The gospel author then gives the Greek word that will be used for the Aramaic Kephas.

Jesus is the cornerstone. Jesus is the foundation. Kephas is the rock base upon which the cornerstone of Jesus is laid.

 

[willi8]

Petra is sometimes, in obscure Greek, translated “small stone.”

Kephas is ROCK. Big massive ROCK. Kephas (or Cephas if you want) is never, ever, ever translated “small stone.”

When Jesus said “you are Kephas” he meant ROCK. Period. The gospel author then gives the Greek word that will be used for the Aramaic Kephas.

Jesus is the cornerstone. Jesus is the foundation. Kephas is the rock base upon which the cornerstone of Jesus is laid.

I just read in another post that there was a whole other word for small stone or rock so your comment makes sense. I based my comment on other posts who mentioned that kephas could mean both. Like I’ve said before, I’m not a scholar of Aramaic or anything else for that matter. Your insight has been helpful and I must take your word on the matter for now, you seem to have a way better grasp on Greek and Aramaic than I do. If you or anyone else have more insights on the subject, they will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Nan_S]

I just read in another post that there was a whole other word for small stone or rock so your comment makes sense. I based my comment on other posts who mentioned that kephas could mean both. Like I’ve said before, I’m not a scholar of Aramaic or anything else for that matter. Your insight has been helpful and I must take your word on the matter for now, you seem to have a way better grasp on Greek and Aramaic than I do. If you or anyone else have more insights on the subject, they will be greatly appreciated.

You might find this interesting:

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

If I remember correctly, a long time ago it had another title: “Bad Aramaic Made Easy.”

 

[teancum79]

Like pulling teeth, it takes a while before a Mormon is honest and say that they Mormons do NOT worship Jesus as God and therefore are not Christians in a fundamental sense. If only all the Christians would push this question to them, would they save a ton of time when they come over.

Dang we’ve been caught we worship the Father in the name of Christ. boy are we bad evil people for doing what Christ said. Shame on us.

 

[majick275]

Dang we’ve been caught we worship the Father in the name of Christ. boy are we bad evil people for doing what Christ said. Shame on us.

no but you miss out on alot by not doing the REST of what christ said. you do not WORSHIP Jesus or the holy spirit. you do not pray to them either. I don’t see how you can be christian if you won’t even speak to Christ. you don’t even involve the holy spirit by name in your sacraments except at baptism. you glorify joseph smith in a most blasphemous manner every time you sing praise to the man

 

[adstrinity]

Wow, there was alot of responses to my post. Your responses were insightful seeing that you have some knowledge of the Greek and Aramaic language. I don’t profess to be a scholar of any sort, I just read what ever I can get my hands on. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is much appreciated. I do have one question. I understand that Jesus spoke Aramaic, however most of the NT was written in Greek. Why wouldn’t the writers of the NT use the original Aramaic to avoid confusion about Petro and Petra. I know that we probably could never know, but if you have any insight that would be great.

I’m guessing they were writting in Greek because the world/persons to which they were writting spoke/read/understood Greek. Aramaic wasn’t the language of the industrial world nor the persons they were trying to convert. Everybody who was anybody in their world spoke Greek at the time. I’m guessing.

 

[teancum79]

no but you miss out on alot by not doing the REST of what christ said. you do not WORSHIP Jesus or the holy spirit. you do not pray to them either. I don’t see how you can be christian if you won’t even speak to Christ. you don’t even involve the holy spirit by name in your sacraments except at baptism. you glorify joseph smith in a most blasphemous manner every time you sing praise to the man

That’s a great song. Do catholics not have any songs that recall the accomplishments of Peter or Paul or even Moses?

As far as the “rest” of what Christ said sense we have not told him he could not talk after his 40 days with the apostles we are the only church I am aware of that can follow the rest of what he said.

 

[majick275]

That’s a great song. Do catholics not have any songs that recall the accomplishments of Peter or Paul or even Moses?

As far as the “rest” of what Christ said sense we have not told him he could not talk after his 40 days with the apostles we are the only church I am aware of that can follow the rest of what he said.

that is a wicked blasphemous song. we have no hymns that speak of any man mingling with gods. we believe Christ speaks to any who listen him. we don’t have to channel his words through a prophet and we can speak with him directly. i speak to jesus every day. i worship him. you have take joseph smith’s word that god commands adultery sometimes and that you can be a god yourself.

 

[willi8]

You glorify joseph smith in a most blasphemous manner every time you sing praise to the man

I disagree. We don’t Glorify anyone but God. The title of the hymn is “Praise to the Man not Glory to the man.” It is simply recognizing his dedication and hard work doing the Lord’s errand. I don’t see how this is a problem especially when considering Catholic hymns like “Long Live the Pope”, “I’ll Sing a Hymn to Mary”, and “Mary From thy Sacred Image”. I think that you would agree that recognizing the efforts of past Saints is not a bad thing. They are also seen as now being with God.

 

[PaulDupre]

…Catholic hymns like “Long Live the Pope”, “I’ll Sing a Hymn to Mary”, and “Mary From thy Sacred Image”.

Funny, I’ve never heard those.

 

[BartBurk]

Mormons believe in Sasquatch:

msnbc.msn.com/id/15548356/

Meldrum also appears in the FAIR video “The Book of Mormon and New World DNA”

youtube.com/watch?v=–LJJcaSNps

Mormons like Warren Aston believe in UFOs:

youtube.com/watch?v=NikV6YDW4Lk

Warren Aston has been an exponent of the belief that an alter with the letters NHM proves the site of Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==

I have come to conclude that I was a crackpot when I believed the Book of Mormon actually told the story of Native Americans. I am in recovery from crackpottedness. The Book of Mormon is about as credible as Sasquatch and UFOs.

 

[willi8]

Mormons believe in Sasquatch:

Meldrum also appears in the FAIR video “The Book of Mormon and New World DNA”

Mormons like Warren Aston believe in UFOs:

Warren Aston has been an exponent of the belief that an alter with the letters NHM proves the site of Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==

I have come to conclude that I was a crackpot when I believed the Book of Mormon actually told the story of Native Americans. I am in recovery from crackpottedness. The Book of Mormon is about as credible as Sasquatch and UFOs.

Some how you made it seem as if the personal beliefs of one or two men can represent the beliefs and doctrines of an entire church. Your post has no value, and was meant only as a means of insult. I’m pretty sure that if you look, you will find Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others which have personal distinct beliefs. Does this mean that it represents what their church beleives? I think not.

 

[majick275]

I disagree. We don’t Glorify anyone but God. The title of the hymn is “Praise to the Man not Glory to the man.” It is simply recognizing his dedication and hard work doing the Lord’s errand. I don’t see how this is a problem especially when considering Catholic hymns like “Long Live the Pope”, “I’ll Sing a Hymn to Mary”, and “Mary From thy Sacred Image”. I think that you would agree that recognizing the efforts of past Saints is not a bad thing. They are also seen as now being with God.

we don’t sing about any saint is going to responsible for our getting into heaven and we especially don’t sing about them hanging out with multiple gods. i have never heard any of the sings that you mentioned. the closest would be immaculate mary.and it is nowhere near what praise to the man is.

 

[majick275]

Some how you made it seem as if the personal beliefs of one or two men can represent the beliefs and doctrines of an entire church. Your post has no value, and was meant only as a means of insult. I’m pretty sure that if you look, you will find Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others which have personal distinct beliefs. Does this mean that it represents what their church beleives? I think not.

i believe in those things so i don’t have problem with mormons who do.

 

[ibkc]

I just looked up Praise to the Man. :bigyikes:

 Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Chorus
Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.

Praise to his mem’ry, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assasins,
Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame.

Chorus

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.

Chorus

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know “Brother Joseph” again.

Chorus

In contrast, the traditional Catholic hymn “Long Live the Pope” (warning: sound) is very mild.

Long live the Pope His praises sound again and yet again

His rule is over space and time His throne the hearts of men

All hail the Shepherd King of Rome The theme of loving song

Let all the earth is glory sing And heav’n the strain prelong.

Let all the earth is glory sing And heav’n the strain prolong.

Beleaguered by the foes of earth Be set by hosts of hell.

He guards the loyal flock of Christ A watchful sentinel

And yet amid the din and strife The clash of mace and sword

He bears alone the shepherd staff This champion of the Lord

He bears alone the shepherd staff This champion of the Lord.