Who wrote the BOM?

[Catholic_Dude]

Jerusha:

1. (Clarification of 2) A justification for a form of Manifest Destiny which did not include the necessity of wholesale genocide of the American Indian. (Except it did not work)

I dont get what your saying here.

Also, there is this: many, many people justify their own divisive behavior with the claim of disunity among Churches. Anyone seeking unification, does not further divide by creating another church out of union. Does that make sense?

It makes sense in one way but not in another. As you know the heart of protestantism IS dividing and dividing, because each person is their own authority and is required to divide if they disagree with their pastor.
Now if it was in the Catholic Church we know division/separation is never the answer and is an illogical solution.

 

[Imconfused]

Jerusha:

You mean this?

At the time he wrote the BOM, competence in other languages, especially in Egyptian, was nonexistent or minimal. As Emma and others wrote, and his best apologists say today, he was just an uneducated farmboy. At the time he made that speech, he had friends who knew other languages. and Chaldean??? !!! Shades of Fred Flintstone!!!

He also had had opportunities to learn other languages by 1842.

Have these phrases been verified by linguists? Or was he just speaking in tongues?

That is** not the meaning of speaking of tongues**. It is something else altogether.

 

[Imconfused]

Imconfused:

That is** not the meaning of speaking of tongues**. It is something else altogether.

FYI- Notice Mormon temples are not decorated with that item we kiss at lent and hold so dear. they are decorated with pentagrams. There is a reason for this, you know. Do a google picture search and see.

 

[BJRumph]

You are correct, the LDs use the KJV; and usually JS’s modifications are listed as footnotes at the bottom, or in a separate section altogether, so those versus are in there.

They are also “easily” ignored, as the Bible in any canonized form did not, and obviously could not have been, exist when those versus were written; therefore you can add as much as you want. Also, they did add scriptures (BoM, D&C, ect), but notice how they are always held as separate volumes, and not strictly part of the “bible”? Even when printed into a single volume, care is taken to separate out each of the volumes to retain their separate arraingement, unlike how the Deuterocanonicals are integrated fully into a Catholic bible (for contrast and comparison).

If you also do a google on the Pentagram, you will discover a distinct lack of satanic association with the symbol until after the Utah period, and not all temples have such an item. They do however, as far as I have ever seen, have the distinct lack of crosses, as you point out, which is consistent with both mormon culture, and to some extent its theology.

 

[Jerusha]

That is** not the meaning of speaking of tongues**. It is something else altogether.__________________

Pardon for my use of the wrong term. I think “glossolalia” is the proper term for such verbalizations when used outside of the Charismatic Christian context. Ahhhhh—

 

[Jerusha]

Originally Posted by Jerusha
4) (Clarification of 2) A justification for a form of Manifest Destiny which did not include the necessity of wholesale genocide of the American Indian. (Except it did not work)

IF the Indians had accepted the “Gospel according to Joseph Smith” then Mormons-- especially through wide-spread intermarriage, would hold legitimate claim to the Americas. Indians, generally did not buy it, especially people from those tribes most affected by the Viking invasion.

 

[Jerusha]

Once it became clear that Indians were not accepting it, they still (out of a sense of white superiority) claim inheritance of the land, in a very similar way to anti-Semitic forms of Christianity.

 

[Jerusha]

They are also “easily” ignored, as the Bible in any canonized form did not, and obviously could not have been, exist when those versus were written; therefore you can add as much as you want.

Aha!! So that is their loophole. And that is the primary reason why an earthly explanation for the BOM is unacceptable to them. Thank you.

 

[HMarieH]

Did anyone even bother to read what I posted earlier? If so than what you three people are talking about doesn’t really matter. Mormons do believe in the Bible. So once again read Gal 1:8-9 and tell me if you still think that BOM is inspired by God. So what if JS can speak tongues, all the more effective in spreading false doctrine. Do you all understand what I mean about Gal. 1:8-9. The law of the Lord is already perfect, 2 Tim 3:16-17.
I would like to ask TOmNosser a question. Do you think that the Catholic Church was the first Church? Why then would it be called Catholic? We see seven churches (at different locations). Here are the seven churches, Rome, the Church of God at Corinth, churches of Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and chruch of the Thessalolnians. Are any of these Catholic Churches? Tom and I may need a whole new thread for this topic.

 

[Imconfused]

Jerusha:

Pardon for my use of the wrong term. I think “glossolalia” is the proper term for such verbalizations when used outside of the Charismatic Christian context. Ahhhhh—

There are two very distinct forms of tongues. One acceptable and one not. This is something that is looked at, I am told, during investigation for the need of exorcism. In one, a language which is unknown to the inhabitants of the earth is spoken. It is spoken without actual words and phrases. And yet everyone understands what is being said.
The other, is where a person develops suddenly the ability to understand actual known foreign languages that ethey have never studied. That is apparently what happened in Smith’s case. The LDS consider it a miracle. I’m sure the Pope would find it extraordinary as well John Paul II has stated that actual cases like these are very rare indeed.

 

[Chazemataz]

HMarieH:

I don’t care if an angel from God told JS to write the book of Mormon, it is not God’s word. If an angel told JS to write the BOM than he is with Satan right now. Afterall God can not exist with sin. That is why no sin will enter heaven. Please read Gal. 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” If there is to be any fulfillment of the law it is love, not the BOM, Rom 13:10.
If anyone was given the power to loose thing or bind them it was Peter, who also wrote about the Church. Remember he had the Holy Spirit in him and therefore was carrying out God’s will to shape the Church. The works or the Church are taught in the Bible while Jesus is not upon the earth. This authority that was given to Peter was a mere power of attorney. He later died and now that the Bible is complete we have no control over such things in the Church.
Who has authority in the Chuch? Matt 28:18-20. If Christ has all authority over the Church then how much can man have?

Stop ignoring her people! Shes got a good point!

 

[Jerusha]

We are not ignoring her. Those statements are self-evident to Catholics. Mormons do not accept them.

 

[BJRumph]

Chaz;

To clarify a little for you;

Even if (and that is an “if”) you can find a mormon that recognizes Peter’s authority; they all belive that it did not get passed on (dying either with Peter, or a few sucessions later).

Yes, the Catholic position holds them to be self-evident.

Just as the LDS hold that there was an Apostacy is self evident.

All the arguing and philosophical wrangling will not diminish the gap between these two positions.

 

[Genesis315]

Originally Posted by HMarieH
*This authority that was given to Peter was a mere power of attorney. *

This actually a pretty good analogy. I think it would be better to call Peter a trustee and therfore every pope after him are successor trustees (I’m actually clerking at a law firm that does a lot of trust and estate work so this analogy just kind of jumped out at me )

 

[flameburns623]

BJRumph:

Chaz;

To clarify a little for you;

Even if (and that is an “if”) you can find a mormon that recognizes Peter’s authority; they all belive that it did not get passed on (dying either with Peter, or a few sucessions later).

Yes, the Catholic position holds them to be self-evident.

Just as the LDS hold that there was an Apostacy is self evident.

All the arguing and philosophical wrangling will not diminish the gap between these two positions.

Something should be clarified here. A popular LDS interpretation of Matthew 16 ( I think James Talmage first formulated this argument) is that it is–like ALL promises of God, in LDS theology–a conditional promise. In this case–Peter is not the ‘rock’ upon which the Church is being built–his FAITH is the rock, Peter merely the human personification thereof. Christ’s promise, in LDS eyes, is that so long as faith remains on earth–the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. When faith evaporated in the Great Apostasy–there went the Church. Hence Christ’s rhetorical question:

Luke 18:8:

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
**
Obviously when He returned to earth in Joseph Smith’s First Vision, it was because He DID NOT find faith on the earth that Joseph Smith was commissioned to re-establish His Church. I’m sure everyone is excited about THAT little exegetical gem.

 

[stillsearching]

Genesis315:

This actually a pretty good analogy. I think it would be better to call Peter a trustee and therfore every pope after him are successor trustees (I’m actually clerking at a law firm that does a lot of trust and estate work so this analogy just kind of jumped out at me )

Hey, dudes, it’s like I’m in RCIA right, and I’m looking at all this stuff and you are, like, wrong. Here is the link for right thinking about Popes and stuff.
mcn.org/1/miracles/weepingicon.html
You can read it and learn or just like keep being ignorant about it. I don’t care.

 

[BJRumph]

Hee Hee. Nicely written there Flameburn.

Unfortunately it undermines the more PC apologetic that it was only the Authority, not Faith, that was lost (thereby allowing the, while technically apostate, RCC faithful to not necessarily be evil, just doing the best with what they had, and not having the full deck.)

Still, an interesting, if utterly unprovable, take on the Apostacy.

 

[stillsearching]

flameburns623:

Something should be clarified here. A popular LDS interpretation of Matthew 16 ( I think James Talmage first formulated this argument) is that it is–like ALL promises of God, in LDS theology–a conditional promise. In this case–Peter is not the ‘rock’ upon which the Church is being built–his FAITH is the rock, Peter merely the human personification thereof. Christ’s promise, in LDS eyes, is that so long as faith remains on earth–the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. When faith evaporated in the Great Apostasy–there went the Church. Hence Christ’s rhetorical question:

Luke 18:8:

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
**
Obviously when He returned to earth in Joseph Smith’s First Vision, it was because He DID NOT find faith on the earth that Joseph Smith was commissioned to re-establish His Church. I’m sure everyone is excited about THAT little exegetical gem.

Dude, what’s the Apostasy? Where is your proof? When did it happen? Do you have proof dating to the time of the apostasy? Or you just got this cool dude who thinks he’s like Elijah or something and god talks to him? Or what? Is that like the four horsemen thing that comes at the end of the world?

 

[BJRumph]

Unless I am completely off my rocker, I do not think that Flame is asserting his belief in the Apostacy, but rather arguing from the hypothetical “truth” of the mormons.

 

[flameburns623]

stillsearching:

Dude, what’s the Apostasy? Where is your proof? When did it happen? Do you have proof dating to the time of the apostasy? Or you just got this cool dude who thinks he’s like Elijah or something and god talks to him? Or what? Is that like the four horsemen thing that comes at the end of the world?

I am not a Latter-Day Saint. I was once upon a time. I was providing analysis not invoking my own beliefs.