W
why_me
Guest
Well, lets see…how bout this?
fairlds.org/Bible/Bible_vs_the_Book_of_Mormon_Video.html
So far I don’t see any exposé. But if you say so, it must be true.
- Status
fairlds.org/Bible/Bible_vs_the_Book_of_Mormon_Video.html
So far I don’t see any exposé. But if you say so, it must be true.
G
Garland
Guest
chris2009, the book of mormon, garbage, your attack on me and others showing that, garbage. garbage in, garbage out. blessings Garland
A
Arandur
Guest
Chris2009, terminology has specific meanings in religious context.
“Damn” comes from “condemn,” not “dam” (to check progress). You do not “damn” a river, you “dam” it. In English, “damn” as a form of “condemn” goes back to the 1300s.
No one was objecting to those Mormon practices which are moral. I believe those have even been praised by Catholics in this thread. But people can live very admirable, moral lives and reject much important truth, even reject Christ. What would you say of devout Hindus, Buddhists, Confuscianists, Daoists, and Muslims? We Catholics expect that God judges mercifully and works with them in their own lives, but they reject essential truths and would be much better off to believe in Jesus and join in communion with His Church as He intended. Same with Mormons.
“Cult,” as you have identified, has many senses. The Catholic Church uses it in many different senses, depending on context; many of these are positive. Common parlance has adopted the primary meaning to be that of false worship, with heavy connotations of “fringe” and “secretive.” The secretivity comes from the related word, “occult,” which means most fundamentally a “secret” or “hidden knowledge.” Mormonism shares supports the idea of occultism and even shares characteristics with many traditional occultist movements–Masonry and Gnosticism among them. Whereas most Christians agree that Christ leaves no important special or secret or privileged knowledge.
I find the deseret story quite a stretch and quite unimpressive. This falls within the category of finding few various little connections quite possible by random chance and even then only justified by extended analogy. IIRC, the honey bee was first found in the Americas after its introduction by European settlers in the 1600s. If this is true, it completely undermines the deseret story to the point that it’s not even worth considering anything else related to it. It’s bogus. If the honey bee were present prior to European introduction, it would still not be any indication that the deseret story were true, for there are any number of other ways the bee could be present, either natural or supernatural (like various native myths about origins of things coming from stars or paintings of the spirits or gods, etc).
ParkerD
“Damn” comes from “condemn,” not “dam” (to check progress). You do not “damn” a river, you “dam” it. In English, “damn” as a form of “condemn” goes back to the 1300s.
No one was objecting to those Mormon practices which are moral. I believe those have even been praised by Catholics in this thread. But people can live very admirable, moral lives and reject much important truth, even reject Christ. What would you say of devout Hindus, Buddhists, Confuscianists, Daoists, and Muslims? We Catholics expect that God judges mercifully and works with them in their own lives, but they reject essential truths and would be much better off to believe in Jesus and join in communion with His Church as He intended. Same with Mormons.
What a prideful statement! Do you defy Jesus’s descriptions this “other place?” Do you realize that it is a state of voluntary separation from God, and that Jesus describes such eternal separation as torturous by comparison to life with Him? Of course, as with atheists today, it is quite possible for people to delude themselves into thinking they live a wonderful life in separation with God, and perhaps if they do not know what they are missing they might persist in that. But it has no comparison to fulfilling your true purpose for which God created you, and living eternally in the presence of His infinite love. To make your statement otherwise is purest blasphemy against God. It also smacks of a principal designed to entice to complacency or satisfaction with hell (separation from God). Far from this being a “true principle,” I can think of few more obvious ideas that absolutely come directly from (or at least directly serve) Satan himself. I caution you strongly: this “true principle,” for the reasons I described above and more, is certainly and absolutely from Satan. It could be from no other. God does not praise and does not wish separation from Him; Satan does.
“Cult,” as you have identified, has many senses. The Catholic Church uses it in many different senses, depending on context; many of these are positive. Common parlance has adopted the primary meaning to be that of false worship, with heavy connotations of “fringe” and “secretive.” The secretivity comes from the related word, “occult,” which means most fundamentally a “secret” or “hidden knowledge.” Mormonism shares supports the idea of occultism and even shares characteristics with many traditional occultist movements–Masonry and Gnosticism among them. Whereas most Christians agree that Christ leaves no important special or secret or privileged knowledge.
I find the deseret story quite a stretch and quite unimpressive. This falls within the category of finding few various little connections quite possible by random chance and even then only justified by extended analogy. IIRC, the honey bee was first found in the Americas after its introduction by European settlers in the 1600s. If this is true, it completely undermines the deseret story to the point that it’s not even worth considering anything else related to it. It’s bogus. If the honey bee were present prior to European introduction, it would still not be any indication that the deseret story were true, for there are any number of other ways the bee could be present, either natural or supernatural (like various native myths about origins of things coming from stars or paintings of the spirits or gods, etc).
ParkerD
What’s your point?
K
Kdesiel
Guest
Nicely put! I couldn’t believe the Statement “If Mormons do go to hell we’ll make a heaven out of it.” WOW!! A little pride there do you think…just a bit… ha ha ha.
Well I would write more on the issue but you put it better than I could, and covered the bases so to speak.
“We’ll make a heaven out of it…” WOW! I’ll have a tough time getting over that statement.
Stephen168
New member
Joseph Smith claimed they were the source (beginning) of the American Indian; which science has shown to be false.
Your testimony can never be based on true scientific evidence. Science has already shown the Book of Mormon not to be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, so Joseph Smith being a prophet and/or the Book of Mormon are false.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,
Michael had written that the English Bible was available to the common people to read in the privacy of their own home. That article does not substantiate this “availability”, either by the price charged to get a copy of the Bible, or the intent of Henry VIII to suppress the activity of the people talking about Bible teachings and about the possibility that the translation presented by the church was “biased” and therefore misleading. I think William Tyndale had a sincere intent, and Henry VIII did not. I think the Holy Spirit was definitely not involved in supposedly protecting or defending the so-called “deposit of faith.” The Holy Spirit does not suppress frredom. The light of Christ would encourage sincere inquiry and seeking for understanding of the original source material for the Bible.
A
Arandur
Guest
Where do you see this information in the Wikipedia article you quoted? I read only the Tyndale section so far; perhaps you can point me to others that said that there were no English translations or that Henry VIII was trying to suppress people talking about the Bible. The Tyndale section was pretty short and sparse, but did indeed note that many thought the Tyndale version was misleading. What evidence do you have that it was not?
You don’t think God protects His Truth and His Word? That it goes forth from Him and does not come back or bears no fruit (is corrupted)?
The Spirit does not suppress freedom, but it does counter untruth and spread truth; it does oppose sin (a lack of freedom, for sin is slavery). As others have posted here, Tyndale’s pursuit by legal officers was initiated and performed by the secular government at the time, which saw him as a rabble rouser and danger to the peace and stability of society (which, as evidenced by the consequences of the dissent he sowed, he was). So if that’s what you’re referring to, I don’t see your point or connection to the Holy Spirit.
Your own church authorizes certain editions and declares others invalid (like the RLDS/CoC D&C additions); is there a problem with the Catholic Church doing the same with erroneous editions?
As for widespread availability of the Bible, as your Wikipedia article notes, Tyndale’s time period was that when printing presses were just starting to spread, when mass production of texts was just beginning. In fact, as your article notes, England had very limited availability of printing presses at the time. Thus, there were far fewer copies of the Bible since they were copied by hand. Scarce and expensive as they were just due to the realities of the time, they had to be well protected from the elements, fire, and vandalism/theft. Combine this with widespread illiteracy and long work hours (little leisure time) of the times and the idea that access to Bibles was scarce because it was deliberately prevented just holds little water. Parishioners who went to weekly Mass still heard most of the Bible read over the course of every three years just as Catholics do today. And academics had access to them in various languages, Latin and Greek still widely known among the learned in those days in addition to the vernacular languages.
Z
zerinus
Guest
FAIR is not always right. Here is a quote from the FAIR article:
Since the Book of Mormon makes clear that Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, brother of Ephraim (Alma 10:3), it is less than straight forward to identify it as the “stick of Ephraim”.
This shows a misunderstanding of Ezekiel’s prophecy. The prophesy does not say that the “stick” exclusively belonged to, or was produced by, Ephraim. This is what it says:
Ezekiel 37:
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.
This says nothing like what that article assumes. The “stick” is as much called the stick of Joseph as it is called the stick of Ephraim; and it even belongs to all “the tribes of Israel and his companions”.
To understand the above passages correctly, it needs to be understood within the historical background of the Israelites at that time. After the reign of David and Solomon, the Kingdome was divided. The ten tribes in the north became known as the kingdom of Israel, and the two tribes to the south became known as the kingdom of Judah. The prominent tribe in the north was Ephraim, who most often formed the ruling classes, hence the whole of the Northern kingdom is often identified in prophetic literature with Ephraim, so that often the actions and exploits of the northern kingdom is just attributed to Ephraim (just at the south is attributed to Judah). Bearing that in mind, in prophetic literature (including the above passage), when it talks about Ephraim it often means the whole of the northern kingdom of Israel. Hence the “stick” is not said to just belong to “Ephraim,” but to “Joseph” (which includes Manasseh—i.e. the Nephites); and it even encompasses “the tribes of Israel and his companions”. Furthermore, it says that the “stick” is in the hands of Ephraim. It does not say that Ephraim exclusively produced it or created it. Well, LDS are most often of the tribe of Ephraim; and the Book of Mormon is “in their hands” being taken to all the nations as prophecied. Thus the prophecy is correctly fulfilled. The same principle also applies to the “stick of Judah”. The FAIR article is way off the mark.
By the way, I checked at the MADB to see if this subject was discussed. I found this thread which was quite old, and the standard of the discussion leaves much to be desired.
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
Chris, the book of mormon contains only Joe’s Myths.
There is no truth there, it’s just what Joe imagined and dreamed-up or copied and pasted. Basically, 'ol Joe wanted to re-write the Bible, and did it very poorly. No heart; no soul. He really should’ve just stuck to selling liquor from his home, instead of dabbling in religion. No one needed Joe to write a thing about Jesus or religion. It was already written from the word of God 1,820 years prior.
**Two other wonderful sites for mormons to read: **
Here
and
Here…
Z
zerinus
Guest
And who says that “protecting the deposit of faith” means burning people? The LDS Church too has a duty of preserving true doctrine as it has been revealed; but we don’t think that the way to do that is by burning people. We “protect the deposit of faith” by teaching correct doctrine; and by pointing to the error where it is found. There is no need to burn anybody to do that.
The LDS Church is, quite simply, true.
A
Arandur
Guest
I want to know that, too. Who do you think said that? Zerinus, you’re fighting at shadows, phantoms of your own imagination. Mjf never said anyone should be burned, nor has anyone else said that. In fact, what he was talking about was protecting the Deposit of Faith by the same way you were–“teaching correct doctrine; and by pointing out the error where it is found.” That’s what the Church was doing when it pointed out the errors in Tyndale’s works.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,
I read your earler questions. I agree with what Zerinus has written. It doesn’t appear that Henry VIII was comfortable allowing common people to think for themselves. So what if their thinking and discussing made them less inclined to follow one particular Bible translation. I think what Tyndale did was a very important step leading to less suppression in the world. The idea of burning Bibles, or not letting people have them, boggles my mind.
That article uses the word “suppression” many times to describe what happened.
A
Arandur
Guest
Would you not agree that Bibles that were seriously tampered with, erroneous in many ways, could be very dangerous and misleading? That they could lead to all sorts of confusion, when the better and validated translations were known?
Remember, this is not a time where there is a lot of literacy and widespread access to information, including original sources and competing sources of information for people to become learned themselves and study all of this. You seem to be judging as if this were the information age. It was not. The spread of books containing lies sold as true Gospel, as if they were that true Gospel, was a much more dangerous offense against truth than it might be today, where multiple sources of information are widely available to an educated audience.
Imagine if something as simple as the U.S. Constitution were miscopied or mistranslated in many ways and in many areas, whether deliberately or not, and then spread among the populous. The chaos and conflict that would have caused, with people claiming different competing versions of that document were the true ones, could have easily torn this country apart. How much worse would that be with the Bible?
Are you familiar with the “Wicked Bibles?” Printing press errors that left “not” out of various commandments, most notably “Thou shalt (not) commit adultery.” Now that’s an error that is easy to detect, but should it not have been burned?
What do you do with a bad copy of something even today? With copies of an original that are false, corrupted versions of the original? You purge them. You certainly don’t just hand out the corrupted copies as if they were real ones.
If someone in your church wanted to put out seriously corrupted versions of the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, would you not call them on it and refuse to be party to printing it? Would your church not notify the publishers of the errors and recommend that they not publish them, and destroy any that had been published so as not to have the corrupted version confused with the real thing? If your church had produced some of these corrupted copies on its own prior to making the determination of their corruption, would it not seek to end their dissemination, call them back, purge the corrupted copies?
So why do you hold up a pre-literate society by an even more rigorous standard?
M
mjf001
Guest
M
mjf001
Guest
I’m sorry, I simply don’t see Tyndale, or Wycliff for that matter, as heroes. I see Tyndale as a dishonorable man who broke the vows he made as a priest. His actions helped to split the unity of the Christian community, and at least in the short run, gave the devil a pretty big victory. As a divided community is more prone to attack than a united community.
Further, the errors introduced by Luther and Tyndale are still around today, further dividing the community. I don’t see one positive thing that came from this. If he had accepted his Bishop’s decision in humility, maybe things would have turned out better.
I know this this shows a “Catholic” viewpoint, but that’s all you’re ever going to get from me. I’m happy to be home, and I pray, always, that the Spirit leads more people home to the fullness of truth. I repeat that prayer, now.
In Christ,
Michael
M
mjf001
Guest
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,
Here are two paragraphs that explain the Tyndale Bible translation in more detail, since you have evidently wanted me to get into the details based on your generalizations:
“Tyndale’s translations were condemned by both church and state in England, where it must be said it took longer for the reform movement to take hold. Tyndale was forced to flee England for the continent where he found safe haven in pro-reform areas.[12] The church and state reacted strongly against Tyndale’s work, banning his New Testament of 1526 from England. In addition any copy of his work found in England was to be burned.[13] Many Catholic scholars attacked Tyndale and his translations, the foremost of whom was Thomas More.[14] More and the Catholic Church refuted Tyndale’s translations because they argued that Tyndale had purposefully mistranslated the texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views.[15] More specifically attacked Tyndale on the grounds that he had corrupted scripture by changing certain words and thus the meaning of scripture. More focused on four key words that Tyndale had changed in his translation. The terms, as appearing in the Catholic texts, were “church”, “priest”, “do penance” and “charity”. These words became “congregation”, “senior” (changed to elder in the revised edition of 1534), “repent” and “love” in Tyndale translation.[16] More and the Church took great offense to these changes because they challenged many of the systems and doctrines that made up the foundation of the Catholic Church during this period of time. The Catholic Church burned Tyndale at the stake in 1536.” (Source: Wikipedia, Tyndale Bible)
“The Catholic Church had long proclaimed that the church was an institution. The word church to them had come to represent the organizational structure that was the Catholic Church.[17] Tyndale’s translation was seen as a challenge to this doctrine because he was seen to have favored the views of reformers like Martin Luther who proclaimed that the church was made up and defined by the believers, or in other words their congregations. Some radical reformers preached that the true church was the “invisible” church, that wherever true Christians meet together to preach the word of God was where the church was. To these reformers the structure of the Catholic Church was unnecessary and its very existence proved that it was in fact not the “true” Church.[18] When Tyndale decided that the Greek word “ekklesia” is more accurately translated congregation he was undermining the entire structure of the Catholic Church.” (Source: Wikipedia, Tyndale Bible)
“Catholic doctrine was also challenged by Tyndale’s translation of the Greek “metanoeite” as “repent” instead of “do penance”.[25] This translation attacked the Catholic sacrament of penance. Tyndale’s version of scripture backed up the views of reformers like Luther who had taken issue with the Catholic practice of sacramental penance. Reformers believed that it was through faith alone that one was saved.[26] This differed from the views of the Catholic Church, which followed the belief that salvation was granted to those who lived accordingly to what the church told them and thus participated in the seven sacraments.[27] Tyndale’s translation challenged the belief that one had to do penance for one’s sins. According to Tyndale’s New Testament and other reformers, all the believer had to do was repent with a sincere heart, and God would forgive them. The believer did not have to earn their salvation; it was given freely to them by God. All they had to do was believe in his promise and live accordingly.” (Source: Wikipedia, Tyndale Bible)
I can certainly see why Catholic leaders would fight such changes in translation that would undermine their ability to control the beliefs of the common people. I just don’t happen to buy into your thinking that the changes were wrong. I think they were exactly right.
A mis-print is a different thing altogether. A printer error could be corrected at the discretion of the printer, I would think.
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
–I’m glad you can understand why heretics shouldn’t mess with the inspired word of God.
Tynsdale was an inconsequential biblical meddler and Joe Smith was a con man, a sheister, a fraud and a false prophet. Both men should have saved some energy and honored the original works of the Lord.
But they didn’t; alas.
Who cares; Memories fade quickly on false prophets. But Jim Bakker and Tammy on PTL is still a hoot!
Guffaw.
**“Beware of False Prophets”. ** (so simple for anyone with a lightbulb over their head and a few brain cells operating).
A
Arandur
Guest
Do you? Then you would make a good Protestant, and a terrible Mormon. Your church clearly does not believe those were “exactly right” revisions.
This I can say conclusively, with reference to the points in question that you have brought up. Tyndale’s deliberate corruptions of “ecclesia” were used to attack the idea of an organized Church, and that of “presbuter” was used to attack the idea of an authoritative priesthood. Then the corruption of “metanoeite” was used to emphasize the concept of faith alone divorced from works, something the Smithian religions consistently attack the Protestants for, agreeing with the Catholic Church. The LDS church clearly and strongly disagrees with Tyndale on these counts and believes instead that these would be exactly wrong revisions, agreeing with the Catholic Church.
So are you a Mormon, or a Tyndale-ite?
(I note, too, that the sources repeatedly referenced appear to be notably slanted in Protestant favor. The text of the article also contains many misrepresentations and errors concerning actual Catholic beliefs.)
What’s worse, a printer error or a transcription/translation error or deliberate corruption? Again, what if the Constitution were deliberately meddled with and passed off as authentic in meaning? What if your LDS sacred texts were? Surely you don’t believe that just any old re-writing and deliberate revision of your sacred texts is a good thing, spreading only good freedom and study and discussion?
Remember, many of these particular changes Tyndale made were movements away from beliefs that your church holds to be true. You think that’s a good thing?
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
http://home.earthlink.net/~messageboard2007/RomneyFudger.jpg
If Willard “Mittster” Romney gives another “speech” on religion, he needs to make it real.
He needs to let us know all the mormon beliefs, beginning when god was a man on star Kolob. He must let us know how man can become a god!
Please Willard, make the speech of everything; including the magic underwear!
Please, the whole truth! (finally) help end the mormon charade (and your political career) with a real speech on your religion.
Thanks bro.
http://home.earthlink.net/~messageboard2007/RomneyFudger.jpg
If Willard “Mittster” Romney gives another “speech” on religion, he needs to make it real.
He needs to let us know all the mormon beliefs, beginning when god was a man on star Kolob. He must let us know how man can become a god!
Please Willard, make the speech of everything; including the magic underwear!
Please, the whole truth! (finally) help end the mormon charade (and your political career) with a real speech on your religion.
Thanks bro.
http://home.earthlink.net/~messageboard2007/RomneyFudger.jpg
- Status