LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[Jane_Doe]

Which books should be in the Bible?
That answer varies on denomination. How do you know yours is right?

*Bump*

 

[withwonderingawe]

His personal belief or lack thereof doesn't matter at all, as he is investigating whether or not the official statements as given in the front matter of the BOM match what the people who they're ostensibly from actually say happened. You don't need to be a believer to look into that any more than Josephus needed to be a Christian to report on the first-century Christians. (He wasn't. He was Jewish. Things do not work that way.)



I would think that his point is more that the repackaging is done on the Mormon side so as to make the testimony of the witnesses as given in the BOM appear to be something other than it is when you look at the other statements available from those same people, in addition to the various interpretations of the events by Mormon scholars, artists, etc.



I'd have to go back and re-watch, but I believe that this is dealt with in the video itself, and that whatever he lifted was covered, so it could have been anything, since he did not actually see it.



Okay. So, yeah, he never saw them. The problems with this should be obvious. When you claim to have a thing that you don't let other people actually see and examine with their eyes, but instead keep hidden away in some fashion, it greatly weakens your claims about said thing. We've seen this recently in areas well outside of the BOM, as with the claimed 1,500-year-old Aramaic 'Bible' claimed by the Turkish authorities to contain devastating evidence against the traditional claims of Christianity, but which in fact, even based on a surface-level analysis of the few pictures the Turks have presented to the world media to substantiate the book's existence, very obviously contains nothing of the kind (in fact, it's probably not actually a Bible at all): The 1,500 year old 'Bible' and Muslim propaganda (Assyrian International News Agency analysis)

The claims of the Turks are destroyed because the appropriate people (in this case, Assyrian people who know their language and history) were able to see pictures of the document in question and say what it actually was based on their background knowledge/expertise (being speakers of the language in which the document is written). This is a much stronger level of evidence than if they had physically lifted up the book while it remained under a sheet. That much should be obvious.



It is interesting that this piece of apologia chides Vogel for beginning his analysis with 'flat disbelief' when Anderson's own analysis begins with what we might call 'flat belief', with the statement: "An angel showed the Book of Mormon plates to the Three Witnesses, who heard God’s voice declare the translation correct."

Oh. Okay then.

Once again, Mormons on this board (and apparently at BYU) do not distinguish between making a claim and stating a belief. Mr. Anderson takes his own belief as a starting point and then fashions the evidence to suit it. How is this different than what he is characterizing Vogel as doing? (With the crucial difference that Vogel is looking for consistency between the official statements as given in the BOM and other statements of those same witnesses as reported elsewhere, which is not a faith claim to begin with.)

This 'technical explanation' is but a slightly fancier/more wordy version of preaching to the choir, and entirely unmoving.

1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Hear is a testimony of a man who lived over 2000 years ago, there is no proof that his witness was truth. Yet here you are believing every word which was written by his hand, if he really wrote it no one knows for sure, seem he uses a demonstrative pronoun which the author of the Gospel of John doesn't use.

Now we have 11 men who testified they saw the plates and handled them, each one died testifying to what they saw. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum went to their deaths testifying to the trustfulness of what they saw and heard. The book is there for you to read and pray about. You are the one who will have to stand before God and explain why you never bothered to read it.

 

[miknik5]

So Paul is not needed? He is not one the original 12.

Do you know the names of the 24 elders?

And do we have a part in the decision?

 

[fatboys]

Do you know the names of the 24 elders?

And do we have a part in the decision?

So he was an elder not an apostle

 

[miknik5]

So he was an elder not an apostle

I don't know where he is other than knowing he has the same white garment.
When all is accomplished The LORD will call us to those places assigned

Be happy just to come and hear HIM say well done good and faithful servant

 

[miknik5]

So he was an elder not an apostle

Do you read THE WORD of GOD?

Do you understand that I am not offering my own personal opinion and that these 24 elders are identified as the 12 foundations of the apostles teachings who hold to their testimony if JESUS and the 12 tribes of Israel who also hold to the testimony of JESUS

 

[fatboys]

Do you read THE WORD of GOD?

Do you understand that I am not offering my own personal opinion and that these 24 elders are identified as the 12 foundations of the apostles teachings who hold to their testimony if JESUS and the 12 tribes of Israel who also hold to the testimony of JESUS

Explain it to me

 

[Peter1000]

The WITNESS of THE HOLY SPIRIT is sufficient

That is it

There will be no one exalted above TJE SON of GOD
for in fact THE HOLY SPIRIT does not even speak of HIMSELF but glorifies THE SON

Is the HS not co-equal with the Son?

 

[Peter1000]

Who do you think taught me sir but the same one who taught John

Did Jesus himself teach you? I do not make light of this question.

 

[Peter1000]

There are 12 foundations which represent the apostles teachings.

There will be no other teachings added where they are not needed.

Interesting.

What are these 12 foundations which represent the apostles teachings. I have heard that in Revelations that in the walls of the holy city, there are 12 foundations with the name of the original 12 apostles. So tell us where to read in the scriptures about the 12 foundations representing the apostles teachings. Thanks.

Also, while you are in the scriptures, find me the verse that says, 'there will be no other teachings added where they are not needed'. Thank you.

 

[Peter1000]

Do you know the names of the 24 elders?

And do we have a part in the decision?

Excuse me but you just shifted the goal post.

We were talking about the 12 foundations of the teachings of the apostles. This could only refer to the original 12.

Now since Paul has been brought into the picture, who was not one of the original 12, you shifted to Revelations chapters 4-5 and are now presenting us with 24 elders.

So what is it? 12 foundations of the teachings of the original 12 apostles or 24 elders standing before the throne of God?

And then out of the blue, you ask, 'do we have a part in the decision'. Would you please explain why you ask that question?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Actually, the BOM is not adding to the bible because the BOM is it's own separate book and can stand on it's own.

It exists, however, to confirm, and to support the Bible and to give a second witness to the atonement of Jesus Christ.

If you have a second, or third, or fourth witness, why is that not good?

Has God stifled himself and limited himself just to 1 witness? Why would He do that?

Why would God say there is not going to be anything more written about the Atonement of my Son?

Witness #1 - writings of the prophets and apostles (Bible)
Witness #2 - God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) (1 John 5: 6-12, John 8:14-18)

No further witnesses required.

 

[fatboys]

Witness #1 - writings of the prophets and apostles (Bible)
Witness #2 - God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) (1 John 5: 6-12, John 8:14-18)

No further witnesses required.

What writings do we have of the original apostles?

 

[dzheremi]

1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Hear is a testimony of a man who lived over 2000 years ago, there is no proof that his witness was truth. Yet here you are believing every word which was written by his hand, if he really wrote it no one knows for sure, seem he uses a demonstrative pronoun which the author of the Gospel of John doesn't use.

Now we have 11 men who testified they saw the plates and handled them, each one died testifying to what they saw. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum went to their deaths testifying to the trustfulness of what they saw and heard. The book is there for you to read and pray about. You are the one who will have to stand before God and explain why you never bothered to read it.

It is clear by all of this that you do not understand the distinction I pointed out in the post you're replying to. It's not about whether John, or the BOM, or whatever is under discussion is 'true'; it's about whether or not the statements of the witnesses given at the beginning of the BOM are consistent with those same witnesses' other statements regarding the event. That's what makes the statements published at the beginning of the BOM suspect: They don't match what the people who supposedly gave them say happened.

John (or any of the Gospels) is not a good parallel to this, because we don't have anywhere in the Bible sworn statements by 'John' that the things recorded in his Gospel actually happened, which nevertheless contradict the account of that Gospel.

 

[BigDaddy4]

What writings do we have of the original apostles?

(Bible)

 

[fatboys]

(Bible)

Which apostles wrote?

 

[withwonderingawe]

It is clear by all of this that you do not understand the distinction I pointed out in the post you're replying to. It's not about whether John, or the BOM, or whatever is under discussion is 'true'; it's about whether or not the statements of the witnesses given at the beginning of the BOM are consistent with those same witnesses' other statements regarding the event. That's what makes the statements published at the beginning of the BOM suspect: They don't match what the people who supposedly gave them say happened.

John (or any of the Gospels) is not a good parallel to this, because we don't have anywhere in the Bible sworn statements by 'John' that the things recorded in his Gospel actually happened, which nevertheless contradict the account of that Gospel.

Vogel does not show there was in contradiction just different views, and he's trying real hard to make you think the men were hallucinating.

In Acts when Paul sees his vision it is spoken of several different times and each time it is told a little differently. Dan Vogel would say he was hallucinating after all he can’t get his story straight.

Acts 9
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Here are two inconsistence, did they see the light or glory or not, did they hear a voice or not?

Act 9
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Acts 22
8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

Was he kicking against the pricks or not?

In Acts 9 it tells of Ananias questioning the Lord about Paul but in Act 22 he skips that part of the story altogether.

Now if you are not going to be a hypocrite you have to disbelieve Paul’s story also. You can not honestly accept one and not the eleven others.

And there again you only have Paul’s word that it happened, where are the stories of the men with him verifying his story. Where is Ananias’ letter explaining what he saw and heard?

With the Book of Mormon there are eleven witnesses, plus Joseph himself. They bore their testimonies over and over again.

This story is related by former Juvenile Court Judge C. M. Nielsen of Murray, Utah

While Oliver was out of the Church he with his brother in Michigan. While in court he was challenged by another attorney

“"May it please the court, and gentlemen of the jury, I challenge Mr. Cowdery, since he seems to know so much about the poor defendant, to tell us something about his connection with Joe Smith, and the digging out of the hill of the Mormon Bible, and how Mr. Cowdery helped Joe Smith to defraud the American people out of a whole lot of money selling the Mormon Bible and telling them that an angel appeared to them from heaven, dressed in white clothes.

Oliver Cowdery arose calm as a summer morning. I was within three feet of him. There was no hesitation, no fear, no anger in his voice, as he said: 'May it please the court, and gentlemen of the jury, my brother attorney on the other side has charged me with connection with Joseph Smith and the golden Bible. The responsibility has been placed upon me, and I cannot escape reply. Before God and man I dare not deny what I have said, and what my testimony contains as written and printed on the front page of the Book of Mormon. May it please your honor and gentlemen of the jury, this I say, I saw the angel and heard his voice-how can I deny it? It happened in the daytime when the sun was shining bright in the firmament; not in the night when I was asleep. That glorious messenger from heaven, dressed in white, standing above the ground, in a glory I have never seen anything to compare with, the sun insignificant in comparison, and this personage told us if we denied that testimony there is no forgiveness in this life nor in the world to come. Now, how can I deny it-I dare not; I will not!”

Doesn't sound like a man who was unsure of what he saw and heard!

 

[now faith]

Why would God give another revelation of Jesus Christ ,when it was finished by his atonement ?
It is illogical , Christ sprinkled his blood one time on the mercy seat it is finished either you accept Christ as God or you don't.
God does not change and he did not change for Joseph Smith.
The Bible tells us that false idols are a abomination and those who worship them will go to the Lake of fire if they do not repent and turn from idolatry.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Why would God give another revelation of Jesus Christ ,when it was finished by his atonement ?

Revelation (aka God talking to men) wasn't finished with Christ's sacrifice. God never stops talking to His followers. If God were to have stopped talking to His followers after the atonement, majority of the New Testament won't exist.

God does not change

I 100% agree: He does not change and He does not stop giving revelation.

 

[now faith]

Revelation (aka God talking to men) wasn't finished with Christ's sacrifice. God never stops talking to His followers. If God were to have stopped talking to His followers after the atonement, majority of the New Testament won't exist.


I 100% agree: He does not change and He does not stop giving revelation.

Is it true that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are Brothers?
Do they believe man through works can be God or a God?
What was Joseph Smiths view on the Free Masons?
Did Joseph math consider himself a High Priest in the order of Melchizedek?
Was Joseph Smith a mystic that found treasure with seer stones?

Would God be joined with a Harlot?