LDS Mormons and the Bible

[mmksparbud]

I do understand baptism, and it is not the way you understand it. Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. If He being sinless was baptized, how much more does everyone else need it?

That is the NT baptism---we are baptized unto Jesus. His death and resurrection. It represents our death to sin. Jesus had no sin. Those who can not be baptized, like His death at the cross, take His baptism as theirs. There are circumstances when one simply can not be baptized, Jesus provided His for those. Otherwise, whenever possible, we are to be baptized. But the OT Jews had a different perspective on what baptism meant, it was a ritual cleansing. The real NT baptism was not needed until Christ. The baptism of the dead was a mikvah--taharah---not a baptism of the dead as you people have wrongfully taken it.

 

[He is the way]

Reply has nothing to do with what was said.

You said: "Reply has nothing to do with what was said."

You also said: "Our salvation is what Jesus died for."

Therefore I thought you were talking about salvation, that is why I was talking about salvation.

 

[He is the way]

That is the NT baptism---we are baptized unto Jesus. His death and resurrection. It represents our death to sin. Jesus had no sin. Those who can not be baptized, like His death at the cross, take His baptism as theirs. There are circumstances when one simply can not be baptized, Jesus provided His for those. Otherwise, whenever possible, we are to be baptized. But the OT Jews had a different perspective on what baptism meant, it was a ritual cleansing. The real NT baptism was not needed until Christ. The baptism of the dead was a mikvah--taharah---not a baptism of the dead as you people have wrongfully taken it.

Well we have good reason to believe that this baptism took place in the temple.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well we have good reason to believe that this baptism took place in the temple.

What good reason?

 

[He is the way]

What good reason?

Because the temple was built to accomplish the work of baptism.

(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:23 - 26)

23 ¶ And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.
25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

Baptism was also called the washing of regeneration:
(New Testament | Titus 3:5)

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The lavers were used to clean the priests but I believe the molten sea was for baptism:

(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:38 - 40)

38 ¶ Then made he ten lavers of brass: one laver contained forty baths: and every laver was four cubits: and upon every one of the ten bases one laver.
39 And he put five bases on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house: and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward over against the south.
40 ¶ And Hiram made the lavers, and the shovels, and the basons. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he made king Solomon for the house of the LORD:

 

[mmksparbud]

Because the temple was built to accomplish the work of baptism.

(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:23 - 26)

23 ¶ And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.
25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

Baptism was also called the washing of regeneration:
(New Testament | Titus 3:5)

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The lavers were used to clean the priests but I believe the molten sea was for baptism:

(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:38 - 40)

38 ¶ Then made he ten lavers of brass: one laver contained forty baths: and every laver was four cubits: and upon every one of the ten bases one laver.
39 And he put five bases on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house: and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward over against the south.
40 ¶ And Hiram made the lavers, and the shovels, and the basons. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he made king Solomon for the house of the LORD:

No, it most certainly was not!!! It was built to worship God! It was fashioned after the Heavenly tabernacle. It was built to have the animal sacrifices that pointed to the death of Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb! It most certainly was not built to have ritualistic washings!! That was a ritual that was implemented to cleanse--but not from sin! You could not have said anything more telling of how little you understand the plan of salvation, much less the mind of the Jew. The tabernacle in the wilderness came first before the temple. The tabernacle had been a mobile one, the temple was a permanent one. The Most Holy Place is where the atonement took place---it is where Jesus, as our High Priest, is now presenting His blood as the price for our sins to cleanse us from sin. Not from ritual uncleaness, but from SIN.
No one could enter into the temple without the mikvah first--it was a must for the congregation and the priests---but it in no way represented cleansing from sin. They bathed at home first. You could not enter into the mikvah dirty---and you still can not. The ritual, nor it's meaning, has not changed in all these years to the Jew. They never did, and still do not, see the mikva as cleansing from sin. Baptism is done once---not weekly, and monthly. In all my yesars debating with you guys, you have never even come close to having me even slightly believe in anything you believe! None of it has been biblical in the slightest---except for the parts copied straight from the bible. All any of you guys have done is convince me further that Moroni was definitely not from God.

 

[He is the way]

No, it most certainly was not!!! It was built to worship God! It was fashioned after the Heavenly tabernacle. It was built to have the animal sacrifices that pointed to the death of Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb! It most cvertainly was not built to have ritualistic washings!! That was a ritual that was implemented to cleanse--but not from sin! You could not have said anything more telling of how little you understand the plan of salvation, much less the mind of the Jew. The tabernacle in the wilderness came first before the temple. The tabernacle had been a mobile one, the temple was a permanent one. The Most Holy Place is where the atonement took place---it us where Jesus, as our High Priest, is now presenting His blood as the price for our sins to cleanse us from sin. Not from ritual uncleaness, but from SIN.
No one could enter into the temple without the mikvah first--it was a must for the congregstion and the priests---but it in no way represented cleansing from sin. They bathed at home first. You coulod not enter into the mikvah dirty---and you still can not. The ritual, nor it's meaning, has not changed in all these years to the Jew. They never did not, and still do not, see the mikva as cleansing from sin. Baptism is done once---not weekly, and monthly. In all my yesars debsating weith you guys, you have never even come close to having me even slightloy believe in anything you believe! Nolne of it has been biblical in the slighterdty---except for the parfts copied straight from the bible. All any of you guys have done is convince me further that Moroni was definitely not from God.

You said: "except for the parfts copied straight from the bible" I assume you mean parts of the Book of Mormon, but they were not copied from the Bible. Joseph Smith had no written material with him when he dictated the Book of Mormon to the scribes. Each day he started exactly where he left off the preceding day without looking to see there he had left off. I will continue to love you even though we disagree. Neither of us needs to compromise our convictions to be compassionate to one another.

 

[dzheremi]

That was perhaps a bit literal, but surely you must realize that a person who is raised with the scriptures, and the particular form which JS was raised with, would eventually memorize them given enough exposure, such that they may not need to have them written down in front of them?

Besides, you're just parroting the LDS line, by this point...you say he had no written material in front of him at the time because now LDS leaders admit to this, but only after they found they could no longer deny it in the digital age, and only while still publishing Mormon iconography (?) like the picture below (from LDS.org, the religion's official website), saturating Mormon minds with similar images to the point where when the "rock-in-a-hat" method is discovered (whether through the TV show South Park, or through the LDS organization's slow reveal of key corroborating items like the "Seer Stones") many Mormons are shocked to learn it!

Who knows what your religion will have to fess up to tomorrow that it today calls "anti-Mormon lies"...is this what is meant by "continuing revelation"?

 

[He is the way]

That was perhaps a bit literal, but surely you must realize that a person who is raised with the scriptures, and the particular form which JS was raised with, would eventually memorize them given enough exposure, such that they may not need to have them written down in front of them?

Besides, you're just parroting the LDS line, by this point...you say he had no written material in front of him at the time because now LDS leaders admit to this, but only after they found they could no longer deny it in the digital age, and only while still publishing Mormon iconography (?) like the picture below (from LDS.org, the religion's official website), saturating Mormon minds with similar images to the point where when the "rock-in-a-hat" method is discovered (whether through the TV show South Park, or through the LDS organization's slow reveal of key corroborating items like the "Seer Stones") many Mormons are shocked to learn it!

Who knows what your religion will have to fess up to tomorrow that it today calls "anti-Mormon lies"...is this what is meant by "continuing revelation"?

We had continuing revelation when Jesus implemented the sacrament and when He gave the sermon on the mount. That being said, Joseph Smith did start translating the Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummin. It was later after he translated the Book of Lehi that he used the seer stone in a hat.

 

[mmksparbud]

You said: "except for the parfts copied straight from the bible" I assume you mean parts of the Book of Mormon, but they were not copied from the Bible. Joseph Smith had no written material with him when he dictated the Book of Mormon to the scribes. Each day he started exactly where he left off the preceding day without looking to see there he had left off. I will continue to love you even though we disagree. Neither of us needs to compromise our convictions to be compassionate to one another.

Is that supposed to be some sort of proof of anything? Not to me. We have to speak up for what the bible says. My best friend is Catholic---we don't agree on anything. There is nothing we wouldn't do for each other.

 

[dzheremi]

We had continuing revelation when Jesus implemented the sacrament and when He gave the sermon on the mount. That being said, Joseph Smith did start translating the Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummin. It was later after he translated the Book of Lehi that he used the seer stone in a hat.

Okay. Either way the point still stands: The LDS organization publishes artwork which depicts Joseph Smith pouring over the plates with his fingers, which makes people think that's how it happened, in contrast to the story that the same organization has now had to tell regarding how it actually happened, according to whatever historical sources may be consulted about the process.

Since your religious organization can't keep its own story straight, it makes it kind of hard for the average believing Mormon such as yourself to argue on details like whether not JS would've had access to a written Bible. Not only might he not have needed one (recall the other point I made in that post), but his possession of one could be 'revealed' tomorrow, and you'd have no choice but to roll with it and pretend as though the other version of the story somehow wasn't 'official' or whatever other tricks you have to come up with to deal with the cognitive dissonance of managing 'continuing revelation'.

 

[He is the way]

Okay. Either way the point still stands: The LDS organization publishes artwork which depicts Joseph Smith pouring over the plates with his fingers, which makes people think that's how it happened, in contrast to the story that the same organization has now had to tell regarding how it actually happened, according to whatever historical sources may be consulted about the process.

Since your religious organization can't keep its own story straight, it makes it kind of hard for the average believing Mormon such as yourself to argue on details like whether not JS would've had access to a written Bible. Not only might he not have needed one (recall the other point I made in that post), but his possession of one could be 'revealed' tomorrow, and you'd have no choice but to roll with it and pretend as though the other version of the story somehow wasn't 'official' or whatever other tricks you have to come up with to deal with the cognitive dissonance of managing 'continuing revelation'.

The person who did the painting was not there but did the painting from their perspective, nobody is perfect. Neither are the Oriental Orthodox paintings of Jesus completely accurate. Kind of like the pan calling the pot black. I know that Joseph Smith could not have dictated the Book of Mormon without God's help.

 

[dzheremi]

The person who did the painting was not there but did the painting from their perspective, nobody is perfect.

Irrelevant.

Neither are the Oriental Orthodox paintings of Jesus completely accurate.

Also irrelevant (and wrong, but I'm not about to get into a protracted discussion on the theological principles of iconography with a non-Christian whose religious tradition does not have iconography in any kind of traditional sense; at least the OO icons form a spiritual tradition, and are not "painted from the iconographer's perspective", which is the biggest cop out ever, and deserves condemnation, as every blow in the death of iconography we are experiencing now comes from this kind of man-centered, fleshly thinking...but again, this is irrelevant).

Kind of like the pan calling the pot black.

Nothing of the sort.

I know that Joseph Smith could not have dictated the Book of Mormon without God's help.

Just like you "know this church is true", and you "know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet", and all the other things Mormons claim to know but don't.

You don't know it. You believe it. Learn the difference and we might some day be able to stop talking at cross purposes.

 

[mmksparbud]

You said: "except for the parfts copied straight from the bible" I assume you mean parts of the Book of Mormon, but they were not copied from the Bible. Joseph Smith had no written material with him when he dictated the Book of Mormon to the scribes. Each day he started exactly where he left off the preceding day without looking to see there he had left off. I will continue to love you even though we disagree. Neither of us needs to compromise our convictions to be compassionate to one another.

Isn't it interesting that---though you all claim he did not copy from the KJV, he wrote things down with errors that are only in the KJV! So God spoke to him using the errors of the KJV?? You guys really believe that?!!

 

[He is the way]

Isn't it interesting that---though you all claim he did not copy from the KJV, he wrote things down with errors that are only in the KJV! So God spoke to him using the errors of the KJV?? You guys really believe that?!!

Careful now Most Christians believe the Bible is without error.

 

[He is the way]

Irrelevant.



Also irrelevant (and wrong, but I'm not about to get into a protracted discussion on the theological principles of iconography with a non-Christian whose religious tradition does not have iconography in any kind of traditional sense; at least the OO icons form a spiritual tradition, and are not "painted from the iconographer's perspective", which is the biggest cop out ever, and deserves condemnation, as every blow in the death of iconography we are experiencing now comes from this kind of man-centered, fleshly thinking...but again, this is irrelevant).



Nothing of the sort.



Just like you "know this church is true", and you "know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet", and all the other things Mormons claim to know but don't.

You don't know it. You believe it. Learn the difference and we might some day be able to stop talking at cross purposes.

I know the difference between knowing and believing. It was proven to me and I can not and will not deny it.

 

[dzheremi]

Nobody here's asking you to deny your testimony, HITW.

The point is that if Mormons more generally would stop confusing making faith-based claims with making historical or factual/science-based claims, things around here would go a lot more smoothly.

It is a faith-based claim that Joseph Smith translated anything ("by the power of God" or not), because it sure as heck isn't a scientific or historical one. When placed against the analysis of impartial actual scientists and translators examining the only actual Egyptian text JS was known to have ever possessed, which is called "The Book of Abraham" by the Mormons, JS' 'translation' of it is so wildly inaccurate as to make dreaming it all up while looking into a hat actually seem like a plausible method by which he may have arrived at what he claimed it was.

It is a faith-based claim that the Mormon religion is 'true', whatever that even means. (Historically accurate? No. A restoration of some kind of 'taken away' early Christian Church it is not.)

Etc., etc.

"What was revealed to you" doesn't mean jack squat. Muhammad claimed that the angel Gabriel revealed to him the direct, spoken word of God in a cave in Arabia. Are you going to follow him, too, since he likewise really felt as though it was revealed to him? Obviously not. What makes JS or any other Mormon leader any different than Muhammad? A different time and place, maybe, but the same old restorationist song and dance. It didn't make sense in Muhammad's day, it didn't make sense in Joseph Smith's day, it doesn't make sense now, and it won't make sense when the next charlatan looking for easy access to women, money, and power comes along with the newest 'revelation' said to 'clarify' or supersede what has come before it. JS is nothing but one in a long line of many such phonies. THere's nothing particularly spectaular about him, and whatever 'revealed' that he was telling the truth to you has more in common with whatever 'revealed' similar lies to other false prophets who you surely reject, despite their own followers truly believing in them and refusing to reject them.

Mormonism is not special. At all.

 

[mmksparbud]

Careful now Most Christians believe the Bible is without error.

You are comparing apples and turnips!! Grammatical errors can occur within any book---I am stating the BOM contains errors that belong to the KJV --yet you claim JS did not have it to copy from---you are then saying that God dictated to JS speaking the same errors that belong to the KJV! Can you not see how absolutely unbelievable that is?

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe it was in preparation for all the other kinds of errors that appear in the BOM, D&C, and POGP?

Or maybe God has a sense of humor, like a 2nd grade teacher...

"Oh My Me...he's writing it down!"

 

[ViaCrucis]

Careful now Most Christians believe the Bible is without error.

With the exception of certain Fundamentalists who subscribe to the aberrant idea of KJV-onlyism the majority of Christians believe that the Bible is the pure and perfect word of God, divinely inspired, and faithful. It does not mean that we pick up a single translation of the Bible and say it is somehow inerrant in every jot and tittle, neither does it mean (as the anti-Christian polemicists frequently insist) that we make claims such as that pi equals exactly 3 simply because "the Bible says it" without any room for nuances and liberty of human language to be approximate, hyperbolic, figurative (etc) through which the pure word of God is communicated. Instead the Christian confession that the Scriptures are the word of God is that they are, as St. Paul says, divinely inspired, useful for correction, rebuke, instructing in righteousness, etc; that they are that which proclaims Christ because as Christ says, "It is these which bear witness to Me", or as St. Augustine writes, that there is but "one Utterance" in all of Scripture, He who is the Eternal and Uncreated Logos of God. Further, that they are as the holy defender of the faith, St. Athanasius, has said, "These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain."

That whoever hears and receives the words of these Scriptures will without question be hearing and receiving not mere human wisdom or folly, but in fact the very and pure word of God for their very salvation. For here is the Gospel of our God, and Jesus Christ Himself poured forth crucified and and shown forth risen from the dead.

-CryptoLutheran