Mormons

[solar_mirth]

i think it was the lamanites. it's been a while since i've read through the book of mormon.

 

[solar_mirth]

also, alma, you have not responded to any criticisms of the actual book of mormon. what is to be done with the numerous historical inaccuracies contained therein?

 

[Alma]

also, alma, you have not responded to any criticisms of the actual book of mormon. what is to be done with the numerous historical inaccuracies contained therein?

I haven't responded to any? ever? or am I supposed to pick a few out there on the internet and respond to them here? What are you talking about? I have responded to criticisms of the Book of Mormon for years and for months here on this web site. Did you have a particular one in mind?

Alma

 

[Rejoice]

It is the metaphysical creeds that tend to supplant scripture to which I believe God referred when he said, “all their creeds were an abomination.” The disparity between scripture and these creeds is pointed out in this anonymous re-write of a passage from John:

Jesus said, “Whom do men say that I am?”

And his disciples answered and said, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.”

And Jesus answered and said, “But whom do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. Thou art perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching thy Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching thy manhood. Who, although God and man, yet thou art not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.”

Fortunately, the men who wrote the Nicene Creed were able to phrase it in a way that is not so confusing.

I see no disparity between scriptures and this Creed. It is fully supported by scripture.

We believe in one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; James 2:19), the Father Almighty (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; John 17:3), maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2). We believe in one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4), Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5), the only Son of God (Hebrews 1:2-8), eternally begotten of the Father (John 3:16, John 1:18; Hebrews 1:3), God from God (John 1:1-2; 1:18; Hebrews 1:8-9), Light from Light (John 1:5; 8:12; 1 John 1:5), true God from true God (John 17:3, 17:21; 1 John 5:20), begotten not made (John 1:2-3; 1:14-15; Colossians 1:13-17), of one Being with the Father (John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 14:9-10; Hebrews 1:3). Through him all things were made (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, Genesis 1:1 cf. Colossians 1:16). For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven(John 16:28); by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary (John 1:14), and was made man (Philippians 2:6-7). For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried (Matthew 16:21; Mark 10:45; Romans 8:32; Philippians 2:8). On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures (Mark 10:34; Luke 24:46; 1 Corinthians 15:4); he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father (Acts 1:9). He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom shall have no end. (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:25-29; Revelation 22:12) We believe in the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19; John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; 13:14).

Exactly what in this biblically supported creed do you believe that God finds "abominable?"

Finally, do you consider the Articles of Faith to be a "creed?"

 

[baker]

Alma,

Before responding to your thoughts, I'd like to suggest that before describing what you refer to as "my misunderstanding" as "ludicrous", it would generate more professional dialogue to refrain from each other's thoughts as being ludicrous. I ask my questions in sincerety. As you mentioned how you are a stickler for what is really said, so am I. I hope you will offer me the same standards of detail that you request from others. Thanks.

It’s too vague. My dictionary adds a third definition that I think specifically applies in this circumstance: “3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.”



Not at all. It is the specific formulas adopted after centuries of debate that rely on extra-biblical terminology and philosophy such as the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds. I think an excellent comment about creedal Christianity comes from a British theologian named Edwin Hatch. He wrote:

What doesn't make sense to me is that your first vision specifically says that Smith's god told him all "sects" were wrong and that "ALL" their creeds were an abomination. This means that god beleived that each sect had a creed. Hence, I think the definition I provided would be more applicable to yours. Your definition of creed is specific to only the three you mention. If, as you say that all christians didn't subscribe to creeds, it seems to me that your first vision clearly defines creeds differently than you have. If not, what were these creeds that Smith's god said "all sects" had?

They were known as “Reformed Baptist Society” under the leadership of Sidney Rigdon – who, along with many of his followers embraced Mormonism once they learned about it. Additionally there were Quakers throughout New England, and they reject all creeds.

This doesn't make sense to me. If they were reformed, then by definition they were not the same and obviously they did not have the same beliefs as the local baptist sect. Wouldn't it be like if I was trying to compare the RLDS to the LDS? I would assume you would say I wasn't comparing apples to apples. I was hoping you could demonstrate where a local church or sect within Smiths immediate region was different than one say 200 miles away. Can you see what I mean and are their any relevant comparisons you could demonstrate?

I think you’re persisting in a misunderstanding that is approaching ludicrous. By simply reading the context of Joseph Smith’s statements it’s more than clear that Joseph Smith expected to find out which of the religious sects in his region of the country he should join:

“… there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. …but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. …I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?”

Look at the words I have bolded: “in the place where we lived…the sects in that region..of all these parties.” Joseph Smith doesn’t provide a map with references for the “region” where he lived, and I think it ludicrous that anyone might think that a 14 year old boy was wondering about the Russian Orthodox Church, or Armenian or Coptic Christianity when he asked “which of all these parties” were right. I think it’s equally ludicrous to postulate that God’s answer that their creeds could possibly have condemned Christians who had no creeds or who had dissociated themselves from others because of their creeds.

Again, like you, I'm sorta a stickler for what the words say and not try to generalize. Smith's god specifically said "all their creeds". I see this very different than what you seem to be proposing that what god meant is "and those who have creeds"

Also, I recognize that Smith's human limitations would restrict his knowlege to only those churches he was familiar with either through doctrines or creeds, or through actual experience. My comments on geographic limitation was really referring to God's knowledge.

keep saying that it wasn’t a local issue with regard to which church he should have joined – it’s very clear that they were all wrong; but the condemnation of abominable creeds couldn’t possibly apply to all Christians because all Christians didn’t subscribe to the creeds.

I hope I have now demonstrated through the specific language contained in your first vision why I believe a broarder definition of creed is apropriate. Therefore, I can't see how the condemnation of abomination could only apply to local sects, but rather extended to all.

 

[solar_mirth]

Alma,

i'm talking about ones that have nothing to do with theology. there are criticisms listed which show the book of mormon to line up with facts (horses in America, smelting and iron work, barley). what do you have to say about those?

i apologize if i sounded rude. i know that you are responding to baker's posts, but i can also see that it is going nowhere. you guys have been running in circles for some time now.

well, if you get time, please give some feedback on the historical inaccuracies of the book of mormon.

love in Christ,
Derrick

 

[solar_mirth]

sorry, that was supposed to say, "the book of mormon to not line up with facts." sorry.

 

[twhite982]

sorry, that was supposed to say, "the book of mormon to not line up with facts." sorry.

Why'd you change that?
I thought you had it right the first time!

TW

 

[emerald Dragon]

Then there is the Book of Abraham. The B of A was "translated" by Joseph Smith from Egyptian papyri. These documents were not able to be decoded in the 19th century because Egyptian had not yet been understood. Once the Rosetta stone was found, and a whole bunch of other artifacts, linguistic specialists broke the code of the Egyptian language. When they translated the papyri documents that Joseph Smith claimed to translate, they found them to be completely different than what JS had said. They turned out to be the recording of a burial ritual for Egyptians. No where in the text does JS's version and the experts line up. Fishy.

I actuallity, the knowledge of the Egyptian language had been discovered before JS acquired the papyri. napolean's troops found the Rosetta stone, well before the 1840's, when JS acquired the papyri. The stone was discovered in 1799, and some people had acquires the ability to translate Egyptian, including the individual who sold the papyri to JS, and who validated JS translation of part of papyi, which were about Egyptian burial rituals, more specifically, it was part of the Book of the Dead, which was never translated into Scripture for us, only the parts that Abraham wrote. There were many parts of the papyri, but JS had to buy them all, or none, according to the seller. So he bought them all, and translated the parts regarding Abraham.

 

[emerald Dragon]

Jesus said, “Whom do men say that I am?”

And his disciples answered and said, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.”

And Jesus answered and said, “But whom do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. Thou art perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching thy Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching thy manhood. Who, although God and man, yet thou art not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.”


And Jesus said unto him--What????

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus said, “Whom do men say that I am?”

And his disciples answered and said, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.”

And Jesus answered and said, “But whom do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art the spirit brother of Satan and our elder brother."

And Jesus said unto him--What????

 

[baker]

Alma,

Now that I have a little more time, I wanted to follow up with you on your thoughts of your eternal marriage.

Yes, but it’s still more involved than that. A couple of my children are worthy but not eligible to attend a temple wedding.

If they are worthy, why are they not allowed to attend? I thought that was the whole criteria to enter the temple.

]

Probably the easiest answer is that we don’t believe that everything Jesus taught was recorded in the Bible, but that what we do believe is consistent with what’s found in the Bible.

I don't understand you here. Do you believe the biblical scriptures support a requirement for either "eternal" or "temple" marriage? If so, could you identify the specific scripture for me?

The teaching about the necessity to enter into eternal marriage is found in the book “Doctrine and Covenants.” A couple of biblical passages that come to mind on this subject, however, are: “It is not good for man to be alone,” and, “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

Thanks for the reference. Would this be Sec. 131 or 132 in your doctrine and covenants?

With respect to the other two quotes you list regarding God's command of marriage, have you read these quotes in their entire context of the scripture. If you do, I'm sure you'll see that these scriptures are not addressing either the ordinance of marriage or any requirement to be married. I would agree they sound good out of context, but I think the context of these quotes has nothing to do with God commanding or requiring people to be married. Would you agree? If not, may I ask how you conclude that these scriptures, in context, require marriage?

Nope, I don’t believe that there is a scale of sacredness in ordinances. We also perform baptisms in the temple, but those aren’t open to everyone either.

Interesting. What is the difference in the ordinance between the one being baptized in the temple and the one that is not. Why can anyone witness the baptism that is not performed in the temple vs the one that is. Is the one in the temple the one that is just baptizing names off a list?


Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[baker]

Baker,

I think getting married would make me more happy than getting splashed in the face by water.

Mabe the idea isn't that far off.

Oh, I believe there is a scripture that says "niether is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the lord" Isn't that what most christians going for? to be in the lord.

The refference is 1 cor. 11:11

Explorer

I agree that getting married is one of the happiest occasions in anyones life. Perhaps thats why it sounds so sad that parents and freinds would be excluded in a mormon temple wedding. I simply can't find any christian doctrine supporting such a practise.

I also agree that the scripture you quoted can be found in the reference you provided. I just dont find this reference supporting a requirement "to be married", let alone in a mormon temple. Thats really what I'm trying to find the support for.

But don't underestimate a good cold splash in the face, say, perhaps during the middle of a hot August afternoon!!

 

[solar_mirth]

in 1 corinthians 7:1, paul says that it is good for a man not to marry. it give him more time to devote to God. where is the biblical command that says we should marry? and why would paul contradict that? he doesn't. besides, paul himself never married, neither did Jesus. so i guess neither of them get to the third heaven, huh?

 

[twhite982]

in 1 corinthians 7:1, paul says that it is good for a man not to marry. it give him more time to devote to God. where is the biblical command that says we should marry?

In Genesis from God Himself. God does not command to replenish the earth (sex) outside of marriage.

and why would paul contradict that? he doesn't. besides, paul himself never married, neither did Jesus. so i guess neither of them get to the third heaven, huh?

You sure about that?
Paul was a pharisee and actually a pharisee of pharisees. The 1st of the 613 commandments of the Law was marriage. This was a requirement for a pharisee!

1 Cor 7:1 was an answer to a question asked. What was the question?
Paul throughout his epistles praised marriage. This restriction from marriage had to be due to special circumstances and not directed to everyone, hence Paul answered the direct question from the Corinthians.

There is no absolute proof though, but there is evidence that leads me to believe Paul was married then or earlier in his life and now was a widow.

TW

 

[solar_mirth]

Genesis

There is no absolute proof though, but there is evidence that leads me to believe Paul was married or possibly a widow.

TW

i would very much like to see this evidence.

and yes, i am sure about that. Paul is telling a person, yes it's ok to not marry. he says to do it if you can't control your sexual urgings, but you don't have to get married. i don't see how that verse can mean anything else.

 

[twhite982]

i would very much like to see this evidence.

.

What are the requirements of a pharisee?

 

[solar_mirth]

don't worry, getting married isn't one of them. i've already talked to a rabbi in new york about this stuff. i've been in discussions with mormons and JWs and others like this for several years now. so i've done some homework.

 

[twhite982]

and yes, i am sure about that. Paul is telling a person, yes it's ok to not marry. he says to do it if you can't control your sexual urgings, but you don't have to get married. i don't see how that verse can mean anything else.

Are you saying then that since I'm married Paul would consider me a sub-standard Christian if I lived during his time because I cannot control myself.

Look at all the beautiful analogies Paul gives of marriage between a man and a woman: Love the wife as Christ loved the church. Honor your husband. Our marriage relationship should be with passion and selfless service as it is with Christ.

I personally have grown because of my marriage in so many ways I couldn't even comprehend outside of my marriage.

TW

 

[twhite982]

don't worry, getting married isn't one of them. i've already talked to a rabbi in new york about this stuff. i've been in discussions with mormons and JWs and others like this for several years now. so i've done some homework.

What I've learned says marriage is one of the requirements.

I'll look into again for you.

Is marriage not a requirement to be a pharisee (Rabbi) today or during Paul's time?

TW