A Catholic " HI "

[ceeboo]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Concerning Joseph and his History. Joseph Smith was an obscure somewhat uneducated farm boy that was called and prepared by G-d – similar to Jesus and the ancient apostles (and John the Baptist). Because he was such an unknown; any historical accounts are most difficult to validate. Joseph’s life was often sought by those that disagreed with him. It is quite difficult for me to accept any account as objective of someone from a person willing to take the live of that person. That is a little extreme I think.

Concerning other Christians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a specific call to prepare for the coming of Christ on that great last day. We are charged (according to Prophesy) to gather the scattered of Israel according to the prophesies concerning the House of Ephraim. The call is to every nation, kindred, tongue and people – we believe Israel was scattered among all nations. We have amassed one of the worlds most effective and respected missionary forces by calling our worthy young men (age 19 – 27) to serve two years at their own expense. We welcome all to bring with them their faith to prepare their hearts to welcome Christ.

I personally identify anti-Mormons based on two criteria:

First – they are more concerned about preaching what they believe is wrong with Mormons than they are concerned about teaching what is right about Christ or what-ever their personal belief is.

Second – They pretend to understand the doctrine of the LDS or Mormons better that the members themselves – claiming we have our own doctrine wrong.

Beyond that – it is my personal belief that differences of opinion are healthy. For example Harry Read (a Democrat) and Mitt Romney (a Republican) are both LDS – Mormons in good standing with the church and it members.

The Traveler

Hello Traveler,

I appreciate the responses,

I have looked at a few resorces ( J lindsay, Fairlds, CAF, and a couple different google searches ) as to consider this JS " history" . I do hear what you have said in this regard but would aslo like your perspective on the varying accounts of the actual " translation".
To be very transparent with you, I have a very hard time with this. I look forward to your contribution, if you would.

Concerning your post on " other Christians "- I get it and I need no further " ignorant be gone spray " LOL I appreciate the explanation from the LDS stance.

The anti-Mormon part, I have new found unerstanding because of you, Misshalfway, and others that were willing to share. I would add ( if your interested ) that my limited scope of this ( I live in Michigan, have never seen these missionaries, only know a few Mormons, and I have never even seen a Temple in person, is why I have little experience in this ANTI thing.

Concerning your post about Harry and Mitt - NO COMMENT LOL

By the way, why do you ( I have also seen others ) type G-D ????

Thanks again Traveler,

God bless,
Carl

[ceeboo]

Originally Posted by breeb

I dont have a lot of time to answer so I am choosing to answer your last question. I feel this has been coming up a lot lately. To me Anti-Mormon is anyone who goes out of there way to bring us down for believeing as we do. I live in Utah. I have all my life. My first encounter with "anti-mormons" would be in 9th grade. My first year in seminary they were outside the seminary building handing out pamphlets. Another time would be when we went to my brother in-laws 7th Day Adventist church for my nieces blessing. They were handing out fliers for their Wed class on why the Mormons are wrong. A 3rd example is every conference. If youre not aware, we have those twice a year. In April and October. They stand outside protesting our beloved Prophet. They even protested Pres. Hinckley's funeral.
To me that is anti-mormon. As far as I know we dont have missionaries outside other churches telling them why they are wrong.

To me its not that they have a different truth. Its because they spend there time trying to bring our church down.

Hi Breeb,

Thanks, as I have just posted, due to you and others I now have a much better understanding of this " anti-Mormon " question that I had.

One thing I feel confident we can agree on is that far to many times in our human history we can find disgusting and hatefull action from one against another ( and it is STILL going on all over the world today )

Your last comment " Not different truth rather bring ours down " speaks VOLUMES and very well said in my humble Catholic opinion.

God bless,
Carl

[Islander]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Good morning all,

It's me ( The Catholic visitor guy )

In my journey on this forum ( to gain the perspective I was searching for ) I now have a few questions that I would appreciate the " LDS " answers to so I may be able to sort and digest the wealth of information that is available here.

If any of my new LDS friends would be so kind as to offer their thoughts I would appreciate the time.

My questions are: ( Please consider my " Catholic roots " when answering )

Does the LDS Church consider itself the only " restoration Church " ?

Does the LDS consider it to be a " protestent " Church ?

How does the Church determine when " prophits " are speaking as such or not ?

How does the Church replace it's prophit after the current prophit passes ? ( is there only one at any given time in it's history ?)

Do " members " consider any other possible account of " JS history " or is it faith ?

Do " members " consider the 40,000 plus other christian denominations " brethren " ?

Is the term " anti Mormon " applied to any who might find a different " truth " ?

I will stop there,

I hope my questions were not offensive

God bless,
Carl

Welcome to the forum:

I was wondering why you chose to spell "prophets" they way you did?

Just a comment, since most other questions have been answered by others. Also, the gospels are all different. Some accounts are described in Mathew and not so in Mark. Luke tends to be more explicit. But we hold ALL to be accurate and valid accounts.

If I was trying to understand the NT and the life of Jesus of Nazareth I would not go read "The Passover Conspiracy." So, in order to know Joseph one needs to read the accounts of those that knew him best.

[ceeboo]

Originally Posted by Islander

Welcome to the forum:

I was wondering why you chose to spell "prophets" they way you did?

Just a comment, since most other questions have been answered by others. Also, the gospels are all different. Some accounts are described in Mathew and not so in Mark. Luke tends to be more explicit. But we hold ALL to be accurate and valid accounts.

If I was trying to understand the NT and the life of Jesus of Nazareth I would not go read "The Passover Conspiracy." So, in order to know Joseph one needs to read the accounts of those that knew him best.

Hi Islander,

Prophets (" prophits" in my post ) LOL typo sorry I type with two fingers

To be respectfull and kind , I will elect not to respond to the rest of your post that you offered. ( but I do appreciate you giving it )

God bless,
Carl

[Islander]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hi Islander,

Prophets (" prophits" in my post ) LOL typo sorry I type with two fingers

To be respectfull and kind , I will elect not to respond to the rest of your post that you offered. ( but I do appreciate you giving it )

God bless,
Carl

Oh, no on the contrary. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on the matter. I read your posts but I did not understand what you mean by "different accounts of JS." I extrapolated that you were referring to contemporary writings of those outside of the church or newspaper accounts of the time period. That is why I mention "The Passover Conspiracy" as an example of an extant record to the bible. It paints quite a different account of the days leading to the crucifixion than the one in the Gospels thus it should not be the primary source if I'm researching Christianity, for example.

So, by all means, do explain.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hello Traveler,



By the way, why do you ( I have also seen others ) type G-D ????

Thanks again Traveler,

God bless,
Carl

There are several reasons for me (I speak for no one else in this manner) and I will summarize them with the following:

1: It is something I have adopted for the internet to help remind me not to use the L-rd's name or reference in vein.

2: As I have traveled I have learned that many that access the internet from distant lands cannot (because of religious morals) copy any material where references to G-d are completely spelled out. I never know when someone might be reading and want to copy something and send it to someone else or keep it - It may be the only access to something Christian. I do now want to keep it from them - so out of respect for them I write so they may keep my words.

3: In every ancient text of scripture (I know of no exceptions) the name of G-d has been altered - I assume they knew something that has been lost in time. So I continue as a reminder to me that I do not have all the answers or reasons.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hello Traveler,

I appreciate the responses,

I have looked at a few resorces ( J lindsay, Fairlds, CAF, and a couple different google searches ) as to consider this JS " history" . I do hear what you have said in this regard but would aslo like your perspective on the varying accounts of the actual " translation".
To be very transparent with you, I have a very hard time with this. I look forward to your contribution, if you would.

Thanks again Traveler,

God bless,
Carl

The Book of Mormon came to us through a young man (early twenties) from the American frontier with no formal education and very little education of any kind. Joseph was given divine help to accomplish the task – there can be no rational argument that Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon or other scriptures on his own abilities. This, unlike most modern contributions to religious thinking, is not the result of learned scholars and a life time of study. It is a personal observation of mine that there is great difficulty in describing spiritual thing of divine nature among the societies of man. The scriptures often make reference to such things as appearing “foolish”.

I believe the challenge is to perceive such things by their content and contribution. For example there are some rather interesting things in the Book of Mormon about traveling on the Arabian Peninsula that were not known in the Americas during the time of Joseph Smith. If you like I could summarize some of these things I have learned.

I would also point out that one of the main arguments used by the Pharisees and Scribes (the ancient scholars and experts in scripture) concerning the teaching of Jesus was not based on the value of his teachings but that Jesus was not expert and learned. Or in other words that Jesus did not use the accepted methods to learn and qualify his teachings, therefore, they argued that his teaching were bogus. Why should Christians use one method to qualify the rich and deep lessons learned from Jesus and then use a completely different method to learn of Joseph Smith? The method of learning spiritual truth should be the same – regardless of the preceived source.

I believe Jesus put it thus: To judge a tree by it fruit - for a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit nor will a good tree bring forth corrupt fruit.

The Traveler

[ceeboo]

Originally Posted by Traveler

There are several reasons for me (I speak for no one else in this manner) and I will summarize them with the following:

1: It is something I have adopted for the internet to help remind me not to use the L-rd's name or reference in vein.

2: As I have traveled I have learned that many that access the internet from distant lands cannot (because of religious morals) copy any material where references to G-d are completely spelled out. I never know when someone might be reading and want to copy something and send it to someone else or keep it - It may be the only access to something Christian. I do now want to keep it from them - so out of respect for them I write so they may keep my words.

3: In every ancient text of scripture (I know of no exceptions) the name of G-d has been altered - I assume they knew something that has been lost in time. So I continue as a reminder to me that I do not have all the answers or reasons.

The Traveler

Hi again Traveler,

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

God bless,
Carl

[ceeboo]

Originally Posted by Traveler

The Book of Mormon came to us through a young man (early twenties) from the American frontier with no formal education and very little education of any kind. Joseph was given divine help to accomplish the task – there can be no rational argument that Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon or other scriptures on his own abilities. This, unlike most modern contributions to religious thinking, is not the result of learned scholars and a life time of study. It is a personal observation of mine that there is great difficulty in describing spiritual thing of divine nature among the societies of man. The scriptures often make reference to such things as appearing “foolish”.

I believe the challenge is to perceive such things by their content and contribution. For example there are some rather interesting things in the Book of Mormon about traveling on the Arabian Peninsula that were not known in the Americas during the time of Joseph Smith. If you like I could summarize some of these things I have learned.

I would also point out that one of the main arguments used by the Pharisees and Scribes (the ancient scholars and experts in scripture) concerning the teaching of Jesus was not based on the value of his teachings but that Jesus was not expert and learned. Or in other words that Jesus did not use the accepted methods to learn and qualify his teachings, therefore, they argued that his teaching were bogus. Why should Christians use one method to qualify the rich and deep lessons learned from Jesus and then use a completely different method to learn of Joseph Smith? The method of learning spiritual truth should be the same – regardless of the preceived source.

I believe Jesus put it thus: To judge a tree by it fruit - for a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit nor will a good tree bring forth corrupt fruit.

The Traveler

Hello again Traveler,

I really do appreciate your time in responding to my questions of you.

Some thoughts of mine in reaction to your post:
" There can be no rational argument that JS could have brought forth the BOM by his own abilites " I have read very rational arguments that atleast suggest other possabilities.
( your comments please )

" The Arabian peninsula " ( forgive me if this is not the last great fight and extermination of the Nephites material ) I read on the J Lindsay site ( I assume you know who this is ) The catastrophic battle of thousands with swords, breast plates, chariots, etc. I then read sources of absolutly no archeolgy findings at all from this event . ( your comments would again be helpfull to me )

I would agree that the method of learning spiritual truth should be the same, however I sincerly do not see your Jesus and JS comparison. I would further agree that many do not ( and indeed still do not) believe in the truth of what Jesus spoke. The question I had was not really what JS spoke ( my opinion of that is a mute point ) but where the source of the speaking originated ( translation of the BOM). This translation, and the varying historical accounts of the translation, is where I have a really hard time.

Lastly, the " tree and good/bad fruit " is a little confusing to me. Are you suggesting that the choice of Church in which you belong determines good or bad fruit ?

Thanks again for your time,
God bless,
Carl

[ceeboo]

Originally Posted by Islander

Oh, no on the contrary. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on the matter. I read your posts but I did not understand what you mean by "different accounts of JS." I extrapolated that you were referring to contemporary writings of those outside of the church or newspaper accounts of the time period. That is why I mention "The Passover Conspiracy" as an example of an extant record to the bible. It paints quite a different account of the days leading to the crucifixion than the one in the Gospels thus it should not be the primary source if I'm researching Christianity, for example.

So, by all means, do explain.

Hello again Islander,

Okay, I will try and explain.

The different accounts of JS history has a few layers in my mind, I will offer the one that gives me the most trouble. ( I would add that because it gives me trouble is NOT to demand a satisfactory reply, rather it is to ask LDS members that would willingly lend me their observations.)

The " translation " by JS from the gold tabs. The varying acoounts go like this.

He had gold bars in front of him while scribes, sitting next to him, wrote it down.

He sometimes has gold tabs present and sometimes he did not ( they were hidden in woods )

He " translated BOM from using seer stones while looking in the bottom of a hat ( NO GOLD TABS)

he used urim and tellium ( sorry forgot the words and spelling ) " similar to eye spectacles"
to translate.

To me, ( I realize I am nobody specialial and indeed broken like the rest of us ) to " traslate " would be to take an unknown language and put it in the language for the people to undersatnd. If the ancient gold tabs were not even in the same room as JS, what was he translating from?

I am NOT judging, I AM VERY confused as to the very birth and origin of the BOM.

Thanks,
God bless,
Carl