Mormon Teachings

[Halcyon]

I'm aware of where the papyri came from, yes. Joseph Smith never said he translated the hieroglyphics by his own knowledge; in fact, he claimed to translate them using the Urim and Thummim,

And where did you get that remark about him using his magic rocks to translate? The official word of the LDS is: "However, his precise methodology remains unknown."

As this site suggests:

From the evidence that we have today, it's quite safe to say that Joseph Smith did not have the Book of Abraham or the Book of Joseph in front of him in the form of these papyri because they bear no relationship to the contents of the stories or to his translation.​

Could you please use something from an objective, unbiased source? Testimony from an apologetic source has ZERO academic value. What the authors of this paper need you to believe in order give their theory credit is that there is much doubt as to what exact papyri Smith's original translation came from(even though theone's in the museum's collection match the facsimilies in Pearl of Great Price), and since the papyri in the museum's collection have been throughly discredited as the sources for the book of Abraham(EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE ONES THAT MATCH THE FACSIMILIES IN THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE), then there MUST HAVE BEEN MORE PAPYRI THAT SOMEHOW WENT MISSING. These fabled missing papyri would have been the basis for the book, and since they're missing, the Book is safe against defamation.

In case you didn't notice, and you probably didn't, the entire argument is based on a "MAYBE." MAYBE there's some other papyri that were missed or lost along the way that could have been the ones he used, even though these over here are the ones we have pictures of in our scriptures.

But all that aside. The LDS does not deny that they hold those three facsimiles to be "related"(nice fudge factor) to the book of Abe. Whatever they may tell you know, those 3 WERE held to be definitive excerpts from the book. It is the proper translation of those 3 facsimiles that is the invalidator of the book, because those 3 facsimiles are actually...well, I'm sure you can guess.

NOW, having gone through all that(some of it just for the hell of it), I would like you to know that world does know which fragment of papyri Joseph "translated" into the BoA.

" . . there are in existence today in the Church Historian's Office what seem to be two separate manuscripts of Joseph Smith's translations from the papyrus rolls, presumably in the hand writing of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. . . . One manuscript is the Alphabet and Grammar. . . . Within this Alphabet and Grammar there is a copy of the characters, together with their translation of Abraham 1:4-28 only. The second and separate of the two manuscripts contains none of the Alphabet and Grammar but is a manuscript of the text of the Book of Abraham as published in the first installment of the Times and Seasons March 1, 1842 (The Story of the Pearl of Great Price, 1962, pp.172-73). "

The fragment itself can be seen printed as the last photograph on page 41 of the February 1968 issue of the mormon magazine "Improvement Era," under the label: "XI. Small 'Sensen' text (unillustrated)."

I'll give you 3 guesses as to what this means.

Not necessarily. Look on the web sites I refer you to below for further reading.

I just wasted an hour of my life reading opinions, "maybes," "probablys," and "could bes," from biased, unqualifed sources. Please tell me which of these sites has anything to say disputing the known fact that the facsimiles in the PoGP are exerpts from the egyption book of the dead/book of breathings/whatever. Not a single one I read through had anything to say disputing it.

Since no actual translation was ever forthcoming, and since there is no actual evidence for a translation being made, most believing LDS conclude that it is safe to assume that no translation actually occurred.​

You do realize that the site there mentions nothing about Joe's personal claims about the plates, about what he said they were, which is really the most damning part about the whole event. Instead, like I've seen with all the other sites you've brought up, it takes the argument elsewhere, to benign semantics addressed so thoroughly as to take you're attention away from the actual problem.

Yes, I'd consider them an authority on those sciences. However, they are not a religious authority, at least, not regarding the Lehites in the Americas, IMHO.

Then if the people of the forum do not mind me doing it this once, I will cut and paste for you:

Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Randolfo, I apologize for being so negative with you. I'm not trying to attack your cultural heritage or anything; I'm just sticking up for my own beliefs. However, I'm out of line for coming down so hard on you.

no problem, I understand, we both look at this problem in similar ways, as an attack on our "history",
I can't fault you, no need to apologize, I won’t

It's just frustrating sometimes when people attack my religious beliefs and call my religion a "cult" when I know it isn't. Please accept an olive branch of peace between us. I certainly don't have the right to judge you, although I will defend my religion if you attack it. See, I have a heritage too, and when you say things against it, I too feel like defending it.

Peace.

no problem, I understand, & like you I intend to defend my own, but don't take it personally, its just debate, OK?

 

[Marlin]

I'm aware of where the papyri came from, yes. Joseph Smith never said he translated the hieroglyphics by his own knowledge; in fact, he claimed to translate them using the Urim and Thummim,​

And where did you get that remark about him using his magic rocks to translate? The official word of the LDS is: "However, his precise methodology remains unknown."

I picked it up somewhere. I'll agree, though, with the "precise methodology remains unknown" remark.

As this site suggests:

From the evidence that we have today, it's quite safe to say that Joseph Smith did not have the Book of Abraham or the Book of Joseph in front of him in the form of these papyri because they bear no relationship to the contents of the stories or to his translation. ”​

Could you please use something from an objective, unbiased source? Testimony from an apologetic source has ZERO academic value.

I would disagree; in fact, I am a great believer in the abilities of apologetic writers defending the LDS religion to present truthful, believable arguments that you don't find anywhere else in academia. Discrediting the argument because it is from an apologetic author is nothing more than dressing up the ad hominem logical fallacy in fancy garb. Consider the argument on its own merits, regardless of where it comes from.

What the authors of this paper need you to believe in order give their theory credit is that there is much doubt as to what exact papyri Smith's original translation came from(even though theone's in the museum's collection match the facsimilies in Pearl of Great Price), and since the papyri in the museum's collection have been throughly discredited as the sources for the book of Abraham(EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE ONES THAT MATCH THE FACSIMILIES IN THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE), then there MUST HAVE BEEN MORE PAPYRI THAT SOMEHOW WENT MISSING. These fabled missing papyri would have been the basis for the book, and since they're missing, the Book is safe against defamation.

So what are you confused about? The Book is indeed safe from defamation since these "fabled missing papyri" aren't available to us today.

In case you didn't notice, and you probably didn't, the entire argument is based on a "MAYBE." MAYBE there's some other papyri that were missed or lost along the way that could have been the ones he used, even though these over here are the ones we have pictures of in our scriptures.

Sometimes all we have is "maybe" and our own testimonies, given by personal revelation from God, that the scriptures are true. A "maybe" explanation is better than none at all, and it constitutes a "ready reply" to critics' arguments, even though the stronger witness comes within our hearts from God.

But all that aside. The LDS does not deny that they hold those three facsimiles to be "related"(nice fudge factor) to the book of Abe. Whatever they may tell you know, those 3 WERE held to be definitive excerpts from the book. It is the proper translation of those 3 facsimiles that is the invalidator of the book, because those 3 facsimiles are actually...well, I'm sure you can guess.

The theory has been advanced that Joseph Smith didn't need the actual manuscript of the Book of Abraham to translate it. After all, he did a translation of the Bible without biblical manuscripts, and the Book of Moses was by revelation as well, without the actual manuscript. Why couldn't he do the same with the Book of Abraham?

NOW, having gone through all that(some of it just for the hell of it), I would like you to know that world does know which fragment of papyri Joseph "translated" into the BoA.

" . . there are in existence today in the Church Historian's Office what seem to be two separate manuscripts of Joseph Smith's translations from the papyrus rolls, presumably in the hand writing of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. . . . One manuscript is the Alphabet and Grammar. . . . Within this Alphabet and Grammar there is a copy of the characters, together with their translation of Abraham 1:4-28 only. The second and separate of the two manuscripts contains none of the Alphabet and Grammar but is a manuscript of the text of the Book of Abraham as published in the first installment of the Times and Seasons March 1, 1842 (The Story of the Pearl of Great Price, 1962, pp.172-73). "

The fragment itself can be seen printed as the last photograph on page 41 of the February 1968 issue of the mormon magazine "Improvement Era," under the label: "XI. Small 'Sensen' text (unillustrated)."

I'll give you 3 guesses as to what this means.

It means that Joseph Smith must have been inspired to translate the BoA; otherwise we would have the dilemma you present, that the facsimiles don't match the translation. I don't know which of the two theories is true, whether JS translated without the actual manuscript, or whether there is another papyrus, but I do know that the Book of Abraham is true, based on my testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

This may not be academically acceptable, to rely on a spiritual witness, but it works for me. YMMV.

Not necessarily. Look on the web sites I refer you to below for further reading. ”​

I just wasted an hour of my life reading opinions, "maybes," "probablys," and "could bes," from biased, unqualifed sources. Please tell me which of these sites has anything to say disputing the known fact that the facsimiles in the PoGP are exerpts from the egyption book of the dead/book of breathings/whatever. Not a single one I read through had anything to say disputing it.

Again, my testimony is a spiritual witness and cannot be disproved.

Since no actual translation was ever forthcoming, and since there is no actual evidence for a translation being made, most believing LDS conclude that it is safe to assume that no translation actually occurred.​

You do realize that the site there mentions nothing about Joe's personal claims about the plates, about what he said they were, which is really the most damning part about the whole event. Instead, like I've seen with all the other sites you've brought up, it takes the argument elsewhere, to benign semantics addressed so thoroughly as to take you're attention away from the actual problem.

Okay, here's a better site:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/history/kinderhook.htm

Yes, I'd consider them an authority on those sciences. However, they are not a religious authority, at least, not regarding the Lehites in the Americas, IMHO.​

Then if the people of the forum do not mind me doing it this once, I will cut and paste for you:

Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

Here ya go:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_smithsonian.htm

 

[Marlin]

no problem, I understand, we both look at this problem in similar ways, as an attack on our "history",
I can't fault you, no need to apologize, I won’t

no problem, I understand, & like you I intend to defend my own, but don't take it personally, its just debate, OK?

No problem. Good man!

 

[Jenyar]

Sin is always a threat, even after we have "entered in the narrow way." One isn't saved at conversion; one must endure to the end in faithful obedience to the commandments in order to gain salvation. The grace of Christ is all-important in gaining salvation, but works are also important.

Works are important, but not for salvation. Salvation comes through the forgiveness of sins - past and future. Once one enters into the covenant relationship with Christ, sin is something to be done away with, not something to fear.

The reason I recommend praying about the Book of Mormon is, it will prove to you that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and if so, that the claims to Priesthood authority the LDS Church espouses are true. You need to be baptized by someone in authority in order to gain salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. Without this baptism, you cannot enter it.

Joseph Smith failed to meet the criteria for a biblical prophet on more than one occasion. Whether it's "official doctrine" or not, this was the man who said "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings, pg. 345). This was the man whose "new revelations" were little different than that of his contemporary Campbellites (est. c. 1914, Ohio). Yet a month before his death, he boasted:

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet" (History of the Church 6:408-409)​

I understand that you feel the need to defend his heritage, but this man's life never reflected his prophetic claims, i.e. he was a bad testimony to himself. The first apostles had authority to judge even over angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3), but you would rather trust a new "spiritual" witness than the ones Christ anointed?

It means that Joseph Smith must have been inspired to translate the BoA; otherwise we would have the dilemma you present, that the facsimiles don't match the translation. I don't know which of the two theories is true, whether JS translated without the actual manuscript, or whether there is another papyrus, but I do know that the Book of Abraham is true, based on my testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

In An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer (one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon) wrote:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."​

Joseph Smith's brother William adds "The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God".
So according to the witnesses, no translation actually occurred from the sources themselves, not even from the gold plates. Doesn't that make the existence of a "source" rather redundant? Why did Joseph Smith need the plates or the papyri at all? Yet he claimed it was "Abraham's own hand on papyrus". He even had Michael Chandler (from whom he bought the manuscripts) certify his expertise in translating the Egyptian characters.

So if you minimalize the direct translation of the manuscripts, you are minimizing Smith's credibiliy as prophet. And if you accept Smith's claims as God-ordained translator, his failure to translate his source material accurately is even more condemning.

From what you've said, it seems you're certain of the truth of Mormon doctrine only as far as it echoes the Bible, but beyond that it depends on the dubious testimony of Joseph Smith and some teachings that you "don't know much about". God saves through Christ, and baptism is into his death (Romans 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-29). He baptizes with the Holy Spirit, who is the only testimony we need of God's promises. Paul considered this message so sufficient that he didn't even baptize more than a few people during his whole ministry - because it's not the authority of the person doing the baptism that saves you:

1 Corinthians 1:13-18
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? ... For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.​

Jesus promised, "I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am" and "No one comes to the Father except through me". And according to Hebrews 9 He is the only sufficient mediator, the only one fit to bring people into God's presence, and "he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." If you want me to believe there is any room for "missing authority", if you believe like J.F. Smith that there is "no salvation without Joseph Smith" (DS 1:189), you'll have to explain Hebrews to me.

 

[Marlin]

Sin is always a threat, even after we have "entered in the narrow way." One isn't saved at conversion; one must endure to the end in faithful obedience to the commandments in order to gain salvation. The grace of Christ is all-important in gaining salvation, but works are also important.

Works are important, but not for salvation. Salvation comes through the forgiveness of sins - past and future. Once one enters into the covenant relationship with Christ, sin is something to be done away with, not something to fear.

It's true that one need not fear sin to avoid it; however, the Bible makes it clear that we can fall away from grace after entering the covenant relationship with Christ, and that this condition is much to be feared. For example:

Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Hebrews 10:26, 27
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

2 Peter 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

“ The reason I recommend praying about the Book of Mormon is, it will prove to you that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and if so, that the claims to Priesthood authority the LDS Church espouses are true. You need to be baptized by someone in authority in order to gain salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. Without this baptism, you cannot enter it.

Yet a month before his death, he boasted:
"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet" (History of the Church 6:408-409)

From http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/eternal_judge.htm

The detractors are referring to a statement Joseph Smith delivered in Nauvoo, Illinois, in May, 1844, shortly before his death. It is true that he was boasting, having patterned his address after a talk by Paul recorded in 2 Corinthians chapter 11. In that sermon, Paul the Apostle was doing some boasting of his own to the Gentiles. Joseph Smith picked up on Paul's theme when he said [Jenyar's above quote]....

While we aren't sure this is a completely accurate quote, let us assume that it is. Detractors read into this statement that the Prophet was saying he did a greater work than Jesus Christ. Considering the entire text and the circumstance of the time, he seems to be saying only that he was able to keep the Church together better than others did, including Jesus Christ. Surely Joseph Smith would be the first to agree that keeping a church together is not a greater or a more significant work than what was
done by Jesus.

There is nothing as significant as being the God of Israel, taking upon oneself the sins of the world, dying for all mankind that they might live, nor being resurrected.

Surely, everlasting life is the greatest gift anyone could give. Nevertheless, the Lord himself said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father" (John 14:12). To what greater work could the Savior be referring? Perhaps the Lord means a larger work, but certainly not more significant.

For example, John the Baptist presumably baptized more people than Jesus, Paul may have converted more as a missionary, Moses led more Israelites out of bondage, Noah built a bigger ship, and Joseph Smith kept the Church together longer.

The point should be clear: if greater means quantity, there are many who fulfilled the Savior's promise that his followers would do "greater works," and this includes Joseph Smith.

I understand that you feel the need to defend his heritage, but this man's life never reflected his prophetic claims, i.e. he was a bad testimony to himself. The first apostles had authority to judge even over angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3), but you would rather trust a new "spiritual" witness than the ones Christ anointed?

The spiritual witness I have received IS from Christ, as is the Priesthood, which came directly from "the ones Christ anointed" (Peter, James and John passed it down to Joseph Smith).

“ It means that Joseph Smith must have been inspired to translate the BoA; otherwise we would have the dilemma you present, that the facsimiles don't match the translation. I don't know which of the two theories is true, whether JS translated without the actual manuscript, or whether there is another papyrus, but I do know that the Book of Abraham is true, based on my testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

In An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer (one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon) wrote: "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." Joseph Smith's brother William adds "The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God". So according to the witnesses, no translation actually occurred from the sources themselves, not even from the gold plates. Doesn't that make the existence of a "source" rather redundant? Why did Joseph Smith need the plates or the papyri at all?

Yet he claimed it was "Abraham's own hand on papyrus". He even had Michael Chandler (from whom he bought the manuscripts) certify his expertise in translating the Egyptian characters.

From http://www.jefflindsay.com/BOMIntro.shtml#5b

Though we do not know many details on how Joseph's translation was accomplished, Joseph and several of the witnesses who saw him translate make reference to a divine tool called the Urim and Thummim that he had received from the angel to assist in the translation process. The Urim and Thummim is mentioned several times but not explained in the Bible (Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65), but apparently is a divine tool which allows "seers" (those who see) to see special things with the power of God (Mosiah 8:13; see also 1 Sam. 28:6). Some of these witnesses said that Joseph looked into the instrument and could see translated words or sentences. One recorded revelation to Joseph made mention of him having "sight and power to translate" (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12). According to Orson Pratt, an early Apostle of the Church, Joseph said that he had used the Urim and Thummim to translate when he was inexperienced at translation, but with time it was no longer necessary (Millennial Star, Aug. 11, 1874, pp. 498-499). Clearly, the translation was not done by ordinary intellectual processes, yet it was not an automatic or easy task, but required faith, mental effort and concentration (Doctrine and Covenants 9:5,7).

Still, the details of how Joseph did it are not really known. Witnesses saw him using the Urim and Thummim and thought he was seeing the translation, but what actually went on is not known.

We do know that Joseph sat with the plates and verbally gave the translation to scribes.

So if you minimalize the direct translation of the manuscripts, you are minimizing Smith's credibiliy as prophet. And if you accept Smith's claims as God-ordained translator, his failure to translate his source material accurately is even more condemning.

I didn't say he translated inaccurately. That is the anti-Mormon view, not mine.

From what you've said, it seems you're certain of the truth of Mormon doctrine only as far as it echoes the Bible, but beyond that it depends on the dubious testimony of Joseph Smith and some teachings that you "don't know much about".

We don't know much about the specifics of deification; however, we do believe in it.

God saves through Christ, and baptism is into his death (Romans 6:3-4). He baptizes with the Holy Spirit, who is the only testimony we need of God's promises. Paul considered this message so sufficient that he didn't even baptize more than a few people during his whole ministry - because it's not the authority of the person doing the baptism that saves you:
1 Corinthians 1:13-18
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? ... For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

We are baptized both physically by water, and spiritually by the Holy Spirit. Yes, testimony of the truth comes through the Spirit. Paul is referring to his calling as an apostle when he says he wasn't sent to baptize, IMHO. I think he was talking about his specific apostolic calling, not the dubious assumption that baptism isn't necessary.

John 3:3-5
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[Jenyar]

We are baptized both physically by water, and spiritually by the Holy Spirit. Yes, testimony of the truth comes through the Spirit. Paul is referring to his calling as an apostle when he says he wasn't sent to baptize, IMHO. I think he was talking about his specific apostolic calling, not the dubious assumption that baptism isn't necessary.

You've misunderstood my argument. I wasn't talking about the necessity of baptism (although in Acts 10 the Holy Spirit came upon the people first, and they were only baptised in water afterwards), but about the authority you say needs to accompany it. I say that authority is Christ himself - the testimony of the Spirit - not any church, and least of all the Mormon church.

PS. Where does the Bible say Peter, James and John were "anointed"?

 

[Marlin]

You've misunderstood my argument. I wasn't talking about the necessity of baptism (although in Acts 10 the Holy Spirit came upon the people first, and they were only baptised in water afterwards), but about the authority you say needs to accompany it. I say that authority is Christ himself - the testimony of the Spirit - not any church, and least of all the Mormon church.

Okay, I did misunderstand you. The Holy Spirit may come upon us without us being baptized, it's true, but the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to us after baptism by laying on of hands by someone in authority. The gift of the Holy Spirit is different than just having the Spirit occasionally; it means that as long as we are worthy, the Spirit is our constant Companion, leading us in the ways of truth and light always. This gift is only given through a direct line of Priesthood authority leading back to Christ. This gift and the ordinance of baptism must come from one who holds Priesthood authority. Otherwise, it isn't of efficacy.

PS. Where does the Bible say Peter, James and John were "anointed"?

I dunno offhand.

 

[Jenyar]

Okay, I did misunderstand you. The Holy Spirit may come upon us without us being baptized, it's true, but the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to us after baptism by laying on of hands by someone in authority. The gift of the Holy Spirit is different than just having the Spirit occasionally; it means that as long as we are worthy, the Spirit is our constant Companion, leading us in the ways of truth and light always. This gift is only given through a direct line of Priesthood authority leading back to Christ. This gift and the ordinance of baptism must come from one who holds Priesthood authority. Otherwise, it isn't of efficacy.

There is no indication of priesthood or baptism being such a gift. The gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were indeed bestowed by the laying on of hands (in the way of a Jewish blessing), are for special purposes of God, "distributed according to his will" (Heb. 2:4), not for essential purposes. The Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, but the gifts are for the church. Paul even asks that we desire them eagerly (1 Cor. 14), implying they can be received by other means as well.

1 Cor. 12:7-11
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.​

Even Peter and John had to pray before they could dispense God's gift (Acts 8:15), so they could not do it by their own authority. Simon Magus, who "believed and was baptized", was not spiritually commissioned along with the rest of the believers, and when he tried to obtain a commissioning (through the laying on of hands), Peter rebuked him for trying to buy God's gift. Yet they never implied he lacked anything, just that he should repent.

I dunno offhand.

Because it doesn't. The only anointing is by God's spirit. You may see for yourself who are called "anointed":

1 Cor. 1:20-22
For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

1 John 2:20-27
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth (cf. John 15:26). I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.

I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.​

And as the Spirit has taught me, I intend to remain in Christ, and place my hope for salvation and eternal life completely in Him.

 

[water]

Why is this thread still going?
Haven't you all had enough by now?
The thing is going in circles, wah-wah-wah.

Gal. 5:26:
Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Dammit, instead of writng love letters, you write pages of this shit -- to what avail?

Men are just so endlessly fond of utter stupidity.

 

[Marlin]

And as the Spirit has taught me, I intend to remain in Christ, and place my hope for salvation and eternal life completely in Him.

Then you will be led to believe in the Book of Mormon and to join the LDS Church, for it is His Church completely.

 

[water]

Then you will be led to believe in the Book of Mormon and to join the LDS Church, for it is His Church completely.

If this ever happens, I am going to go to South Africa on foot, if it so be, and beat that devil out of him!

 

[Jenyar]

Then you will be led to believe in the Book of Mormon and to join the LDS Church, for it is His Church completely.

It's the book of Mormon, not the book of Christ, and also seems more the church of "Latter-day Saints" than the Church of Christ (it's original name). Or to put it another way: I know the Spirit of Christ, but I don't know the spirit of Moroni.

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."​

The true church has no walls but Christ himself. His church are the people he bought with his blood (Acts 20:28), known by God himself (1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9) - "Christ is the head of the church, his body - the fullness of him who fills everything in every way - of which he is the Saviour" (Eph 1&5:23). And compared to "the fullness of him who fills everything in every way", the Book of Mormon is as incomplete as any other book, and Joseph Smith, his church and its apostles are as insufficient as any other earthly kingdom to ensure anybody anything.

 

[Marlin]

It's the book of Mormon, not the book of Christ

Actually, the title of the book is The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Have you ever read it? It preaches Christ all the way through it.

 

[Jenyar]

Actually, the title of the book is The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Have you ever read it? It preaches Christ all the way through it.

I already have a testament of Christ in which I share communion, thank you. But you're not trying to lead me to Christ, are you? You're trying to lead me into another man-made religion (or at best, a continuation of one).

2 Cor. 3:5-6
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.​

Christ already died for his testament ("For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" - Heb. 9:16). So if the book of mormon is of another testament, it is also of another gospel.

 

[Marlin]

Actually, I am trying to lead you to Christ and His true Church. But whatever...I can see that I'm not getting anywhere. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

 

[Satyr]

I think more than Mormon teachings we should discuss moron teachings.

 

[Jenyar]

Actually, I am trying to lead you to Christ and His true Church. But whatever...I can see that I'm not getting anywhere. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

We won't get anywhere, because like so many churches before, Joseph Smith had simply redefined God's church and called it "true". One thing is for certain though: Christ is in heaven and we're down here, so the judging of who is "true" will be done by Him. But nothing He said while on earth makes me think I need anything for salvation but Him (no matter how you wish to define "salvation").

 

[water]

I wonder what sort of tick or trick or something is it, that the words "Mormon" and "moron" are so similar. And also, one of the main characters in the Book of Mormon is called "Moroni", and another "Moroniah".

I mean, the word "moron" did exist in the 1870's, right?

Sometimes, I think Joseph Smith was conducting a mass socio-psychological experiment, a long-term study whereby the interpretation of its results is to be conducted by whoever gets the chance. The topic: "How far do human stupidity and gullibility go?"

 

[Marlin]

I wonder what sort of tick or trick or something is it, that the words "Mormon" and "moron" are so similar. And also, one of the main characters in the Book of Mormon is called "Moroni", and another "Moroniah".

I mean, the word "moron" did exist in the 1870's, right?

That would be the 1820's, actually.

Sometimes, I think Joseph Smith was conducting a mass socio-psychological experiment, a long-term study whereby the interpretation of its results is to be conducted by whoever gets the chance. The topic: "How far do human stupidity and gullibility go?"

So you think Mormonism is "stupid and gullible," eh? How much different is sectarian Christianity, though, which also professes belief in a God-man who died and then came back to life three days later? Or the belief that Communion wafers actually transform into the body of Christ? Or the belief that when Jesus returns, all the righteous will be caught up into the air? Or the belief in reincarnation, where people die and then come back as a different creature? Religion is full of strange ideas, which, when you examine them, aren't really that much different from each other across the boundaries of denominations and sects.

Pot, meet kettle.