I wrote:
I misspoke here. The prophet doesn’t have the authority to negate “the new and everlasting covenant” of celestial marriage. The Lord has promised that He will never allow the prophet to lead the church astray.
D&C 132:1
It is section 132 from which I quoted the other passages. So, IMO, the ‘covenant’ is not referring to marriage in general, but seems to be a covenant requiring those who have the ‘truth’ revealed to them to follow the laws the D&C goes on to discuss later in section 132. I just don’t understand how someone could have ‘withdrawn the power by which they [plural marriages] are performed’ when God said it was ok.
Anyway, this is far astray from the OP, and I will chalk it up to a difference in interpretation. If I may speak for you as well, I doubt either one of us is an expert on LDS scripture, and arguing the finer points of said scripture was probably an over-zealous potshot on my part. I apologize. I will do some more research and post when I have something that is more pertinent to the OP.
Just as a pointless aside, why do so many people have trouble with accepting Mormons? Other Christians recognize that the doctrines of the Old Testament were added to and revised by the writers of the New Testament. Why should anyone have a problem with understanding that a group believes that their leaders have received further information and insight into God’s will?
Snark, your quote by Walsh above didn’t really address my question. This may be my fault, sometimes I find that I’m not very clear.
Tweaking text over the years is fairly understandable to me. Changes to spelling and grammar seem reasonable.
I was talking about the fact that other people have translated the exact same scrolls (unless I’m missing something) and have not come up with anything even close to what JS did.
trisha
SpoonsJTD wrote:
Oh, I’m not going by the OP, as the OP wants this thread to be a thread trying to “disprove” Mormonism. If I see that someone is trying to trap me in my (imperfect, non-omniscient) words, I’ll leave his/her argument alone.
Here’s another quote, from Mormon Doctrine again:
So an Apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) has defined the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” to be simply celestial marriage, not plural marriage.
In response to your “pointless aside”, DrF, I suspect it’s because distorted or misleading information gets out, making them appear kookier than they are. There also aren’t as many Mormons around (as far as I can tell), so there isn’t an extremely visible group to refute any misconceptions, like there is with Christians and Jews.
I, personally, have trouble with Mormons because they make it more difficult to get a drink after skiing in Utah. You bastards!!!
“Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.”
- Bertrand Russell
Jazzmine wrote:
Oh, you’re talking about the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon. That’s where the misunderstanding occurred.
I read on one web site that the Book of Abraham was a long scroll, something like 32 (?) feet in length, and that the remnants we have of it today are only a small part of it. And if you go to the web site I referred Soxfan59 to, it explains that Joseph Smith didn’t necessarily have to have the actual document to translate it–after all, he translated the Bible also, and he didn’t have an original Bible text to work with. Go to the site for more info.
Good grief, I’ve drifted back into debate again when I said I wouldn’t. This thread is very addictive to me! I’ll stick with references and quotes from others from now on, if I can.
I fully understand that a group believesthat their leaders have received further information and insight into God’s will. I simply think they are wrong in that belief. We (non-LDS and LDS Christians) have common ground: Jesus Christ, the bible, etc. I believe there is ample evidence to, at the very least, cast serious doubts as to the credibility of Joseph Smith, and whether God really did use him to pass on new information that He didn’t think Jesus did a good enough job of passing along. Without that common ground, in a situation where I am trying to explain it to a non-Christian, the argument is admittedly much weaker.
Suffice it to say, if someone came along 2000 years after you thought you had gotten the last word on a subject, claimed to have more information, a lot of which seems to contradict much of the ‘last word’, you might be skeptical. I suppose I might understand how the early (and current?) Jews felt when Jesus came along, and although to non-believers, the situation may seem parallel, I think the arguments have different weight.
Okay Spoons, but I think a better comparison would be with Paul. You’ve got a nice little group, sure that the rabbi you had been following really WAS the Messiah. Along comes this little gimp who never even HEARD Yeshua preach (in the flesh) telling you how you should feel about Him. After a few hundred years it all looks more coherent, but there are indications that the faction led by Peter (basically Jews who accepted Yeshua as Messiah) had some pretty nasty things to say about Paul and his “further refinements”.
Right now, I have no idea whether the Mormons are right or not. No existing religion can stand up to intense scrutiny of its origins. Do you realize how many centuries there were between the time the Buddha lived and his teachings were written down? Do you know that the Koran was not written until three generations after Mohammed’s death?
Glass houses, stones, etc.
Dr F. said
We are not talking about two distinct religions with completely different origins. I am not ‘throwing stones’ in a ‘glass house’ as a Christian arguing against LDS scripture. LDS has the same origin, Jesus Christ. It is those things that differentiate the LDS Church from most Christian churches with which I have problems. I can argue against LDS beliefs without necessarily making my own look weak. An LDS couldn’t argue against the origins of Christianity without also making his own look weak. (This is no way some semantic argument againt LDS scripture, just an explanation why it is not throwing stones in a glass house.)
Hmmm…I believe I owe Bill and Monty an apology for my phrasing in the OP, and I need to post an apologia regarding my motives. In the Resurrection thread, we reviewed the evidence for and against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Net conclusion was that there were two answers that accounted for the facts, and which was the more probable depended on a belief judgment.
It was my intent, as a non-Mormon Christian, to start a thread in which the historicity of LDS revelation could be debated. I admit that I expected to argue on the negative side, and said so. But at minimum, it would be nice to learn what it was that I was disagreeing with. Anybody who has dealt with an ARG-style argument knows that one spends more time correcting misunderstandings about what who believes than getting anywhere useful in the discussion. I hoped to learn, as well as debate. I have learned some things about Mormonism. I have also learned my own error in setting the thread terms, and I apologize to those concerned, particularly Bill and Monty.
Polycarp: Apology accepted. 
Note to self: Stay out of religion threads.
Apology not accepted. See my last post on the Witnessing thread on this board as to why.
And, yes, I realize I’m quite likely going against one of the dictates in the Doctrines and Covenants by refusing the so-called apology above. That’s my problem. I’m not making it yours.
Poly: apology accepted.
For those who’ve not kept up with some particular threads, y’all might not know what this is about, but my remark in this post is addressed to Polycarp.
p.s. I swear this isn’t to [bump] the thread!
Can any religion that has such a pathological liar of a founder, a falsely created history, not one shred of evidence, a belief in the return of their peoples to another planet named Colar (sp?), and many other secret society traits, truly ever be respected as a religion.
I think not, the word cult is applied to their status, and is appropriate.
Other than Scientology, who could get away with this kind of “just ignore that man behind the curtain” kind of doctrine.
-N
Newton, you better prepare to get yourself torched by the Mormons here, if they decide to bother. (I’d do it myself, but I’m not up on Mormonism) I think plenty of religions have their silly bits, but then, I’m an atheist. Would you like me making fun of your religion? Or your atheism, if you are one. I think a little more respect would be advisable; respect the Mormons who post here even if you cannot respect their religion.
Newton - there is much about the LDS faith that I disagree with. I trace the origin of their denomination back to Joseph Smith, rather than to any Apostolic timeframe; their belief that certain aspects of their worship and practice should be kept secret from outsiders bothers me, since Christianity has rejected gnosticism from the beginning. And I have other problems with the Mormon faith that I could go into.
BUT I can’t see a bit of justification for describing them as a cult. They are not under the control of a single charismatic leader, or even of a small in-group. They don’t separate themselves from normal contact with the rest of the world. (At least, the ones I know certainly don’t.) There is nothing that I can think of about their worship or devotion to their faith that I’ve seen that strikes me as obsessive or unhealthy. If they’re a cult, then so is the Episcopal Church.
I’d like to add that, whatever my opinion of Mormon doctrine, my opinion of Mormons as people couldn’t be higher. At my present job, I’ve had the pleasure of having several Mormon colleagues, and if they’re at all representative of people in the denomination, they’re doing something very right. My Mormon co-workers are all cheerful, interesting, level-headed, hard-working, and fun to be around. If this is what kids raised in a cult grow up to be like, then give me more cults!
Research. Thats all it takes. Christians say the flood happened and that there was an Ark, it is found on Ararat in Turkey. Proof.
The Dead Sea scrolls found. Proof.
History supports the bible and the bible supports history. Through archaeology, history, and art, we see proof of existence.
Now someone says that Nephites and Lamanites lived here and no one noticed, mentioned, built monument too, or found relics of them?
Jesus, came in all his glory to America, and the indians and everyone else missed it except for these “white folks” who walked across the ocean?
Golden tablets that disappear, God tells everyone else one wife, and tell these “special people” as many as you can get. He tells everyone else that they can go to heaven, and tells them that they can go to another planet?
I believe that that “religious doctrine” is an ever evolving one that is of convenience and by “popular” decision, rather than holy dictate.
SO again, where is the proof, historic, or otherwise? Not even circumstantial evidence exists.
Everyone leaves traces of their existence, except of course, those who didnt exist.
Joseph Smith was a diluded and misguided pathological liar. He was run out of every place he was sent to, except Utah, which the US government sent them to, hoping the Indians might meet them first.
These days they may be closer to a religion but only since leaving the “teachings”. Now they are more socially accepted and are more based in reality than science fiction.
I applaud their newest efforts but, the old is a pharce.
-N