Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Bruce, you have every right to believe that those who have received a different spiritual witness from you are prideful, lack intent, etc. “ “We already know that Joseph Smith did tell lies. Since he did lie, doesn’t everyone have a responsibility to think (and pray) very critically of all that he produced? “
just me,
My apologies, that did come across a bit crude. It wasn’t meant with any malice or a holier-than-thou attitude.
Re: Joseph Smith telling lies…I don’t know anyone who hasn’t. However, the lies that I am aware of Joseph Smith telling are (for instance) denying polygamy to protect others that were involved. The saints were suffering so much persecution already that it would have been foolish, IMHO, to admit to an unsympathetic public that plural marriages were occuring. That would have only made things worse.
I’m not aware of any self-serving falsehoods although I may be wrong.
Myths are fine if you identify them as such. If you present a myth as factual…that’s called a lie, IMHO.
Angelic visits, gold plates, and papyri stories either happened or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then Joseph Smith was a liar as well as many witnesses. The idea that there is some middle ground where he could have presented these things as fact, and they weren’t, but that’s ok because they mean well and contain good lessons just doesn’t make sense.
I personally don’t understand those who, maybe because of their Mormon upbringing, can reduce the BoM to some sort of well-meant fairy tale.
Everyone is entitled to a spiritual witness of the truth of the BoM if they humble themselves properly and ask with real intent.
A real spriritual witness removes any questions as to the historicity of the record.
Sorry….I got on a bit of a rant.
My opinion only….
Well, I don’t have a dog in this fight but have been reading through this thread, as well as other blogs that discuss the same subject… This, from my point of view, is the Church’s postition:
-Homsexual sex is wrong…not just a little wrong, but an abomination to God.
-Homsexuality, or any other non-approved sexual inclination, is not wrong UNLESS/UNTIL it is acted upon.
So, is everyone really expecting the Church to accept SSM or civil unions and just assume that the partners are going to be celebate? I guess what I’m saying is that you can’t condone civil unions without condoning homosexual sex.
That is really asking a lot to expect the powers-that-be to start accepting something that has been considered a grievous sin since Old Testament times as suddenly being OK.
The Church has certainly reversed the Blacks in the Priesthood issue but, IMHO, this is much bigger and will require a much larger change of thinking.
Of course SSM will be normal in our country soon but I expect the Church’s acceptance of it to be many years to come.
I could be wrong.
My opinion only,
Mileage may vary.
Well, I’m not at all sure that the gold plates and papyri weren’t used to bring the scripture forward. Maybe their presence was needed…I don’t know. It seems that God has always been pretty big on keeping records and a written cannon of scripture for some reason. To use our 21st century logic He would save everyone a lot of trouble by just revealing things when needed. I sure don’t pretend to know why He chooses to do things that way.
I assume that if one can create universes than there is a reason for drama like burning bushes or gold plates.
my opinion only…
Edit:
Of course it all comes down to faith, gaining a personal spiritual witness, and all that other unprovable stuff. I guess I’m just saying that the common attacks on the BoM or the PoGP (or the Kinderhook plates for that mattter) don’t really hold water.
IMHO if a person can’t/won’t/doesn’t-want-to seek a personal confirmation than they won’t….and there will always be plenty of secular arguements to make him/her feel justified in doing that. I know I used those arguements for years and they certainly are the path of least resistance.
“It does not go on to state, “…and what you are about to read has absolutely nothing to do with the content printed on these papyri”. “ Well, if the papyri was indeed lost/burned in the Chicago fire…it could very well be that what was on those papyri was exactly what Joseph Smith translated…the writings of Abraham…. and we’re left with the remainders.
I’ve never seen anything to indicate that that isn’t the case.
Just sayin….
I hope it changes it for the better Heber. It has for me. My doubts over the validity of the BoM are always dismissed when I consider what it would be like to sit down and try to write something comparable….WITHOUT a word processor/computer.
You can’t go back and edit, you need to come up with a few hundred new names for people and places, and you would have to remember everything you said as you were talking with your scribe.
Impossible IMHO. (and Joseph had about a 3rd grade education as I understand)
I think the Lord just chose a method that Joseph had faith in and had some understanding of. He, and many of his contemporaries, had been using seer stones in attempts to find things that were buried for awhile. I’m somewhat perplexed by those who have a problem with it.
Well, Joseph Smith used the term “translate”. I would think that if he had used a term like “transpose” that we would still use that term as well for tradition, if nothing else. He used the word “interpretors” quite a bit as well. IMHO it would be beneficial if those old paintings of Joseph “reading” the plates and Oliver acting as scribe would go away. That leads to a false idea of how things happened and can cause members a lot of doubt when they find out different.
I also don’t have any problem believing that the BoM that we received is an exact translation of the record on the plates…just put in Joseph Smith’s words. (and the book he was most familiar with was the KJV Bible) Why did he need the plates present if he wasn’t going to look at them while “translating”? I don’t know. Why did the Lord cause the plates to be hid up in the first place? I don’t know. He certainly could have just revealed the record through revelation and not bothered with the plates in the first place.
Come to think of it, why did He require Moses to climb that silly mountain for the 10 Commandments? He could have just revealed them to him where he was.
I submit that the Lord uses some pretty dramatic stuff sometimes to impress those He is dealing with at the time.
As soon as He asks my opinion on this kind of stuff, I’ll straighten Him out.
😆 Correct me if I’m having a senior moment but it’s my understanding that the papyri that the Church has is not the papyri that Joseph Smith translated. I was under the impression that several of them ended up in a Chicago museum and were burned in a fire there. I guess I should have looked for a link prior to posting but I think I got that off of Jeff Lindsay’s site. Edit:
Ok, here it is…
It would indeed be nice if the Church were a little more forthcoming about these origins that are troubling to members when they find out about them later. I’ve never been real clear about why they do this but then again, they never asked my opinion 
The Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham are certainly taught as truth although they are skimmed over fairly quickly.
My views are fundamentalist and I absolutely view these scriptures as true and of devine origin. I’ll guess that mainstream members do as well but I can’t speak for them. However, I read a book by Hugh Nibley awhile back on the Book of Moses that was the best commentary on it that I’ve ever seen.
As a Christian, I actually believe in the resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ….that’s re-animation of dead tissue…about as far-fetched and unexplainable an idea as one can come up with. The method that Joseph Smith brought us the Book of Moses or how the Lord saw fit to deliver the Book of Abraham to us pales in comparisson IMHO.
My opinion only.
Mileage may vary.
The Church should do “all things by common consent”. It is supposed to be a democratic process and it is a bit odd that there are few if any opposing votes anymone. It’s almost like the vote is just a traditional formality now as opposed to what is descibed in the D&C. Where confussion can come about, IMHO, is in assuming that because the Church is supposed to do this that the priesthood is also. This is not the case. God calls prophets through the priesthood. The Church calls Church presidents and other leaders.
In other words, when the priesthood was restored to Joseph and Oliver, there was no Church. Joseph was later confirmed president of the Church. That is two separate offices that one person may, or may not, occupy at the same time. The calling of the office of Prophet is done by God, not us.
I guess what I am saying is that if the original Church had decided to Not sustain Joseph Smith as prophet, it would not have made a bit of difference in him being prophet or not. He would just have “raised up another people”.
This is, of course, my fundamentalist view, and personal opinion, and offered only as a different perspective and food for thought.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
After reading through this thread and thinking about it …I agree that “do you live the Law of Chastity” should be good enough as long as the person understands what that is. When I was a young man I believe that is all that was asked.
“Bruce, Do you masturbate? Do you engage in oral sex? These are simple questions–yes or no, right?”
I see your point. The difference is that you have not been put in a position to ascertain my worthiness for such things as baptism, priesthood callings, etc. A bishop has.
These ordinances and callings are contingent on worthiness. Sexual purity is one measure of that. How can a bishop find out if a person is worthy without asking?
Yep. The Book of Mormon. Whether one accepts the historicity of the book or not, the lessons for living as individuals, families, or even countries are priceless.
We must be talking apples and oranges here…or it’s just my perception. The Bishop just asks a Yes or No question…end of story.
What’s all the hooplah?
Is there some record of bishops expounding on this and messing kids up for life that I’m not aware of? Please direct me to that source.
I definitely see it different than you guys. It’s just a “yes” or “no” question.
If a young man is indulging in this behavior, he does not need to be receiving the priesthood of Aaron until he puts this behind him.
The priesthood is a very important responsibility and should not be entered into unworthily or with apathy. It also should not be entered into just because a person reaches a certain age IMHO.
To experiment is natural and a part of growing up. To continue to indulge after being told that it’s wrong constitutes sexual immorality IMHO….and lying about it is….well….lying.
If a person is not worth of something by not meeting it’s requirements, they just aren’t worthy. Lying to fit in just because all the other young men are doing it doesn’t help anyone.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
