Q

[_madeleine]

Nightlion, I am already aware of the Mormon conspiracy theories and general lack of faith in God.

Madame, I am not a Mormon. I am an Apocalrockarian thank you very much.

I accuse the Mormons of the same fault of failure to realize the power of godliness. Look at how they run after learning and honors and hypocrisy.
You cannot find a living Mormon who can so much as tell you HOW to accomplish a Pentecostal promise of the Father that Jesus instructed the Jews carefully to not disperse but continue with on accord until the were in fact visited with the power of the regeneration of the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. You cannot be the true church if you deny or evade and pretend to this in hypocrisy.

Nightlion, intellectualism is a sort of malaise of the times. It is around in every religion, which, isn't all bad, I enjoy a good intellectual discussion now and then. But it can get to feeling dry and lacking of the Spirit. I agree there.

I am of late feeling less inclined towards intellectual discussion of religion, but, I go in phases and the interest will probably return.

I don't mean to lump all Mormons in a stereotype, just, the very basis of Mormonism is a rejection of the Holy Spirit working in and through people and Christ's Church for over 1800 years. I find that belief has a very distinct lack of Faith.

So, when I lumped you under the Mormon umbrella, I do so because I'm fairly certain you are a Restorationist, who believes the True Religion was lost, requiring, the Holy Spirit "left the building"...The Holy Spirit scared off, is how I view restorationists claims. Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture and Joseph Smith to be a prophet that had to restore something? Those attributes makes you a Mormon, since, not all Mormons follow the current LDS prophet, and some split off long before you.

Peace.

[_Nightlion]

So, when I lumped you under the Mormon umbrella, I do so because I'm fairly certain you are a Restorationist, who believes the True Religions was lost, requiring, the Holy Spirit "left he building"...The Holy Spirit scared off, is how I view restorationists claims. Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture and Joseph Smith to be a prophet that had to restore something? Those attributes makes you a Mormon, since, not all Mormons follow the current LDS prophet, and some split off long before you.

Peace.

I hope this not too dry, but LDS are fast becoming Catholic in their own way. LDS no longer feel like they need to stoop to repentance and work out their salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord. They take the Spirit and salvation as much for granted as the Catholics ever did or still do. I could say worse but why whet the dry air?

I am all spiritualism. I care only for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost.
"Have you recieved the Holy Ghost since you believed......we have not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost. Unto what then were you baptized?

You see the HS has to be won. To mother the gospel into a pablum of fairsey waresey and even steven so nobody felt more special than anyone else the skills of how to obtain the Holy Ghost was lightened up and explained away as a given and thinned upon the wind to keep everyone evenly encouraged.
Called the mother of abomination in LDS scripture because she defeats the purposes of the Lord. Apostasy if you'd rather. Hypocrisy if the Mormons would rather or not.

[_madeleine]

So, when I lumped you under the Mormon umbrella, I do so because I'm fairly certain you are a Restorationist, who believes the True Religions was lost, requiring, the Holy Spirit "left he building"...The Holy Spirit scared off, is how I view restorationists claims. Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture and Joseph Smith to be a prophet that had to restore something? Those attributes makes you a Mormon, since, not all Mormons follow the current LDS prophet, and some split off long before you.

Peace.

I hope this not too dry, but LDS are fast becoming Catholic in their own way. LDS no longer feel like they need to stoop to repentance and work out their salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord. They take the Spirit and salvation as much for granted as the Catholics ever did or still do. I could say worse but why whet the dry air?

I am all spiritualism. I care only for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost.
"Have you recieved the Holy Ghost since you believed......we have not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost. Unto what then were you baptized?

You see the HS has to be won. To mother the gospel into a pablum of fairsey waresey and even steven so nobody felt more special than anyone else the skills of how to obtain the Holy Ghost was lightened up and explained away as a given and thinned upon the wind to keep everyone evenly encouraged.
Called the mother of abomination in LDS scripture because she defeats the purposes of the Lord. Apostasy if you'd rather. Hypocrisy if the Mormons would rather or not.

Nightlion, you see what you want to see, and have been affected by anti-Catholicism.

My experiences of the Spirit are profound, and at times like a pounding that I cannot ignore. There is no other way that an atheist finds Faith, other than, the Holy Spirit sought out a heart, and found a tiny opening.

I don't speak of them here because they are my own. Personal and private, and the din of godlessness is overwhelming, so I keep them to myself. Every Catholic I know has these experiences, and we share them among each other.

Spiritualism is not bad, but no one can be a Christian alone. Discipleship requires community, as Christ saved us individually, as a people. Where two or three are gathered....

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Early in this thread someone mentioned they hadn't seen a LDS treatment of the issues with Q and 3 Nephi. The only one that comes to mind is The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount.

Conceptually the "corrupted" Bible theme and Q works well in the mind of a LDS audience. However, dealing with the issues raised by such acceptance require difficult double talk when it deals with the contradictions raised by the Book of Mormon. Even when dealing with something as nearly universally accepted as the Synoptic Sayings Source(Q). For those curious on the subject there is a similar reconstructed document called The Signs Gospel believed to be a source for John.


Phaedrus

[_Aristotle Smith]

Conceptually the "corrupted" Bible theme and Q works well in the mind of a LDS audience. However, dealing with the issues raised by such acceptance require difficult double talk when it deals with the contradictions raised by the Book of Mormon.

That's been a big point I have been trying to get across. Sure when you are dealing with vague generalities, Mormons will be all for rediscovered documents. The problem is that few ever want to actually look at the details, mainly because they do damage to LDS history, doctrine, and theology.

[_MCB]

My friend MCB has been going down the rabbit hole of Mormon lore, and the Book of Mormon origins for a long time now. Really, she has some interesting insights and ideas.

Interesting. I'm sure they'd be valuable to discuss if shared.

This is for my own edification, not for debate.

Peace.

I Iron;
I have an extensive reading list for you;
http://books.google.com/books?id=3HQDAA ... in&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AHjOAA ... &q&f=false

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... /index.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=KfuZmz ... CD4Q6AEwBA

http://swedenborg.com/page.asp?page_name=complete_works

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ice/index.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=sCkOAA ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=kCkOAA ... &q&f=false

I am sure that all of these works are harmless to the open-minded and well-balanced reader (number five might be a bit of a trip on the wild side), and most were available in either English or Latin between 1810 and 1830.

Looks like today's computer work will be spent on research rather than "knitting"

[_1 Iron]

Rejection of Sacred Tradition.

I am not sure, then, that I understood your point that the LDS view of scripture has it's roots in sola scriptura.

I seriously do not mean to debate that point, but am seeking a more clear understanding of your view. The above short answer left me more unclear as to what you meant.

From the old Catholic encyclopedia:

"Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings? Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men? [....]Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. Such are in this respect the two main points of controversy between Catholics and so-called orthodox Protestants (as distinguished from liberal Protestants, who admit neither supernatural Revelation nor the authority of the Bible). The other differences are connected with these or follow from them, as also the differences between different Protestant sects--according as they are more or less faithful to the Protestant principle, they recede from or approach the Catholic position." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Mormons fall into the latter category, of receding or approaching the Catholic position. Mormons reject the Catholic Church as the living organ which transmits Scripture and is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. Also, Mormons reject the Catholic Church as having been given divine instruction that is not in scripture, and is in the Body of the Church itself.

This rejection is a Protestant position, of which, Mormonism is rooted in.

Thank you for sharing this, madeleine. I think I understand your position better now. I don't know that I agree with your conclusions and see areas in the above that could apply as easily to our faith as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but as promised I asked for clarification without debate and intend to honor this.

[_1 Iron]

Early in this thread someone mentioned they hadn't seen a LDS treatment of the issues with Q and 3 Nephi. The only one that comes to mind is The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount.

Conceptually the "corrupted" Bible theme and Q works well in the mind of a LDS audience. However, dealing with the issues raised by such acceptance require difficult double talk when it deals with the contradictions raised by the Book of Mormon. Even when dealing with something as nearly universally accepted as the Synoptic Sayings Source(Q). For those curious on the subject there is a similar reconstructed document called The Signs Gospel believed to be a source for John.


Phaedrus

Thank you for sharing this, Phaedrus. It looks interesting.

[_1 Iron]

Conceptually the "corrupted" Bible theme and Q works well in the mind of a LDS audience. However, dealing with the issues raised by such acceptance require difficult double talk when it deals with the contradictions raised by the Book of Mormon.

That's been a big point I have been trying to get across. Sure when you are dealing with vague generalities, Mormons will be all for rediscovered documents. The problem is that few ever want to actually look at the details, mainly because they do damage to LDS history, doctrine, and theology.

Hello A. Smith,

I suspect you and I have gotten off to a rough start so far and I am not yet sure how to ease back to a more neutral position again. The challenge I have is trying to convey that while I see your position and can acknowledge why your points are issues, I feel inadequate to the task of explaining that I don't see these issues as damaging as you do.

It probably came across poorly, but I was hoping that the example I gave of atheist arguments against the Bible would at least seem familiar enough to you that even if you disagree with me you could understand how I view it.

You've probably heard the old elementary science "gotcha" about how bees should not be able to fly based on the laws of aerodynamics, yet we can observe that they in fact do fly. A mature understanding of the issue doesn't lead a person to have a purely logical, complete understanding of how bee's do, in fact, fly. Rather, the mature understanding of the issue is one where it has to be acknowledged there are things we simply don't understand - yet. For me, the idea that a tight and loose translation method was used to translate the Book of Mormon accounts for the problems while not doing damage to the things I feel to be true about it as sacred scripture. I suspect we are just going to disagree here. That doesn't mean I am opposed to discussing any issues you see with a loose vs tight translation method. I wouldn't remain here if that were the case. I apologize that I became snippy after the last round of responses, as it wasn't productive.

Anyway, I feel that my presentation of Section 7 of the D&C as an example of a restored document answered your request. Perhaps you have thoughts on that still?

[_1 Iron]

I Iron;
I have an extensive reading list for you;
http://books.google.com/books?id=3HQDAA ... in&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AHjOAA ... &q&f=false

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... /index.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=KfuZmz ... CD4Q6AEwBA

http://swedenborg.com/page.asp?page_name=complete_works

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ice/index.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=sCkOAA ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=kCkOAA ... &q&f=false

I am sure that all of these works are harmless to the open-minded and well-balanced reader (number five might be a bit of a trip on the wild side), and most were available in either English or Latin between 1810 and 1830.

Looks like today's computer work will be spent on research rather than "knitting"

MCB,

That's a lot to chew on! Thank you for sharing. I can't promise I will get through it all, but I'll take a look at what I can.