thews wrote:You are free to believe as you choose, but to imply Jesus Christ lived and died while the supposed golden plates were buried in the ground doesn't make sense to me. Does this premise sound logical?
Hi Thews,
Thank you for recognizing that I am free to believe as I choose. Likewise, I believe you and everyone are free to believe as they choose.
CFR that the plates were buried while Jesus lived and died, or even while He was visiting the Nephites.
Jesus (God in man) comes to earth, mentions nothing of Mormonism, 1800 years pass, Joseph Smith (using his occult seer stones) gives us the Book of Mormon, then a few year pass and the Book of Abraham is "found" which changes monotheism into henotheism.
First of all, it is your belief that Joseph Smith used "occult" seer stones. Therefore, I believe you are in error to make your comment as though it was "Truth". I would use this same argument against anyone who claims that they can prove there is a God. It is really a belief - no one can prove God exists. Even Jesus could not convince the people who came to hear Him speak that He was the promised Messiah. In fact, I believe it was for this reason that Father does not hold us accountable for blasphemy against either Him or His Son. However, we ARE held accountable for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost once we have received a sure witness and understand that Jesus IS the Christ. The Holy Ghost's witness is much more powerful because He speaks to our spirit - not our physical body of flesh and bones. Indeed, the Holy Ghost's responsibility is to be the spiritual witness on the earth - so His witness Trump's seeing God Himself in person (at least until Christ returns).
Further, we have no complete record of what Jesus taught while He was teaching His Apostles either in Jerusalem, or to the Nephites. I do not think it is logical or reasonable, therefore, to merely wave our arms and dismiss anything not precisely found in the New Testament OR in the Book of Mormon and claim to know what He did or did not teach just because we can't "find" it written in Canon.
The Book of Abraham is not alone in teaching that there are many gods. The Bible does a fine job of teaching this as well. I am certain you have heard these arguments before.
To understand God as a concept requires an infinite thought process, but to make sense out of multiple Gods based on an incorrectly translated passage from the pagan book of the dead makes no sense at all, especially since it contradicts the Book of Mormon's monotheistic base.
Once again, this is what you believe and what you have chosen to believe about the Book of Abraham. It is my belief that Joseph did try to use the few pieces of papyrus scroll he had obtained to first try to teach himself how to read what was written on them. However, I do not believe that this is where he ultimately obtained the Book of Abraham. It is my belief that when Father felt Joseph was ready, that the Book of Abraham was written as pure inspiration from God. I do not think that the papyrus was "translated" like the Book of Mormon was. Likewise, I believe that the book of Moses was also received as pure inspiration from God.
by the way, I ponder at your ability to accept as Christian some of the pagan beliefs which have been incorporated into Christianity, while you snub your nose at what you perceive others to be doing with what you consider to be pagan.
I would like you to share, if you would, some of your thoughts about what paganism looks like to you. Now, I realize that many pagan groups evolved to the point where they were offering human sacrifices - far beyond the Jewish tradition of animal sacrifices. Yet, their tradition was that they did believe in a god or gods - they had built idols meant to represent them - though they did not really know who their god(s) were. It was this very condition which Paul used to help teach the Greek pagans about who their "god" was. His teaching to them was that their ideas about the existence of god was correct; his tactic was to explain WHO God was. You should know that I think all mythical beliefs about god(s) have their root in Truth which was first understood by their forefathers; but which, over the passage of time, became corrupted by man. This is the same pattern we see with the Pharisees; i.e., where Jesus teaches they had corrupted the Law so much that the Pharisees were teaching as doctrine the commandents of men.
To answer you first point, claiming you've heard the "same old mantra hundreds of times before" is missing a key element... was your understanding based on acknowledging the facts? If so, I'd very much appreciate your input to this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21529&start=42
I took the time to read the offerings of the posters who tried to talk me out of believing that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God. What I have seen is this: Joseph's detractors use material readily available to them which they present which was originally provided by individuals for the express purpose of destroying Joseph's credibility, or they attempt to present written documentation and show it in a negative light and negative interpretation in order to provide it as evidence against Joseph. What they do not present as a foundation against which to determine their conclusions, is the same type of material for ANY Old Testament prophet. Therefore, how can they justify that their conclusions are accurate, when there is nothing comparable to use in determining the reliability or credibility of Old Testament prophets? This does not seem logical or reasonable to me. Without any precedent to base their accusations upon, I believe that such cases to try to prove that Joseph could not possibly be a Prophet of God would be thrown out of court. Also, without any precedent, the only way any case could be presented would be based solely on conjecture and personal interpretation of whatever "evidence" they might provide in support of their argument. In fact, no one can prove, or has physical evidence to prove, that the greatest Prophet of all time; i.e., Jesus Christ Himself, was who He claimed to be. What would make man think that he could, therefore, prove that ANY Prophet is not who they claim to be?
If we had evidence to prove or disprove Christ, then no faith would be required. What then would be the purpose of our being here to participate in the Plan of Salvation?
To answer your question, I'm a Christian because I believe Jesus Christ was God... they are one. I don't believe in hell, and like you I see this life as a learning experience and not as some test to prove you chose correctly. In other words, we all win, but what we win is the knowledge of good and evil, along with the value of absolute truth.
I would only add that I believe you can only learn Truth from the Holy Ghost. He is the one who will confirm Truth - be it a physical Truth or a spiritual Truth. OTOH, the physical world cannot confirm any Truth, either physical or spiritual. The physical world CAN provide observable actions and materials, but man can only theorize about them. Truth about the physical world still needs to come from the Holy Ghost. At least, that's how I see it.
Attempting to juxtapose why one thing doesn't need to make sense, to make sense out of something else that also doesn't make sense, is a Mormon tactic used to explain why, what doesn't make sense, doesn't need to.
You are going to have to take my word on this. The reasoning and logic I use to respond to posters who are anti-LDS come from my own head, unless otherwise stated in my responses, along with applicable links. I suppose you could call that a Mormon tactic based on the fact that I AM Mormon. But please do not confuse this with your generalization of a what you identify as a "Mormon tactic".
Joseph Smith used his seer stones to contact the dead before the Book of Mormon, and these exact same same seer stones were used to translate the Book of Mormon. Deuteronomy clearly defines contact with the dead in the eyes of God as an abomination, so it doesn't make sense that God, assuming a Christian God, would use occult objects (used to contact the dead) to bring Christian doctrine.
I would like to point out something you have already pointed out to me;
I do not believe in the ride in a belly of a whale, the great flood, nor hell. Now you are picking something out of Deuteronomy which you want to use to support an argument. Also, I would ask that you then reconcile what you pointed out in Deuteronomy using your interpretation of it with the following information which is also provided in the Bible:
1) In the book of Samuel (1Sam 28:8), Saul visits a medium in order to contact Samuel, who has died. As an aside I think it is interesting to learn that even though he has died, Samuel is still able to prophesy. God is able to advance His purposes as a result of this by having Saul and his sons die the next day. This leaves the position of "King" available for David. We see that the medium still lives, even though it was the medium who actually contacted the dead.
2) At Christ's Transfiguration, both Moses and Elias (who had died long before this event) appeared before Peter, James and John.
3) When Christ Resurrected, many of the dead rose with Him and walked the earth and were seen by the living.
When you use "anti-Mormon" to define my stance, it's the same vantage point in reverse. If you wish to view my beliefs as rooted with bad intent, then it's rather hypocritical to use your inverse posturing with "anti" as acceptable. Do you see my point?
Are your comments and questions to me "pro" Mormon? Or are they "anti" Mormon? Or are you trying to claim that you are presenting them from a neutral position concerning the LDS Church?
To your point, I honestly enjoy actual conversation about the facts as a starting point, because they are facts to then segue into how these facts are interpreted. It's why I would love it if you offered your opinion to this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21529&start=42.
The Book of Mormon refers to seer stones and other objects used for the same purpose. The Urim and Thummim were commonly used in the Old Testament. My opinion is that the seer stones Joseph used to translate the plates were not the same seer stones he had used prior to receiving the plates. Nothing he did with any other stones has ever been presented by him or anyone else as having any type of spiritual significance, nor are any of the results of using them represented as being of God.
I agree with your sentiment regarding spirituality and identify with it. Where we differ (in my opinion) is what truth defines our beliefs. I do not believe in the ride in a belly of a whale, the great flood, nor hell, so I'm probably considered a "Jack" Christian to some, but I don't care. I believe what I do based on truth, and if one disagrees it doesn't bother me. If you "identify" with Mormonism, it contradicts Christianity in my opinion, which is why I find these conversations very interesting. Again, you seem like a very nice person and also very happy, but the element that isn't acknowledged is the truth when it comes to belief that Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God, because, based on the facts, it (Mormonism) contradicts what Jesus Christ was all about. I hope you take me up on my request for an answer to the thread I previously mentioned, and I also hope you stay as you are sincere which is rare in my opinion.
My life is very difficult; quite frankly the majority of my happiness comes solely through my relationship with God. My physical existence sucks; albeit I am amazed and so thankful that God has brought Franktalk into my life which brings me some relief and comfort to my physical Being, and great strength and support to my spiritual Being.
Obviously, I disagree with you that the LDS Church contradicts anything about Jesus Christ. Meh....I am just happy for you that you believe in Christ. Therein, I rejoice with you!!!
Love,
jo
Gerald Ford wearing an ushanka and Leonid Brezhnev, 1974 in Vladivostok.