Originally posted by RegretAlso, names are names. People use the name Lucifer in reference to Satan, the Devil. Given that they do, whether it came about through mistake or not, it is a name for the entity we are referring to. If Lucifer is used, it is used because it is a name that has been given to this entity. If the name is used, it is used so that we understand who is being spoken of.
.
Ok, but the fact of the matter is lucifer does not mean the devil, j smith used the seer stones to tranlate the bom to english, god helped j smith tranlate the bom so therefore for that mistake to be made means that gods made a mistake which is impossible if u believe god is perfect. Its not a matter of affliating the word to satan, which i agree every1 does. Mistakes like that would not be in the "most perfect" book.
I am aware that there are problems in the bible, but the whole mormon faith relies on the validity of j smiths claims. There is no archaeological evidence, no dna proof, and there is quite a bit of evidence suggestign he made it up. Its a known fact that Jesus was real, whether or not he was devine comes down to belief.
My question is what makes the mormon church so believable? My mormon friends all say theyve had the feeling and they no the church is true, but how do they no they didnt manifest that feelign themselves. i have a jehovahs witness friend who said the exact same thing. Whose right? I just dont find it at all convicning despite the good moral values and all that stuff
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Ok, but the fact of the matter is Lucifer does not mean the devil, j smith used the seer stones to tranlate the bom to english, god helped j smith tranlate the bom so therefore for that mistake to be made means that gods made a mistake which is impossible if u believe god is perfect. Its not a matter of affliating the word to Satan, which i agree every1 does. Mistakes like that would not be in the "most perfect" book.
The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith through the power of God. He did not make a mistake. In Joseph Smith's language, Lucifer referred to Satan. You are making the mistake in claiming that the language of the Book of Mormon is accurate. Joseph Smith was given to know the meaning behind the language the Book of Mormon was written in, not the words that should be used in the text. Joseph Smith's language is what the Book of Mormon is written in, the meaning is true.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I am aware that there are problems in the bible, but the whole mormon faith relies on the validity of j smiths claims. There is no archaeological evidence, no dna proof, and there is quite a bit of evidence suggestign he made it up. Its a known fact that Jesus was real, whether or not he was devine comes down to belief.
There is no solid archaeological evidence against the Book of Mormon.
The DNA claims are weak. The Book of Mormon does not make the claim that there were not other people in the Americas at the time of its people. In fact it does claim that there were other peoples here during its time frame. It also has no bearing on the time prior to or following its writing. For all we know there could have been large civilizations in the Americas during this time outside of the people mentioned.
The evidence that Joseph Smith made it up is only statements by its detractors. I would not trust much of anything that came from the areas that Joseph Smith lived in. I have plenty of evidence for bias in those areas against Joseph Smith, probably on a scale to make your evidence laughable.
There is quite a bit of belief by Christians and non-Christians that the Bible is made up. This is no different than your suggestion, if you are unable to adequately defend the Bible's validity against the likes of Alliance, Debbiejo, and the others, then your claim here holds no validity either.
The existence of Jesus Christ is questioned. It has been on this thread, and in the broader scientific community as well. The only Jewish reference was by Josephus, and that reference has been shown to be a forgery. Possible reference is not evidence. It is probable that he existed, not scientific fact. Be that as it may, Mormons believe he existed, I do not understand your need for this statement in your post.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
My question is what makes the mormon church so believable? My mormon friends all say theyve had the feeling and they no the church is true, but how do they no they didnt manifest that feelign themselves. i have a jehovahs witness friend who said the exact same thing. Whose right? I just dont find it at all convicning despite the good moral values and all that stuff
In my opinion, its teachings are more scientifically viable. We have no paid clergy. We believe that God still speaks to man, a fact that in itself makes it more valid than other Christian beliefs. The leadership of the Church comes from all walks of life, they are not men that suddenly "felt" they should go into religion as a career, they were called by God in our belief. The Church is successful in most ventures it moves into.
Those are the secular reasons I would consider it believable. The prophet and called by God are claims I consider make it more valid, secularly the claim is the important thing, not the validity of the claim.
The spiritual reasons are the validity of the claims. The "feeling" of the Spirit. The good that occurs through activity.
Matthew 7:16-20
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
John 15:8
8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples
I believe the Church falls under this category, we are unparalleled in humanitarian concern in the religious community, not only the Church organization, but the members of the Church. We are a clean and generally well respected people, the same cannot be said of the majority of Christian faiths. We are generally thought of as a "good people" by those that know us.
These are the reasons I think it is so believable.
why shouldnt the bom language be correct though? why did he use lucifer and not just satan or the devil? It doesnt matter who believes lucifer is satan, it was a kjv mistake that appears from my point of view to be copied right into the bom. The fact is it was an incorrect word. Plus the whole mormon church is based on the idea of truth, so why would god give joseph smith the misconception of that word meanign the devil. I disagree that the language mistakes should be disregarded because it was translated to english for the purpose of spreading this belief. God had to make it compatible for evry1, not just joseph smith. What about the people, who were raised with the right conception for believing satan was the fallen angel, not lucifer. That creates confusion
I agree there isnt muchy archaeological proof against it, however, the lack of proof i think speask more volume. Especially at the hill cumorah where 2 million and soem odd number men died. There should be a bountiful supply of artifacts there. Why hasnt the church doen a massive excavation of this site? It would certainly either strengthen the churchs claims or totally weaken them.
DNA however has shown that 99 percent of the native americans, who are supposedly descendants of the lamanites according to Jospeh Smith, have come across the asian border and no dna test suggests that they ever came from israel or that region specifically. If so many israeli immigrants lived here there shoudl be some kind of evidence of there existence as far as dna is concerned. As of now there is nothing
I have another question. What does your church's stance as far as peter receiving power for jesus to create his church on earth. I'm a catholic and i just wanted to hear the viewpoint of this from other christian beliefs
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
why shouldnt the bom language be correct though? why did he use lucifer and not just satan or the devil? It doesnt matter who believes lucifer is satan, it was a kjv mistake that appears from my point of view to be copied right into the bom. The fact is it was an incorrect word. Plus the whole mormon church is based on the idea of truth, so why would god give joseph smith the misconception of that word meanign the devil. I disagree that the language mistakes should be disregarded because it was translated to english for the purpose of spreading this belief. God had to make it compatible for evry1, not just joseph smith. What about the people, who were raised with the right conception for believing satan was the fallen angel, not lucifer. That creates confusion
It does not create confusion. When the term Lucifer is used, people know who it is talking about. The mistake occurred in the Bible, it is a correct term as far as the language used to translate the Book of Mormon.
American Heritage Dictionary
LuciferNOUN:
1 The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan.
2 The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star.
3 lucifer A friction match.
As you see, the term is defined as such. Whether or not it was always the name used, it is a proper term for Satan now.
Perhaps I was incorrect in using the term mistake. The language of the Book of Mormon is accurate as to the language used by those translating it. There is no mistake there. Any mistake is inherent in language, which is something man has created.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I agree there isnt muchy archaeological proof against it, however, the lack of proof i think speask more volume. Especially at the hill cumorah where 2 million and soem odd number men died. There should be a bountiful supply of artifacts there. Why hasnt the church doen a massive excavation of this site? It would certainly either strengthen the churchs claims or totally weaken them.
We don't really care whether or not there is proof. Refer to the definition of Faith in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
DNA however has shown that 99 percent of the native americans, who are supposedly descendants of the lamanites according to Jospeh Smith, have come across the asian border and no dna test suggests that they ever came from israel or that region specifically. If so many Israeli immigrants lived here there shoudl be some kind of evidence of there existence as far as dna is concerned. As of now there is nothing
So many? There were at most 20-30 Israeli immigrants. Also, they found other people that were here and intermarried with them. Also, if the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon were altered in such a way as to cause a genetic skin tone difference, there is no means of verifying their DNA. Their DNA was altered in some way, any test of DNA is not enough evidence due to this genetic alteration. I do not know the extent to the alteration, given this DNA is not a credible claim against the Book of Mormon, especially considering the possibility of intermarrying with other peoples.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I have another question. What does your church's stance as far as peter receiving power for jesus to create his church on earth. I'm a catholic and i just wanted to hear the viewpoint of this from other christian beliefs
Jesus created the Church. He created the structure of its governing body. Peter was the head of it following Christ's ascension. Christ set up the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy. Upon Judas' death the Twelve called a new member. The Twelve showed us that the Twelve should remain Twelve. They are not present in the Catholic Church. As the Twelve died off without successors, so did the authority they held.
Refer to this post for further information, including a couple of quotes from the historian Eusebius:
Originally posted by Regret
While Christ was on the Earth...
As to the Catholic Church I disagree with it in part based on the relationship of Tradition and Scripture as stated in the Catechism.
Catechism: part 1, section 1, chapter 2, article 2, IIII. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
Tradition is held as strongly as scripture. Thus the scripture, is interpreted based on traditions. This has caused many alterations in the original Church's teachings. Some examples include the ending of the teaching of preexistence around 250 CE, the redefinition of the Godhead 325 CE, the canonization and beatification of saints (the first positive documents of papal canonization was St. Udalricus in 973), as well as other examples.
Also, you may, in effect, pray to a Saint for advocation between you and God. This has no Biblical support whatsoever. This is Jesus' position as the following scripture states:
1John 2:1
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Those are a few of my problems with Catholicism.
Ok well first of all martin harris was the one who wrote it down, not joseph smith so it is entirely possible for him to have made it up. Plus if u read biographical sketches it does say he was known to talk abotu the inhabitants of this continent. I'm not trying to argue the vadlidity of mormonism, just the possibility that he coudl ahve made it up
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Ok well first of all martin harris was the one who wrote it down, not joseph smith so it is entirely possible for him to have made it up. Plus if u read biographical sketches it does say he was known to talk abotu the inhabitants of this continent. I'm not trying to argue the vadlidity of mormonism, just the possibility that he coudl ahve made it up
A lot of things are possible. If you do not believe in the LDS faith then you must believe that he made it up, or someone did. I agree with the possibility if I look at it from outside my view.
This problem is inherent in all religions. There is doubt as to the validity of core principles by those not of that belief. Religion only comes down to you and your spirituality and what you experience. I know a large number of people from other religions, I have found few religions that are held to as strongly as the LDS faith. The members of the LDS faith on average claim more personal experience relating to the validity of the religion than I have ever encountered outside of it. On top of this there are frequent claims of this among the membership. It would appear, going from the activity level and personal experience level that the LDS church has more support in this area.
Originally posted by Regret
A lot of things are possible. If you do not believe in the LDS faith then you must believe that he made it up, or someone did. I agree with the possibility if I look at it from outside my view.This problem is inherent in all religions. There is doubt as to the validity of core principles by those not of that belief. Religion only comes down to you and your spirituality and what you experience. I know a large number of people from other religions, I have found few religions that are held to as strongly as the LDS faith. The members of the LDS faith on average claim more personal experience relating to the validity of the religion than I have ever encountered outside of it. On top of this there are frequent claims of this among the membership. It would appear, going from the activity level and personal experience level that the LDS church has more support in this area.
I agree, I think that his level of education is not a signicficant reason for him not to make up the bom.
Now from what I've read and experienced as far as valdity for lds, the majority of the people have had testimony by the burning in the bosom or some other feeling, compliments of the holy spirit. I said this in another post before, but I also have a friend whos jehovahs witness who had a similar feeling, that he believed his church was right. My only argument is that these feeligns maybe self-induced becasue when you believe so much in something, it is possible to get that kidnf of feeling. For instance, when you watch a movie with ants or maybe your in a house infested with ants, every once in awhile, i as well as other friends, woudl get the feelign liek soemthigns crawling up my arms. I'm a runner as well and if you happen to mentally tell yourself your tired in a race, you dotn perform as well. Not because your not physically cpable of doign it, only because its mental. Since I am not in the lds faith, thats my conclusion to this feeling.
I'll admit, I have already questioned my faith and when my friends told me abotu the lds faith, they told me to pray so i did and i prayed for like a week for god to answer me if this guy was the real deal, and if the bom was not a ficitional story. I dont think I ever got a response, but not too long after, I decided to start doing research and after awhile i wasnt convinced. Its the stuff that could poetentially prove j smith lied that bothered me.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I agree, I think that his level of education is not a signicficant reason for him not to make up the bom.
Agreed. But, look at the time frame that the BoM was written under. This is a significant thing. It is difficult for great writers to write as much that maintains cohesion, let alone the men that had a part in the BoM writing. It was completed in 85 days, 531 pages of cohesive storyline in 85 days. This would be a challenge today, let alone 180 years ago.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Now from what I've read and experienced as far as valdity for lds, the majority of the people have had testimony by the burning in the bosom or some other feeling, compliments of the holy spirit. I said this in another post before, but I also have a friend whos jehovahs witness who had a similar feeling, that he believed his church was right. My only argument is that these feeligns maybe self-induced becasue when you believe so much in something, it is possible to get that kidnf of feeling. For instance, when you watch a movie with ants or maybe your in a house infested with ants, every once in awhile, i as well as other friends, woudl get the feelign liek soemthigns crawling up my arms. I'm a runner as well and if you happen to mentally tell yourself your tired in a race, you dotn perform as well. Not because your not physically cpable of doign it, only because its mental. Since I am not in the lds faith, thats my conclusion to this feeling.
I agree that this could be an explanation for it, from a non LDS stance, or any stance looking at someone that has a view dissimilar from their own.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I'll admit, I have already questioned my faith and when my friends told me abotu the lds faith, they told me to pray so i did and i prayed for like a week for god to answer me if this guy was the real deal, and if the bom was not a ficitional story. I dont think I ever got a response, but not too long after, I decided to start doing research and after awhile i wasnt convinced.
What were you researching? Were you looking for evidence in the text? Evidence of the people? I would assume you did research into the validity of the Church. While this is a proper scientific attempt, it is the inappropriate method for researching religious validity. Christ taught that "by their fruits you shall know them"; He also taught that the "world" would hate them. In researching religion, imo, one needs to research the people, research the "fruits" of the religion. What does the Church do? What do the people of the Church do? Are the people a "good" people? What is the ultimate goal of the religion? Do the teachings of the religion coincide with these?
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Its the stuff that could poetentially prove j smith lied that bothered me.
There is evidence of this in nearly every religion. My issue with much of the evidence is the fact that it comes from a source that was party in attacks on the Church during that time. I do not believe that, from a truly unbiased stance, one could agree that any historical evidence from the time can be considered credible. Media that was not LDS would print what would sell papers, the majority of non LDS people were biased against the Church, the Government itself did nothing to protect the Church from persecution. There is nowhere that can be found an unbiased account of any of the history of the Church at that time. Due to this opinion, research in that area is not worth pursuing imo. There are a number of possible "evidences" against Joseph Smith, but like I have stated they typically come from probable anti LDS sources. If they are credible, then the Church histories must be considered as credible as well.
Originally posted by Regret
What were you researching? Were you looking for evidence in the text? Evidence of the people? I would assume you did research into the validity of the Church. While this is a proper scientific attempt, it is the inappropriate method for researching religious validity. Christ taught that "by their fruits you shall know them"; He also taught that the "world" would hate them. In researching religion, imo, one needs to research the people, research the "fruits" of the religion. What does the Church do? What do the people of the Church do? Are the people a "good" people? What is the ultimate goal of the religion? Do the teachings of the religion coincide with these?
You disagree with me at this point, but I believe that there is proof if this is a false religion. Now regarding how reliable that proof is, and how much value it has determines if you can make a conclusion. Now based on what you said about researching the "fruits" of a religion, the people, and there actions, I do not find much fault in my church. Typically mormons are known to be more morally sound than maybe other religions, however, that does not mean of course that people are not like that in the catholic church, which i'm sure you agree. Using the best knowledge, I have available or have been presented with thus far, the catholic church does not seem to be unreasonable for me, and if the proof of the lds faith goes as far as Joseph Smiths testimony and nothing else, than it cannot be somethign I can accept. There are passages that warn of false prophets and I don't feel safe with a 50-50 chance of being right. I feel content right now, and if I'm wrong it does state that I will have the chance to accept the truth when I reach the afterlife, if I'm not correct, in the mormon faith
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
You disagree with me at this point, but I believe that there is proof if this is a false religion. Now regarding how reliable that proof is, and how much value it has determines if you can make a conclusion. Now based on what you said about researching the "fruits" of a religion, the people, and there actions, I do not find much fault in my church. Typically mormons are known to be more morally sound than maybe other religions, however, that does not mean of course that people are not like that in the catholic church, which i'm sure you agree. Using the best knowledge, I have available or have been presented with thus far, the catholic church does not seem to be unreasonable for me, and if the proof of the lds faith goes as far as Joseph Smiths testimony and nothing else, than it cannot be somethign I can accept. There are passages that warn of false prophets and I don't feel safe with a 50-50 chance of being right. I feel content right now, and if I'm wrong it does state that I will have the chance to accept the truth when I reach the afterlife, if I'm not correct, in the mormon faith
I can see your stance, and I agree it is a matter we will have to disagree on, as far as evidence.
When speaking of "fruits" I was referring to the body of the religion as a whole, and it can be applied to any religion. The Catholics in general are not bad people. I do not believe the Catholic church membership as a whole behave better because they are Catholic than they would otherwise. I fail to see much improvement in people because of their affiliation in it. I do not see strong evidence as to significant good "fruits" that come from the Catholic church. And this isn't in denial of good "fruits" being present, only in the level of these good "fruits." The Catholic Church does do good things, I just do not see them being proportional to the size of the Catholic Church, comparatively it is a small ratio of good to lack of good in the Catholic Church.
As for the possibility of False Prophets. There should be concern there, and is wise to have belief in what you are following. I do believe, according to my understanding of Mormon doctrine, that if your heart is in the right place and you did not dismiss the Church out of hand that the opportunity will exist later. There is little stated concerning what qualifies as an opportunity and what does not, but I would assume that it is based on each individual separately.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Regret, are you actually a mormon bishop
Lol, no I am not. It requires a lot of time and I enjoy my time 😉