Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8 ] |
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
What the Mormons Believe... -- Lynn, 19:51:20 08/03/07 Fri [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
They believe the bible to be the word of God written by man, who made mistakes in its interpretation. The book of Mormon, but especially the Doctrine and Covenants correct the mistakes written in the King James version of the bible.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Catie... -- Lynn, 11:59:19 08/03/07 Fri [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
Your absolutely right, God is not the author of confusion, but man is. When man translated, he translated for his own purpose, not God's revelation. That is why there are many bibles written so differently from one another. Of course we can all agree to disagree at some point. We use the King James translation because that is what Joseph Smith used, but there are alot of things written in the New Testament that are said differently in the New World translation and the Catholic versions. If we only knew how to read the original languages of the Old and New Testament, all of our questions would be answered.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Lynn -- Catie, 19:31:06 08/03/07 Fri [1] (h166.243.213.151.ip.alltel.net/151.213.243.166)
By the way I'm glad to see you are better! You gave me a scare. That Mike of yours is a good son! :)
Sadly there are many who do read and understand the languages of Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and still strongly disagree on scripture. I have some American friends who live in Israel and are fluent in both Greek and Hebrew. Believe it or not, I have heard them disagree on the interpretation of scriptures. When I have studied the bible, for more than just the purpose of reading it, I have always kept a Strong's concordance on hand to help clarify the way a word was used or intended. (Just as in all languages, specific words in the bible can have dual meaning, sometimes more.) I'd never try to study the bible without a Concordance at the very least. Even after the word is defined, it can still leave one wondering about the intention of the scripture. Perhaps it boils down to a combination of faith and what one is or is not willing to believe. :)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Catie... -- Lynn, 19:54:38 08/03/07 Fri [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
I'm glad to see you up and about as well. I'm feeling alot better, hope you are too. I find it interesting that those who can read the original tongue of the bible still disagree with the scriptures. I guess anyone can interpret the bible anyway they want. I think one thing is clear, the Ten Commandments have never changed in any of the translations, so at least we know that is the Word of God, both in the Old and New Testament.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Translations. Questions for everyone. -- Joan, 14:00:11 08/03/07 Fri [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
"The translations are men's interpretations of God's inspired word."
This is what I don't get. They accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but they go and change it. :-)
If they accept that the Catholic Councils were correct in picking the books they did, why did they go and change the Bible? Some books were omitted from the OT Canon. Parts of other books were. Words were added to support a particular interpretation.
If they truly believed that the councils got the canon right, why would they change the Bible?
I can understand differnces in interpretation. But picking and choosing which books of the canon to keep is something else. Do they believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God or not? If they do, why do they accept Bible versions that have changed the canon that was set in the 4th century?
These questions are for everyone.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Translations. Questions for everyone. -- Catie, 20:23:29 08/03/07 Fri [1] (h166.243.213.151.ip.alltel.net/151.213.243.166)
Joan, Jeepers, I know I should wait until I'm drug-free, but since that looks like it's going to be far into the future, I'm gonna answer right now, mainly because I have become tired of lying in bed tonight. :) I'm giving it a shot and am going to make a feeble attempt to answer your question. You have asked it before and you deserve an answer of some kind. I'm bet I'm going to open a can of worms, but I do it with the best of intentions.
"This is what I don't get. They accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but they go and change it. :-)
...If they truly believed that the councils got the canon right, why would they change the Bible? "
Who do you say changed it? How did they change it?
There were councils, those in authority writing down God's word from the beginning of time. The old testament tells us first, God wrote the Ten Commandments. From there we read in old (Torah) and new testaments where he instructed specific men throughout the ages to write down his words. In Acts 15 a council gathered in Jerusalem to determine if Gentiles were bound by the law of Moses. There was debate then as to what was to be acknowledged as God's word for his people. Some Jews believed it eas okay for the Gentiles to not be bound by Mosiac laws, but that Jews should not be free of them. Then St.Paul (of Tarsus) came along and said something to the effect that to live by the law was crucifying Christ anew. Paraphrasing, he said the Holy Spirit would be the guide (in place of the law). But Christ himself said "I've come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it". There was division among believers.
Then in Nicaea, 325 A.D., as you know, there was a council that was the beginning of the Catholic Church. At the heart of that council was Constantine. Sorry, earlier I incorrectly referred to him as a Pope. that's not the first time I've done that. I mean no disprespect, and I don't want anyone to misunderstand my thinking, but I equate him the same as a Catholic Pope, I think because of his religious power.
My point is, there have always been councils that met, discussed and voted on books, scriptures, etc. As you probably know, the protestant holds Constantine responsible as is the one framed into being a church of his own design, dictating what should be. YOu can argue that the Catholic church kept the original books, that nothing ws changed and that the protestants changed it. But the protestants have the same argument... That the books Constantine and his council voted on, deemed acceptable, are not accepted as divine holy inspired scripture. Protestants accept the 66 books of the original bible, written by 40 inspired authors, over a period of approximately 1,600 years. Protestants adhere to the scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that "All scripture is inspired by God…." All as in the original scrolls. 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to "know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, ... but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The Bible itself
tells us that it is God who is the author of His book. I don't expect you to agree, but does this is the best I can do at such a late hour. :)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I just read my own words. Yep, I pretty well botched it. LOL -- Catie, 20:27:36 08/03/07 Fri [1] (h166.243.213.151.ip.alltel.net/151.213.243.166)
It's a late hour. I should just return to my weary bed. lol... Gosh, Even I can barely make sense of it. *ack*
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: Translations. Questions for everyone. -- Joan, 03:28:14 08/04/07 Sat [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
" YOu can argue that the Catholic church kept the original books, that nothing ws changed and that the protestants changed it. But the protestants have the same argument... That the books Constantine and his council voted on, deemed acceptable, are not accepted as divine holy inspired scripture. Protestants accept the 66 books of the original bible, written by 40 inspired authors, over a period of approximately 1,600 years"
Catholics accept the Alexandrian Canon. Protestants use the Hebrew Canon. The New Testament writers used the Alexandrian canon. Something like 300 quotes from the OT that are in the NT came from the Septuagint, the Alexandrian Canon which is in Greek. This was the popular translaton, because Hebrew was a dying language then. The New Testament was written in Greek. Jesus used the Greek translation, the Septuagint.
The Hebrew Canon wasn't "ratified" (if that's the right word) as the "correct" canon until long after Jesus' death, around 100 AD. Until then, only some of the Jews used that version. Others, including Jesus and the NT writers used the Septuagint translation.
Luther rejected the canon because he agreed with the Jews that certain books shouldn't be included because there was no evidence of Hebrew copies of those books. Well, what do you know? They found copies of some of those books in the Dead Sea Scrolls! :-)
So, one of the reasons that the canon was disputed has been found completely invalid. Luther also wanted to ditch anything that supported belief that he was uncomfortable with, like prayer for the dead. That doesn't sound "inspired" to me.
The councils that decided that canon (OT and NT) were held in 393 and 397, and the canon was approved and closed forever in 405 by Pope Innocent.
This was long after the church was supposedly ruined and made invalid by Constantine. So why would Protestants accept the Canon? How do they know that these books and only these books are the right canon? And if the quotations from the OT in the NT came from the Septuagint, how can they accept the NT as inspired? If they don't believe that the Septuagint translation is good, how can they accept scripture based on that translation as valid and inspired?
The answer, I think, is that they don't accept it. 16 centuries after the canon was closed, they opened it again. Luther decided which books were right, based on mistaken information as shown above, and changed the canon.
How does anyone accept a canon based on misinformation, decided on by someone who was obviously not guided by the Holy Spirit?
The Septuagint was the translation used by Jesus and the New Testament writers. Why would anyone choose to use another, less complete version, especially when it's been proved that the reason for throwing out the books was faulty? The books do exist in Hebrew!
And yet, the Protestants accept the canon of the NT without question, even though that canon was decided by the same councils and pope--all Catholic--after the CC was supposedly ruined by Constantine. These were fully Catholic councils. They didn't meet before Constantine. I know that some Protestants divide things along what I call the Constantinian line, as if everything before Constantine were pure and everything after were impure.
But there were many doctrinal disputes before Constantine. There were sects long before Constantine. In fact, many of Paul's letters were in response to local disputes about belief. So how do Protestants accept that the Catholic council members were guided by the Holy Spirit when deciding on the NT but were not about the OT? Or do they believe that it was Luther who was guided by the Holy Spirit and actually decided the canon of the NT as well, and that it just happened to match the Catholic NT canon?
But who made the decision on the canon, according to Protestants? Did Luther have complete control? Did they have their own councils in the 16th century?
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Don't be confused Neysa... -- Lynn, 13:03:52 08/04/07 Sat [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
Many people have no idea what really goes on in the LDS church. We are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We use the King James version of the bible ( the same one that Joseph Smith used ) along with the Book of Mormon, which is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon tells of stories 200 years before the birth of Christ, very interesting reading if you want to pick up a copy. It's free of cost and can be ordered on http://www.mormon.org
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Hey Lynn, glad you're feeling better.... -- Phil from AZ, 00:28:45 08/05/07 Sun [1] (71-223-15-110.phnx.qwest.net/71.223.15.110)
Plz don't be angry with me, but I've always wondered how LDS believers answer the following:
We Christians believe in one God, which exists thru the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, we believe in monotheism.
If LDS believers claim that there is more than 1 god, aren't you claiming that you're a polytheistic religion, i.e. that there is more than 1 god. And, generally speaking, what are these 'priesthood secrets' that you refer to? Who decides when/if someone is 'ready' to receive these secrets?
Just a couple questions. Take care, God Bless,
Phil from AZ
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Phil... -- Lynn, 08:46:02 08/05/07 Sun [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
I am fairly new to the LDS religion. We are taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 seperate beings. Can't talk about the priesthood secrets. You would have to join the church in order to know what they are.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fair enough Lynn. Just asking... -- Phil, 09:55:56 08/05/07 Sun [1] (71-223-15-110.phnx.qwest.net/71.223.15.110)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
The new Adam -- Joan, 19:07:20 08/05/07 Sun [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
"Latter Day Saint religion holds that Adam and Michael the archangel are the same individual. Michael the archangel fought against and cast out Satan, "that old serpent," at the conclusion of the "war in heaven" during our pre-mortal exsistence (see Book of Revelation 12:7-9). "Michael" was born into this mortal existence as the man "Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" (see Doctrine and Covenants 27:11 and 107:54)."
I'm really confused by LDS beliefs--mostly because I've never spent time trying to understand. St Michael is the same as Adam. Jesus is the "new Adam". Do the LDS believe that he is literally the new Adam, meaning that Michael, Adam, and Jesus are the same person?
Please excuse the stupidity of that question. I know I could look it up myself, but it's so much easier to ask than to wade through tomes, especially when you don't have a clue about any of it. :-)
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I don't have an answer either... -- Lynn, 21:20:32 08/05/07 Sun [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
I am very new to the LDS teachings and have no clue, though some things have confused me to. Sorry I can't help you Joan.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Lynn, if it's not too personal... -- Joan, 05:02:27 08/06/07 Mon [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
I'm interested in what prompted you to switch religions. Feel free to tell me to mind my own business. I'm not asking to pick your answer to pieces or to start a debate about it, I'm just curious.
I was brought up Catholic in a parish that I detested and still do. I switched to an Episc. church that I didn't like. Then another, which I didn't like--the people seemed to be playing at life. One said "This is just like the Waltons!". Good grief, let's live in reality, ladies. :-)
Anyway, I ended up in a Methodist church that I liked very much, except that I couldn't figure out what anyone believed beyond that Jesus is the savior. I went anyway, just believing what I believed and not worrying about it.
Then someone on Ralph's (now Brenda's) forum made some crazy statements about the Catholic Church. Some of the statements were right out of the anti-Catholic literature. Other statements were more innocent and common misconceptions. There was one man who was especially nasty, and I responded to his hate-filled and incorrect statements. In defending the faith, I realized that Catholicism had the answers I was looking for. Though I was sitting in other churches, Catholicism held the fullness of the faith that the other churches lacked. So, not immediately, but eventually, I made it back home to the Catholic Church. Thanks to a man who thought he was doing a good job at slamming the faith, one of the lost Catholics found her way home. I figure that God sent that man for me and others. I made it back to the CC, and now I teach Catechism. I doubt that he knew he was doing God's work. God sure does work in mysterious ways. :-)
I hold no grudges against that man for his comments. Those comments are exactly, apparently, what I needed to start on the road home.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Lynn, if it's not too personal... -- Lynn, 08:29:16 08/06/07 Mon [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
Joan, when I was younger I always had a belief in Jesus Christ. Growing up in a Jewish household, the mere mention of Jesus was a no no. I guess you can say as I got older, the more in tune I was with the spirit and of the Father and Son. I did not believe in the trinity, I always had the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were seperate entities. Many things about the LDS church are very confusing to me, even after a year, but I like several things about the church. For one, they are a family oriented church. Everything about it is keeping families together for time and all eternity. Another thing I like is that everyone in church knows one another like a family. I don't believe there isn't one person who doesn't know who someone is unless they are visiting. I LOVE the fact when others are in need, that they help no matter what the circumstances. If someone is struggling financially, they help with food, and in some cases when people have lost their jobs, have helped with the bills. Many people are against paying the 10% tithing to the church, but I must tell you that the 10% that you pay is nothing compared to the help they give you once you need it. There have been cases when people who have not joined the church also benefit. There was this older couple in the 70's who daughter was killed in a car accident. They inherited 7 of their grandchildren ranging in ages 3 months to 16 years of age. There was no father in the picture at all. This couple was living in a very tiny apartment. Anyway, one day at church someone mentioned this family and what had happened and asked that if we all got together to get the essentials the family needed, that it would not only be a blessing for them, but for us as well. Jesus taught " Love one another as I have Loved you ". We bought soap, toothpaste, shampoo, towels & washcloths, people donated clothing, mattresses and in some cases beds/crib for the babies, plus food stuff. The following week, the person in charge was crying her eyes out because there was an overabundance of things our ward had gathered for this family in need. We have had many other families in crisis since then, and we have helped them many times over. I have never seen this type of help or Love from any other church in my life. I'm not saying there isn't any out there that would do the same, but I have never seen it. The doctrine at times may be hard to swallow, but the overall picture is why I joined.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
One other thing Joan... -- Lynn, 08:31:25 08/06/07 Mon [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
we focus on the Living Christ instead of the dead Christ on the cross. We focus on Christ resurrected which is why we call him the Living Christ. We have that belief because we too have hope of the resurrection.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Lynn, if it's not too personal... -- Joan, 12:30:47 08/06/07 Mon [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
"we focus on the Living Christ instead of the dead Christ on the cross."
Do others think that Catholics concentrate on the "dead Christ"?
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Joan... -- Lynn, 13:07:38 08/06/07 Mon [1] (ip72-193-232-42.lv.lv.cox.net/72.193.232.42)
from my observation of it, yes. Wearing the cross symbolizes the dead Christ, him on the cross at church also symbolizes the dead Christ. The only time the church recognizes the resurrected Christ is during Easter. We celebrate the living resurrected Christ all year long, and Easter is when it's celebrated as the day Christ is resurrected, but we don't make a big deal over it.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]