Ask a Mormon! (Part Two)

[Katzpur]

Guys, if we want to discuss, PLEASE do it in a separate thread. This is for non-members to ask questions. If we have a disagreement or different opinions on doctrine, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE discuss it somewhere else. I'd really like this thread to stay nice and simple.

Comprehend gave Mister Emu one answer. I gave him an entirely different answer, and our posts overlapped (i.e. neither one of us knew what the other one was typing). Is that how you would have preferred that we leave it?

 

[Bishka]

Comprehend gave Mister Emu one answer. I gave him an entirely different answer, and our posts overlapped (i.e. neither one of us knew what the other one was typing). Is that how you would have preferred that we leave it?

It wasn't that.....sorry if it seemed that way. It sort of looked like it was turning into the other one. I'll keep my mouth shut now.:cover:

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

everyone take a deep breath well get though this!!!

 

[athanasius]

Hi guys I have a copy of the book of mormon and I was skimming it the other day when I came across a few passages in 1 Nephi that intrigued me. The passages that I am referrring to are (1 Neph 13:5-13, 26-28, 32-34, 40).

These passages refer to a great abominable church that has fine linen and clothing and gold. This Church is a Whore who distorts truth. To my understadning this sound to me like the book is referring to the Catholic Church. I may be wrong but here is my reasoning. When the book of Mormon was written(1800's) it was during a period of history where religious revivals were going around and the other (protestant) Churches did not use or have vestments, Gold Chalices, or the like. However the Catholic church did. So my question is this. Is this passage referring to the Catholic Church according to mormon interpretation?

 

[Comprehend]

Hi guys I have a copy of the book of mormon and I was skimming it the other day when I came across a few passages in 1 Nephi that intrigued me. The passages that I am referrring to are (1 Neph 13:5-13, 26-28, 32-34, 40).

These passages refer to a great abominable church that has fine linen and clothing and gold. This Church is a Whore who distorts truth. To my understadning this sound to me like the book is referring to the Catholic Church. I may be wrong but here is my reasoning. When the book of Mormon was written(1800's) it was during a period of history where religious revivals were going around and the other (protestant) Churches did not use or have vestments, Gold Chalices, or the like. However the Catholic church did. So my question is this. Is this passage referring to the Catholic Church according to mormon interpretation?

Hey, Athanasius.

The book of Mormon was actually written between 600 BC and 421 AD. It was translated by Joseph Smith Jr. in the early 1800's. The first book of Nephi was written around 600 B.C. and the short answer is that it is not referring to any particular church.

Here is what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says:

The phrase "great and abominable church," which appears in an apocalyptic vision received by the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi 1 in the sixth century B.C. (1 Ne. 13:6), refers to the church of the devil and is understood by Latter-day Saints to be equivalent to the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters" described in Revelation 17:1. This "whore of all the earth" is identified by Nephi's brother Jacob as all those who are against God and who fight against Zion, in all periods of time (2 Ne. 10:16). Nephi did not write a detailed account of everything he saw in the vision, as this responsibility was reserved for John the apostle, who was to receive the same vision; however, Nephi repeatedly refers to its content and teachings, using various images and phrases (1 Ne. 13:4-9, 26-27, 34; 14:1-4, 9-17).

Like John, Nephi and Jacob describe persecutions that evil people will inflict on God's people, particularly in the last days. The angel who explained the vision to Nephi emphasized that this great and abominable church would take away from the Bible and "the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord" (1 Ne. 13:26), causing men to "stumble" and giving Satan "great power" over them (1 Ne. 13:29; D&C 86:3; Robinson, "Early Christianity," p. 188). Though many Protestants, following the lead of Martin Luther, have linked this evil force described in Revelation 17 with the Roman Catholic church, the particular focus of these LDS and New Testament scriptures seems rather to be on earlier agents of apostasy in the Jewish and Christian traditions (see A. Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 6, pp. 1036-38, Nashville, Tenn., 1977).

When Nephi speaks typologically rather than historically, he identifies all the enemies of the Saints with the church of the devil (1 Ne. 14:9-10; 2 Ne. 10:16). They are those from all nations and all time periods who desire "to get gain, and…power over the flesh, and…to become popular in the eyes of the world,…who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity" (1 Ne. 22:23). Other scriptural terms related to the great and abominable church include "Babylon" and the "great harlot" (Rev. 17:5; 1 Ne. 22:13; D&C 1:16). Images of pride, greed, and covenant abandonment are associated with these terms, in sharp contrast to the church of God. The scriptures are consistent in warning people to flee from the church of evil and find refuge in the church of God (Jer. 51:6; Rev. 18:4; 1 Ne. 20:20; D&C 133:14; see also P. Minear, "Babylon," in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1:338, Nashville, Tenn., 1962). The Book of Mormon image of a great and abominable church complements the biblical images of Babylon and the harlot.

The fate of the great and abominable church is described in both ancient and modern scriptures (Jer. 51:37; Rev. 18:21; 1 Ne. 14:15-16; 22:14; D&C 1:16): Though the nations of the earth will gather together against them, "the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth" are promised redemption even if it requires power sent down from heaven, as if by fire (1 Ne. 14:14; 22:17). When Jesus Christ returns, he will claim his own and reject those who have opposed him (Mal. 4:1-3; 2 Thes. 2:6-10; 1 Ne. 22:23-26; see Jesus Christ: Second Coming of Jesus Christ). As the Savior institutes his millennial reign, great will be the fall of Babylon, the harlot, and the great and abominable church (Rev. 18; 2 Ne. 28:18), for every knee will bow and every tongue confess, with thankfulness, that Jesus is the Christ (Isa. 45:23; Mosiah 27:31).

 

[Katzpur]

These passages refer to a great abominable church that has fine linen and clothing and gold. This Church is a Whore who distorts truth. To my understadning this sound to me like the book is referring to the Catholic Church. I may be wrong but here is my reasoning. When the book of Mormon was written(1800's) it was during a period of history where religious revivals were going around and the other (protestant) Churches did not use or have vestments, Gold Chalices, or the like. However the Catholic church did. So my question is this. Is this passage referring to the Catholic Church according to mormon interpretation?

No, it's not referring to any church in particular. Granted, there have been some people speculate that it's referring to Catholicism, but that is not and never has been the position of the LDS Church. Also, keep in mind that we don't believe the Book of Mormon to have been written in the 1800's, but translated in the 1800's. If it were written in the 1800's, your reasoning might have some merit, but if it were written between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. (as we claim to be the case), the religious climate in America in 1830 would have no bearing whatsoever on its contents.

 

[Comprehend]

No, it's not referring to any church in particular. Granted, there have been some people speculate that it's referring to Catholicism, but that is not and never has been the position of the LDS Church. Also, keep in mind that we don't believe the Book of Mormon to have been written in the 1800's, but translated in the 1800's. If it were written in the 1800's, your reasoning might have some merit, but if it were written between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. (as we claim to be the case), the religious climate in America in 1830 would have no bearing whatsoever on its contents.

hah! I beat you for once and we used almost the same phrases. Maybe I should call you copy katzpur. JK

 

[Katzpur]

hah! I beat you for once and we used almost the same phrases. Maybe I should call you copy katzpur. JK

Yeah, and my post was even short!

 

[Bishka]

Like the other two said, it isn't referrin to one church in patircular. It's basically any Church that is of the devil and goes against God. The Church of the Lamb is any church that embraces God and worship Jesus Christ.

 

[athanasius]

Hey, Athanasius.

The book of Mormon was actually written between 600 BC and 421 AD. It was translated by Joseph Smith Jr. in the early 1800's. The first book of Nephi was written around 600 B.C. and the short answer is that it is not referring to any particular church.

Here is what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says:

The phrase "great and abominable church," which appears in an apocalyptic vision received by the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi 1 in the sixth century B.C. (1 Ne. 13:6), refers to the church of the devil and is understood by Latter-day Saints to be equivalent to the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters" described in Revelation 17:1. This "whore of all the earth" is identified by Nephi's brother Jacob as all those who are against God and who fight against Zion, in all periods of time (2 Ne. 10:16). Nephi did not write a detailed account of everything he saw in the vision, as this responsibility was reserved for John the apostle, who was to receive the same vision; however, Nephi repeatedly refers to its content and teachings, using various images and phrases (1 Ne. 13:4-9, 26-27, 34; 14:1-4, 9-17).

Like John, Nephi and Jacob describe persecutions that evil people will inflict on God's people, particularly in the last days. The angel who explained the vision to Nephi emphasized that this great and abominable church would take away from the Bible and "the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord" (1 Ne. 13:26), causing men to "stumble" and giving Satan "great power" over them (1 Ne. 13:29; D&C 86:3; Robinson, "Early Christianity," p. 188). Though many Protestants, following the lead of Martin Luther, have linked this evil force described in Revelation 17 with the Roman Catholic church, the particular focus of these LDS and New Testament scriptures seems rather to be on earlier agents of apostasy in the Jewish and Christian traditions (see A. Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 6, pp. 1036-38, Nashville, Tenn., 1977).

When Nephi speaks typologically rather than historically, he identifies all the enemies of the Saints with the church of the devil (1 Ne. 14:9-10; 2 Ne. 10:16). They are those from all nations and all time periods who desire "to get gain, and…power over the flesh, and…to become popular in the eyes of the world,…who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity" (1 Ne. 22:23). Other scriptural terms related to the great and abominable church include "Babylon" and the "great harlot" (Rev. 17:5; 1 Ne. 22:13; D&C 1:16). Images of pride, greed, and covenant abandonment are associated with these terms, in sharp contrast to the church of God. The scriptures are consistent in warning people to flee from the church of evil and find refuge in the church of God (Jer. 51:6; Rev. 18:4; 1 Ne. 20:20; D&C 133:14; see also P. Minear, "Babylon," in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1:338, Nashville, Tenn., 1962). The Book of Mormon image of a great and abominable church complements the biblical images of Babylon and the harlot.

The fate of the great and abominable church is described in both ancient and modern scriptures (Jer. 51:37; Rev. 18:21; 1 Ne. 14:15-16; 22:14; D&C 1:16): Though the nations of the earth will gather together against them, "the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth" are promised redemption even if it requires power sent down from heaven, as if by fire (1 Ne. 14:14; 22:17). When Jesus Christ returns, he will claim his own and reject those who have opposed him (Mal. 4:1-3; 2 Thes. 2:6-10; 1 Ne. 22:23-26; see Jesus Christ: Second Coming of Jesus Christ). As the Savior institutes his millennial reign, great will be the fall of Babylon, the harlot, and the great and abominable church (Rev. 18; 2 Ne. 28:18), for every knee will bow and every tongue confess, with thankfulness, that Jesus is the Christ (Isa. 45:23; Mosiah 27:31).

Thank you for the thorough and enlightening answer!

Bless you.

 

[athanasius]

No, it's not referring to any church in particular. Granted, there have been some people speculate that it's referring to Catholicism, but that is not and never has been the position of the LDS Church. Also, keep in mind that we don't believe the Book of Mormon to have been written in the 1800's, but translated in the 1800's. If it were written in the 1800's, your reasoning might have some merit, but if it were written between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. (as we claim to be the case), the religious climate in America in 1830 would have no bearing whatsoever on its contents.

Thank you my friend for your answer. I appreciate it. God bless you always

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

Hi guys I have a copy of the book of mormon and I was skimming it the other day when I came across a few passages in 1 Nephi that intrigued me. The passages that I am referrring to are (1 Neph 13:5-13, 26-28, 32-34, 40).

These passages refer to a great abominable church that has fine linen and clothing and gold. This Church is a Whore who distorts truth. To my understadning this sound to me like the book is referring to the Catholic Church. I may be wrong but here is my reasoning. When the book of Mormon was written(1800's) it was during a period of history where religious revivals were going around and the other (protestant) Churches did not use or have vestments, Gold Chalices, or the like. However the Catholic church did. So my question is this. Is this passage referring to the Catholic Church according to mormon interpretation?

if you don't mind me asking, how did you come to this interpretation?

 

[XAAX]

I encourage everyone to be respectful and kind.

Ask away!
Edit: Please rememer to be respectful.

I will admit that my research on mormons is a lot like my knowledge on jehovah witnesses, not a lot. I always viewed them as more of a silly spin off than anything else. No offense intended. They were just a little to obscure during the time after my break from Christianity to really get into.
About a year ago I had a customer of mine start talking to me about ancient artifacts. I am very interested in the subject so the man and I got caught up in conversation on the topic for a few hours. An hour into the conversation he mention the findings of the box with had plates and the stones in them. Being somewhat of a religious history buff, it intrigued me that such a thing could have made it to this continent long before it was know do be discovered. He explained at that point that he was a mormon and that the artifacts are what the “spin off” from Christianity came from. After lengthy stories and information regarding the knowledge of these artifacts and the LDS church, I was interested in seeing these objects to study the markings on them.
This is where he lost me. The stones where never seen by anyone other than smith and a few other people. No examination by anyone who could collaborate the artifacts. He just found these ancient artifacts, talked to some angels, then re-buried them.
This is where fact meets fiction. I had a tremendous problem with blind faith. If you want to go by Christian theology, we are made in gods image. If that were the case, I don’t believe that god would create something of itself without also giving the ability to understand that self. So, how did you go from listening to this story and say…yeah, that sounds logical. The guy was already viewed as a loon by the townspeople where he lived. So logically If I was god and I wanted to send some angels to earth to enlighten the masses again. I think I would be a little selective in who I chose. I mean if you really want your message heard, pick someone who is respected or at least give the guy some proof.
Don’t think that I am saying that being a mormon is bad. I have studied their ideology a bit over the last year and I will say that the focus on family is really good. I think that is missing in a lot of peoples lives. But the smith stuff, at least there are manuscripts found all over the place about different accounts of who Jesus was and what he did. None of them from the time of Jesus or from eyewitness accounts…but that’s another story.

So my first question is what causes someone to listen to a story, full of holes, and believe it?

My second question is, is the whole hiding of the translated document by his friend true? The story where the angel got mad and would not let him read from that book again.

Please do not respond with a quote from the book or mormon or the bible. I always find that to be such a lame cop out. I can get into a scripture quoting war the best of them and it still gets you no where.

 

[Comprehend]

I will admit that my research on mormons is a lot like my knowledge on jehovah witnesses, not a lot. I always viewed them as more of a silly spin off than anything else. No offense intended. They were just a little to obscure during the time after my break from Christianity to really get into.
About a year ago I had a customer of mine start talking to me about ancient artifacts. I am very interested in the subject so the man and I got caught up in conversation on the topic for a few hours. An hour into the conversation he mention the findings of the box with had plates and the stones in them. Being somewhat of a religious history buff, it intrigued me that such a thing could have made it to this continent long before it was know do be discovered. He explained at that point that he was a mormon and that the artifacts are what the “spin off” from Christianity came from. After lengthy stories and information regarding the knowledge of these artifacts and the LDS church, I was interested in seeing these objects to study the markings on them.
This is where he lost me. The stones where never seen by anyone other than smith and a few other people. No examination by anyone who could collaborate the artifacts. He just found these ancient artifacts, talked to some angels, then re-buried them.
This is where fact meets fiction. I had a tremendous problem with blind faith. If you want to go by Christian theology, we are made in gods image. If that were the case, I don’t believe that god would create something of itself without also giving the ability to understand that self. So, how did you go from listening to this story and say…yeah, that sounds logical. The guy was already viewed as a loon by the townspeople where he lived. So logically If I was god and I wanted to send some angels to earth to enlighten the masses again. I think I would be a little selective in who I chose. I mean if you really want your message heard, pick someone who is respected or at least give the guy some proof.
Don’t think that I am saying that being a mormon is bad. I have studied their ideology a bit over the last year and I will say that the focus on family is really good. I think that is missing in a lot of peoples lives. But the smith stuff, at least there are manuscripts found all over the place about different accounts of who Jesus was and what he did. None of them from the time of Jesus or from eyewitness accounts…but that’s another story.

So my first question is what causes someone to listen to a story, full of holes, and believe it?

My second question is, is the whole hiding of the translated document by his friend true? The story where the angel got mad and would not let him read from that book again.

Please do not respond with a quote from the book or mormon or the bible. I always find that to be such a lame cop out. I can get into a scripture quoting war the best of them and it still gets you no where.

No offense taken. I have viewed some athiests as bitter pseudo-intellectuals who although they all seem to have left a religion, can't seem to leave religion alone and their false bravado usually seems to be hiding an insecurity that comes from that nagging feeling that there really is a God and that they are only kidding themselves, no offense, I don't mean you of course. and don't think that I am saying that being an athiest is bad, I am friends with a lot of cool athiests, really, but on to your questions.

The first question isn't a question, it is an argumentative fallacy with a question mark at the end, so I guess I'll have to skip that one. (don't worry, no offense taken by that one either, or your comments about Joseph Smith either for that matter).

The second question all depends on what story you have heard. From the sound of the rest of your information, you didn't get it from an LDS source. The first 116 pages (I think) of the Book of Mormon were lost when Joseph Smith loaned them to Martin Harris (I think) after asking God repeatedly to loan them and God repeatedly said no. The pages were lost/stolen. God did not allow the pages to be retranslated but had provided a way for the information to be had anyway over 1000 years before the theft took place.

Thank you for your kind and polite questions. I particularly enjoy your sensitivity to those who believe differently than you do. You really went out of your way to be considerate to anothers beliefs and you should be commended for it. It is plain to see that you are a man of upstanding character. Thanks again.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

preach the net

it might be interested to you to know that there are plates found all over the world now. in fact in the mid to late 1800s this was an agrument for alot of chirstian aginst the LDS church it was untel the discovery of the Dead sea Scrolls that what Joseph Smith said and saw became true, if fact after the dead sea scrolls were found many other metal plates and other object of religus value became to apper...

now i am not awere of any whole from a religus point of view of any wholes, for one we belive as did paul that "ever word will be established by two or three witness" so the testamony of the three witiness becomes very importian to God and to his people. all three of these witnesses of the Book of Mormon left the church two of the came back into the church and the three never came back into the church. all of them lost everything in the church but none of them ever deined what they saw and testified to the trueness of the book of mormon... David witmar went to great langths to preserve his testamony even having several witnesses sign a paper the he himself was truthful and also along with that a signed document of his testamony of the Book of Mormon...

now let me ask you a question, if you could see the plates would you belive and join the church? if you didnn't would you question the traslation? would you than seek to know if everything is true though angels?

these questions are why the book of mormon plates are taken back with the angles of God, to preserve the angency of man...

 

[Bishka]

I will admit that my research on mormons is a lot like my knowledge on jehovah witnesses, not a lot

Since you haven't done a lot, we are more then happy to answer any questions that you ask or anything that you may need to know.

I always viewed them as more of a silly spin off than anything else. No offense intended.

Are you sure about that? Just kidding, we know most people don't 'mean offense', but a lot of them time they do. Anyways, I'm just babbling here.

They were just a little to obscure during the time after my break from Christianity to really get into.

I'm not sure what you mean by obscure. If you mean not a lot of members? Or different then mainstream Chrsitianity?

He explained at that point that he was a mormon and that the artifacts are what the “spin off” from Christianity came from.

Not necessarily. We believe ourselves to be a restoration of the original Church and gospel that Jesus Christ preached on this earth. We also believe there was a Great Apostatsy and that main plain and precious truths were laost and that they have now been restored.

After lengthy stories and information regarding the knowledge of these artifacts and the LDS church, I was interested in seeing these objects to study the markings on them.
This is where he lost me. The stones where never seen by anyone other than smith and a few other people. No examination by anyone who could collaborate the artifacts. He just found these ancient artifacts, talked to some angels, then re-buried them. .

This is where you misunderstood your friend or it wasn't completley explained. They plates and the other items were never 'reburied', they were given back to God. Those other people never recounted their testimonies of seeing those plates and you can read their testimonies here:

The Testimony of the Three Witnesses
The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses
The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith

This is where fact meets fiction.I had a tremendous problem with blind faith.

All faith is blind faith. How do you really know that Jesus Christ walked the earth? Someone could have made up those scriptures and made up that He was an actual being. All faith takes trust, and a hope and a knowledge that it is true. :yes:

If you want to go by Christian theology, we are made in gods image..

That's what the members of the LDS Church believe as well.

So, how did you go from listening to this story and say…yeah, that sounds logical.

We have faith, we know in our hearts it is true, we have prayed about it and have received confirmation fromt eh Holy Ghost that it is.

.

The guy was already viewed as a loon by the townspeople where he lived..

Not by all of them



.

So logically If I was god and I wanted to send some angels to earth to enlighten the masses again. I think I would be a little selective in who I chose. I mean if you really want your message heard, pick someone who is respected or at least give the guy some proof.

Joseph Smith was respected by many people, there were just others that did not believe his story. Not any of God's prophets have been perfect and neither was Joseph Smith. God doesn't chose a prophet because he [the prophet] is already perfect. God choses a prophet to refine them and help make them perfect.

.

Don’t think that I am saying that being a mormon is bad. I have studied their ideology a bit over the last year and I will say that the focus on family is really good.

That's good that you have studied a bit.

So my first question is what causes someone to listen to a story, full of holes, and believe it?

Because they are not any holes in the story.

My second question is, is the whole hiding of the translated document by his friend true?

Which story? ARe you referring to Marting Harris and the lost 116 pages?

The story where the angel got mad and would not let him read from that book again.

The angel never got mad at Joseph Smith actually. It was God who said that Joseph Smith could not translate for a time. If you'd like we can delve into that story.




I hope some of what I have responded to gives you an outlook on a LDS members feelings on this subject.

 

[athanasius]

if you don't mind me asking, how did you come to this interpretation?

Logic!

 

[athanasius]

Heres a good question? When the Mormon Presidents speaks a prophesy is it considered infallible by the mormon Church? I would assume it was considering it would be prophesy but how do you guys view it?

If so, then is the Mormon president always infallible when he speaks or is he only when he binds doctrine formally and offically on the whole church like the Roman Pontiff? Just curious?

Thank you and God bless,
Athanasius

 

[Polaris]

Heres a good question? When the Mormon Presidents speaks a prophesy is it considered infallible by the mormon Church?

Yes, we believe that our President is the Lord's anointed prophet and as such is His mouthpiece for mankind.

If so, then is the Mormon president always infallible when he speaks or is he only when he binds doctrine formally and offically on the whole church like the Roman Pontiff? Just curious?

A prophet is an imperfect man with imperfect opinions so not everything he speaks is infallible nor is it intended to be. However, when he speaks when moved upon by the Holy Spirit, we believe his words to be inspired of God and therefore doctrinally binding. Usually when some doctrinally binding teaching is revealed to the prophet he has it declared to the church in some official manner so that there is no confusion concerning its official and binding nature.

Good questions.

 

[athanasius]

Yes, we believe that our President is the Lord's anointed prophet and as such is His mouthpiece for mankind.


A prophet is an imperfect man with imperfect opinions so not everything he speaks is infallible nor is it intended to be. However, when he speaks when moved upon by the Holy Spirit, we believe his words to be inspired of God and therefore doctrinally binding. Usually when some doctrinally binding teaching is revealed to the prophet he has it declared to the church in some official manner so that there is no confusion concerning its official and binding nature.

Good questions.

Thank you for your clarifications. Your position is very similar to our Postion. Cool.