Mowque
Hypermodernist
Are their any 'Holy Places' in Mormonism?
Ask a Mormon, Part 3
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
- Status
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Have any other Christian faiths taken up the belief that you will become a God after life?
Any other non-Christian religions?
Most aspects of todays religions seem to be borrowed from previous ones. I wonder if there was any opther faith that had a similar belief?
Any other non-Christian religions?
Most aspects of todays religions seem to be borrowed from previous ones. I wonder if there was any opther faith that had a similar belief?
Within our temples, which are basically dedicated for sacred purposes. Beyond that, a few places (all in the US) important to the history of the Church. Such as Palmyra, near Rochester, NY, where Joseph Smith lived and where the church was founded.
I am unaware of it being a doctrine in any other religion, but I am pretty sure that specific Christian thinkers believed it. I will ask Plotinus.
I think Hindus and Buddhists believe one can be reincarnated as a god, but their idea of a god is different from ours in this case, so it isn't really the same thing.
Sure, there is a lot of overlap, but new religious ideas have to come from somewhere.
The reason he gave was that he couldn't be sure that someone would not find the lost pages, alter them in some way, then release them as proof that he was incapable of translating them. So he had a problem either way. But if he were sure they were lost forever, then whether he was translating by the power of God, or making it up himself, he could have replaced them without any problem.
right. sounds like a good excuse for not being able to repeat the translation to me...
Why? The Book of Mormon is over 500 pages, so repeating 116 pages - that he had already written - would be no special difficulty. And like I said, if the pages turned up again, then whether he translated it or made it up himself there would be a possibility that it differed from what was found.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Here's a link to a legal place where you can watch the episode in question
There are a couple "Here's what Mormons believe" bits, which is what people are wanting you to watch and comment on.. I think.
Well, since my computer at work a) is my work computer and b) doesn't have sound anyways, and my home computer is out of action for a while, I don't know when I will be able to watch it.
(Side note: I did see the Scientology episode. I found it . . . interesting. If they accurately depicted Scientologist views, which I have no way of verifying, even then all I can say is that the beliefs of Scientologists are very different from everyone else's, but I see no reason to think that has any bearing on whether they are correct or not. It is the practices of the CoS that bother me, not what they believe.)
(Side note: I did see the Scientology episode. I found it . . . interesting. If they accurately depicted Scientologist views, which I have no way of verifying, even then all I can say is that the beliefs of Scientologists are very different from everyone else's, but I see no reason to think that has any bearing on whether they are correct or not. It is the practices of the CoS that bother me, not what they believe.)
so why didn't he? if he could then why not? if it is the word of the God surely it shouldn't matter what other people think.
He was told not to, by God, for the reasons I said. It does matter what people think if they are the ones who need to believe in the Book of Mormon, which would be harder if someone else produced an altered copy of the 116 pages and claimed Joseph couldn't translate.
But if it doesn't matter what people think about him producing 116 pages that are different from the first set, why would it matter what people think about him never replacing them at all?
it just seems convenient. actually a lot of aspects about this story seem convenient, to be honest
By "convenient", I assume you mean "evidence he made the whole thing up", right?
Let me put it this way: he was either a prophet or a fraud. (There are other possibilities but I won't go into them here). So either he (or someone else) was making it up as he went along, or it was being revealed to him by God.
Now, at some point, he let Martin Harris borrow 116 manuscript pages, and Martin Harris lost them. That is an undisputed fact that says nothing about whether he was a prophet or a fraud. Rather than retranslate the 116 pages, he just left them out. That is an undisputed fact. You say that is evidence that he was a fraud. I say it says nothing about whether he was or wasn't. Why do I say this?
Because, as I said, if he were certain that the pages would never see the light of day again, he could just replace them with what they had once said (or a reasonable copy thereof). He could do this whether he was making it up (and could write something else that sounded fairly similar, since how would anyone tell the difference) or he was a prophet (and God could tell him, as he had before, what that part of the plates said.)
But if someone else got ahold of those pages, he would not want to do this, whether he was a prophet or a fraud. That is because either he was making it up, and so naturally there would be differences (since you can't come up with that much material on your own twice), or he was a prophet, but there was a chance that whoever found them was hostile to him - and it is a fact that there were people who were - who would seek to discredit him by making changes themselves. Either way, there would be a difference.
Thus, given that the pages were lost, and given that they might be found again, then regardless of whether he was a genuine prophet or a complete fraud, his actions in response would be the same. That is why I don't think that the incident says anything at all about who he was.
Well, the mixing would've been confirmed if we'd found the DNA evidence, so that confirmation would have been cool. It would have been as good for Mormons as finding a rabbit fossil in a T-Rex belly would be for the Creationists.
Maybe - but then, maybe the Israelites would have found some other way here.
no. i mean convenient.
Then to be honest, I am not sure why you said that in the first place.
Mowque
Hypermodernist
Do you follow the 'Holy Times' of the year (Easter, X-mas) or do you have your own holidays?
We don't have a liturgical calendar as such. We do celebrate the major Christian (and national holidays), although we don't have different services those days - we do everything the same on Easter as any Sunday, except that the music and the talks are about Easter. Same with Christmas. We sort of unofficially celebrate Pioneer Day (July 24) the anniversary of the first group of Mormon pioneers reaching the Salt Lake Valley in 1847 after fleeing Illinois. This is a state holiday in Utah, but Mormons all over the world will have commemorations of some sort.
Mowque
Hypermodernist
I know that my fathers company (which has a plant in Utah) has this day instead of Easter off (much to the chagrin of the Italian Catholic owners). So this is more a cultural thing then religious?
- Status
Similar threads
