ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Is Mormon excommunication permanent and irreversible or is this part of a repentance program requirement?Depends on the person. It could be permanent if you (the sinner) wanted it to be.May I ask why you were kicked out? I would not choose to answer, that is between me, the Lord, and the Church.How long ago? 2004, and I spent most of 2004 - 2008 inactive (non-attending)Do you desire to rejoin?I am working on that.
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Here's the poop on that, beth: You can be rebaptized after no less than one year . . . most of the time, if you're willing and able to abide what your local ecclesiastical leaders require of you for rebaptism.BTW: It's considered not cool to inquire into people's personal lives. I wouldn't hold my breath for a specific reply from Lord Glorfindel."Lord Glorfindel" ?!?!?Oh No, I'm not a LOTR Elf, nor am I a Santa's Elf... I'm a Keebler Elf... that way I can hand out ELFudge Cookies and say "EAT ME!"
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 "Lord Glorfindel" ?!?!?Oh No, I'm not a LOTR Elf, nor am I a Santa's Elf... I'm a Keebler Elf... that way I can hand out ELFudge Cookies and say "EAT ME!"Ha, really that is great.
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 So that's what it sounds like when a can of worms is opened.Here is how one witness to the translation process explained it, as shared by LDS Apostle Russel Nelson in the LDS Magazine "The Ensign":The "seer stone" was a brown, goose-egg sized stone that Joseph had found years ealier while digging a well. By all accounts, after Martin Harris lost the 116 pages, the actual "gold plates" were taken back by an angel, and henceforth never physically present when Joseph Smith was translating.Oh my that is strange. Please do not take that wrong! Its just that I find it really odd that Mormons believe this.I am trying to picture this being taught and how people would accept this. No gold plates, his face stuck into a hat with a holographic type magic seeing stone??With all due respect, I just cannot understand how people accept this story it just seems so bizarre.Does this stone still exist? Has it been examined by scientists or geologists?
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Oh my that is strange. Please do not take that wrong! Its just that I find it really odd that Mormons believe this.I am trying to picture this being taught and how people would accept this. No gold plates, his face stuck into a hat with a holographic type magic seeing stone??With all due respect, I just cannot understand how people accept this story it just seems so bizarre.Does this stone still exist? Has it been examined by scientists or geologists?It's my understanding that this account is one of several differing accounts. It is not one I subscribe to. It has been made very popular by it's use in "South Park". That alone is reason enough for me to discount it. FAIRLDS: Book Of Mormon Translation
Nathair/|\ Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Oh my that is strange. Please do not take that wrong! Its just that I find it really odd that Mormons believe this.I am trying to picture this being taught and how people would accept this. No gold plates, his face stuck into a hat with a holographic type magic seeing stone??With all due respect, I just cannot understand how people accept this story it just seems so bizarre.Does this stone still exist? Has it been examined by scientists or geologists?Do you find it strange that Joseph ben Jacob divined using a cup, or that Gideon divined using a fleece?
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Do you find it strange that Joseph ben Jacob divined using a cup, or that Gideon divined using a fleece???
USU78 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 ??From the books of Genesis and Judges.In the Bible.
cinepro Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 It's my understanding that this account is one of several differing accounts. It is not one I subscribe to. It has been made very popular by it's use in "South Park". That alone is reason enough for me to discount it. FAIRLDS: Book Of Mormon TranslationActually, several people were in the room at different times during the translation of the Book of Mormon, and they all pretty much describe the same thing.
USU78 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Actually, several people were in the room at different times during the translation of the Book of Mormon, and they all pretty much describe the same thing.An incomplete answer, at best, cinepro . . . as the Seer Stone was not universally and always used during translation and relevatory activities.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Oh my that is strange. Please do not take that wrong! Its just that I find it really odd that Mormons believe this.I am trying to picture this being taught and how people would accept this. No gold plates, his face stuck into a hat with a holographic type magic seeing stone??With all due respect, I just cannot understand how people accept this story it just seems so bizarre.Does this stone still exist? Has it been examined by scientists or geologists?It must be because we are all stupid and deluded?People believe all sorts of things. I don't think this is any odder to believe than any thing any one else believes in some other 3rd thing.
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Actually, several people were in the room at different times during the translation of the Book of Mormon, and they all pretty much describe the same thing.The bibical "Urim and Thummim" is one thing, but a rock in a hat?! Please! Utter nonesense!
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 It's my understanding that this account is one of several differing accounts. It is not one I subscribe to. It has been made very popular by it's use in "South Park". That alone is reason enough for me to discount it. FAIRLDS: Book Of Mormon TranslationAn incomplete answer, at best, cinepro . . . as the Seer Stone was not universally and always used during translation and relevatory activities.From the link given by elf1024:Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 [Apr. 9, 1831]:15). So usu78, you are saying Joseph Smith did not always use the stone to translate?As I read more about the Mormon church and how it was founded I am perplexed by the inconsistant eyewitness accounts of key events like this translation process as well as the first vision accounts.I am further perplexed by the fact that people are taught all of this and they still join?? With the most sincere respect to the believers here, I just cannot imagine joining your church knowing what I have found out so far here. I honestly find it unbelievable.
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 It must be because we are all stupid and deluded?People believe all sorts of things. I don't think this is any odder to believe than any thing any one else believes in some other 3rd thing.I am sorry if I came across like that. I accept that there are other religions in the world which believe things that i also find bizarre.I am just assuming other outsiders would view this same information like I am. I do understand if you are born into a particular religion, you most likely will not see things like an outsider.Again, I am fascinated that adults would join this religion after being taught these things.
Nathair/|\ Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 From the link given by elf1024:So usu78, you are saying Joseph Smith did not always use the stone to translate?As I read more about the Mormon church and how it was founded I am perplexed by the inconsistant eyewitness accounts of key events like this translation process as well as the first vision accounts.I am further perplexed by the fact that people are taught all of this and they still join?? With the most sincere respect to the believers here, I just cannot imagine joining your church knowing what I have found out so far here. I honestly find it unbelievable.So I take it you similarly find the Bible unbelievable?I really don't see how it is any more difficult than the different versions of the Sermon on the Plain/Sermon on the Mount or Paul's conversion story. I find it far more difficult that YHWH accepted a human sacrifice, even likely chose the victim.
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 From the link given by elf1024:So usu78, you are saying Joseph Smith did not always use the stone to translate?As I read more about the Mormon church and how it was founded I am perplexed by the inconsistant eyewitness accounts of key events like this translation process as well as the first vision accounts.I am further perplexed by the fact that people are taught all of this and they still join?? With the most sincere respect to the believers here, I just cannot imagine joining your church knowing what I have found out so far here. I honestly find it unbelievable.This isn't exactly the best place to about learning about the Church. I think we (as LDS Believers and Members) tend to be our own harshes critics. We debate things here what really have no bearing on the "Truth" of the Church.The LDS Church, in a nutshell, boils down to one thing.Is the Book of Mormon a real Book of Scripture?If you read the Book of Mormon, and come away from it believing that is honestly a real book of scripture, then the method of translation and all other details about how the book came into being are really trivia. They don't really matter.If the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture, then Joseph Smith was a prophet.
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 The bibical "Urim and Thummim" is one thing, but a rock in a hat?! Please! Utter nonesense! I will admit I have never heard of this "Urim and Thummim" in the Bible. The link that you gave does not mention it being used to translate though so I don't think it is a valid comparison.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Again, I am fascinated that adults would join this religion after being taught these things.In the grand scheme of things, is this any harder to believe than a God who comes down to save his people and heal the sick? I mean if God is who poeple claim He is, he is able to do a whole host of things that we are not able to fully understand.The other interesting thing, is that if I were to look at these events by themsevles I would be pretty skeptical. However when considering the witnesses and other events I find that it is not so simple to just dismiss it as bizarre. I would ask you to come up with a theory that fits the known facts better.
Pahoran Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 I am sorry if I came across like that. I accept that there are other religions in the world which believe things that i also find bizarre.I am just assuming other outsiders would view this same information like I am. I do understand if you are born into a particular religion, you most likely will not see things like an outsider.Again, I am fascinated that adults would join this religion after being taught these things.Some people find it fascinating that adults would join a religion whose key sacred text records axe heads floating and donkeys talking. The fact is that everyone's beliefs appear bizarre to everyone else, and the fact that you cannot imagine people believing things you don't is, in the last analysis, merely a reflection upon you.And not a flattering one.Regards,Pahoran
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 So I take it you similarly find the Bible unbelievable?I really don't see how it is any more difficult than the different versions of the Sermon on the Plain/Sermon on the Mount or Paul's conversion story. I find it far more difficult that YHWH accepted a human sacrifice, even likely chose the victim. OK you got me on one thing. I will admit that I don't know very much about the Bible. My parents were non denominational Christians and we really did not attend a specific church for any extended period of time. I would class me as a social Christian. I will also admit that reading the Bible usually puts me to sleep.
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 I am sorry if I came across like that. I accept that there are other religions in the world which believe things that i also find bizarre.I am just assuming other outsiders would view this same information like I am. I do understand if you are born into a particular religion, you most likely will not see things like an outsider.Again, I am fascinated that adults would join this religion after being taught these things.My wife (married in Feb 2010) joined the Church in the last year. She turned 40 this year. We'd only been dating for about six months.She joined because she couldn't understand the Nicean concept of the trinity. She (also) had a hard time with:<LI>Jeremiah 1:5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.She said that everything she'd been questioning about her own faith(s) was answered by the LDS Church in a way that was understandable for the first time.
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 I will admit I have never heard of this "Urim and Thummim" in the Bible. The link that you gave does not mention it being used to translate though so I don't think it is a valid comparison.That's fair, however, both the links I have provided, the translation one, and the link to the scripture, both describe it as a breastplate. Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 [Apr. 9, 1831]:15). In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied.30
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 This isn't exactly the best place to about learning about the Church. I think we (as LDS Believers and Members) tend to be our own harshes critics. We debate things here what really have no bearing on the "Truth" of the Church.Why is that? So how the book or mormon was translated has no bearing? I don't understand how that is not important.The LDS Church, in a nutshell, boils down to one thing.Is the Book of Mormon a real Book of Scripture?If you read the Book of Mormon, and come away from it believing that is honestly a real book of scripture, then the method of translation and all other details about how the book came into being are really triva. They don't really matter.I guess I am too wrapped up in the history of how the book came about. I will also admit I have not read the book. I have browsed it a bit from posts here, but since it reads much like the bible in the old english type language it also puts me to sleep. And it came to pass, and it came to pass, and it came to pass. Why so many of that phrase?If the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture, then Joseph Smith was a prophet.This has been my line of thinking. That you must ascribe to the "version" of Christianity professed by Joseph Smith to be a Mormon.
cinepro Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 I am further perplexed by the fact that people are taught all of this and they still join?? With the most sincere respect to the believers here, I just cannot imagine joining your church knowing what I have found out so far here. I honestly find it unbelievable.Well, to be fair, we don't teach people all this before they join.
beth Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Some people find it fascinating that adults would join a religion whose key sacred text records axe heads floating and donkeys talking. The fact is that everyone's beliefs appear bizarre to everyone else, and the fact that you cannot imagine people believing things you don't is, in the last analysis, merely a reflection upon you.And not a flattering one.Regards,PahoranThat was kinda harsh. May I ask if you were born into this church?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.