LDS

[abaddon]

For the record, you consider yourself someone who lives the life of a saint? Traditionally, a saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness, sanctity, and virtue.

Would that be you?

I can understanding missing questions and answers from pages back, but seriously? The last few posts just three or four hours ago went over all that, with dictionary definitions and everything.

I second Pup. Are you being gratuitously confrontational for the mere amusement factor?

OK, I will put a foot in both camps here. Deaman asks a legitimate question. However the statement that provoked it is ambiguous to say the least.

Is the statement equivalent to "I am a very active Catholic" or "I am a living saint". I don't think it's clear which meaning is intended.

ETA: Or even both, I really can't tell.

 

[pakeha]

Yes. Unfortunately, in that brief section, Empress's source doesn't summarize the evidence from its own footnotes very well.

Empress's source gives a footnote for this sentence:

"In 1835 Michael Chandler brought several mummies to Kirtland that aroused great excitement among the Latter-day Saints"

to:

H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995)

Here's how Peterson describes it (still another secondary source, but more detailed and closer to primary sources):



Peterson goes on to discuss the variations in primary sources at length, quoting several extensively.

I'm having trouble linking directly to where that section starts in Peterson's book, because there are no page numbers, but click here and use the search box at the left to search for any phrase in the above passage, like "Professor Anthon could," and it'll take you to the section and you can read more, including the quotes from primary sources.

The next sentence in Empress's source is this:

"Smith too took note of these objects from antiquity. Initially attracted by his native curiosity, Smith soon realized the significance of the ancient artifacts. Upon examining some of the writing on the papyri accompanying the mummies, Joseph noticed some resemblance to those characters on the plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon."

And it's footnoted to here:

"Letter of Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, December 22, 1835 in Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2, No. 3, 235."

You can read Cowdery's letter at this link (scroll down about halfway).

Cowdery's letter says:



Based on all the above, I'd say that my summary:


is actually a more accurate summary of the footnotes in Empress's source, than the way Empress's source summarized them:

Thanks, Pup!
I appreciate the time and effort you took there.

 

[pakeha]

Actually, my opinion on both of these has already been posted.
On the BoA
4449

On the BoM
2428

Despite some inaccuracies, I still firmly believe both the BoA and the BoM, and that they are both the word of God. Based on faith, not evidence.

Just to to be certain I understand you, Cat Tale, you know the BoA is a fake, but you believe it's the word of God all the same?

 

[tsig]

Just to to be certain I understand you, Cat Tale, you know the BoA is a fake, but you believe it's the word of God all the same?

Here's the quote from her first link:

Quote:
You're very right, Smith's translation does not match that of Egyptologists. We believe the translation itself was an inspired act, and what Smith wrote is true, Truth actually, on a deeply spiritual level. More importantly, it was exactly what was needed at the time to establish God's Kingdom here on Earth. We believe the lessons contained in the BoA are just as relevant today, and thus - regardless of historical origin - hold it in the highest theological regard.

Which does seem to say that she knows that what Joe wrote has nothing to do with the hieroglyphs but that establishing the church was more important than the actual facts.

Note the hilited, Joe didn't write what was true but Truth and Truth doesn't have to be connected to reality in any way.

Know con artists are the best source for this Truth.

 

[halleyscomet]

Here's the quote from her first link:




Which does seem to say that she knows that what Joe wrote has nothing to do with the hieroglyphs but that establishing the church was more important than the actual facts.

Note the hilited, Joe didn't write what was true but Truth and Truth doesn't have to be connected to reality in any way.

Know con artists are the best source for this Truth.

This is fairly consistent with how Paul probably saw the story of Christ. Religious mythologies don't have to be true in a literal historical sense, but true in a religious sense, having taken place not in literal history, but in a mythological space not necessarily connected to the literal world.

You have to remember that our modern concept of history is only a couple thousand years old. Most ancient peoples were perfectly comfortable accepting obvious, even absurd, myth as history.

Big Bird doesn't have to be a real animal to teach my son how to share.

 

[tsig]

This is fairly consistent with how Paul probably saw the story of Christ. Religious mythologies don't have to be true in a literal historical sense, but true in a religious sense, having taken place not in literal history, but in a mythological space not necessarily connected to the literal world.

You have to remember that our modern concept of history is only a couple thousand years old. Most ancient peoples were perfectly comfortable accepting obvious, even absurd, myth as history.

Big Bird doesn't have to be a real animal to teach my son how to share.

We're not ancient peoples.

I'd think you'd be the one to teach morals to your son, not a TV show.

 

[pakeha]

Ninja'd, yet again!

 

[Pup]

OK, I will put a foot in both camps here. Deaman asks a legitimate question. However the statement that provoked it is ambiguous to say the least.

Is the statement equivalent to "I am a very active Catholic" or "I am a living saint". I don't think it's clear which meaning is intended.

ETA: Or even both, I really can't tell.

Because Cat Tail is getting a little tired of being requested to re-answer things that can be answered by the numbers now, I'll just say, she meant it as a label for a member of a particular church--an equally accepted usage (see the dictionary definition somebody quoted above).

If one is used to talking to members of the church, it's crystal clear from context that it's the same as saying "I'm a very active Catholic." There's nothing more to it than that. People say "I'm a Mormon," or "I'm LDS," or "I'm a Latter-day Saint," interchangeably, and there's no particular nuance to any of them.

To insist that the person must actually be using the language in the way you're used to, rather than the way they're used to, seems like a gratuitous attempt at misunderstanding. It would be like repeatedly replying to a Catholic, "An active catholic what?" as if they had used a lower-case "c," because "catholic" is an adjective so the sentence might be incomplete. Except in Cat Tale's case, we could actually see the capital S.

 

[jsfisher]

Just to to be certain I understand you, Cat Tale, you know the BoA is a fake, but you believe it's the word of God all the same?

The fake part is it being a translation of the papyri. That doesn't prevent the Book of Abraham from being the Word of God^TM.

I don't know if Cat Tale's answer will be along those lines, but at least she takes the time to consider the evidence and reconcile it with her faith to some extent. Some others in this thread have demonstrated considerably less flexibility in this regard.

 

[deaman]

I hit a nerve with a few, and that is interesting.

Let me lay my cards on the table.

In this thread, we have been discussing a church which seems to be built on the lies of a con man.

The BoM is full of non-facts, the BoA is complete balderdash, the racism is messed up, the calling of certain people as prophets, seer and revelators is just not so, polygamy was commanded, then wasn't, etc.....something is wrong.

At least that is my belief. I understand different people are allowed to believe anything they wish.

My statement to Cat Tale, is one designed to make her take an honest look, at what she calls herself.

If she is a saint, then I see no problem with her calling herself one. If she is not a saint, is that just another in a long line of misinformation, or what?

Nothing personal, this is about the veracity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day............... well you know what they call themselves.

 

[RandFan]

I hit a nerve with a few, and that is interesting.

Let me lay my cards on the table.

In this thread, we have been discussing a church which seems to be built on the lies of a con man.

The BoM is full of non-facts, the BoA is complete balderdash, the racism is messed up, the calling of certain people as prophets, seer and revelators is just not so, polygamy was commanded, then wasn't, etc.....something is wrong.

At least that is my belief. I understand different people are allowed to believe anything they wish.

My statement to Cat Tale, is one designed to make her take an honest look, at what she calls herself.

If she is a saint, then I see no problem with her calling herself one. If she is not a saint, is that just another in a long line of misinformation, or what?
Nothing personal, this is about the veracity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day............... well you know what they call themselves.

I just don't see the point. Who cares what labels they use or how they define terms? So long as we understand what is meant then I'm fine with that. Mormons have a lot of unusual definitions of terms. A priest is a young man. Typically younger than 18 and has no duties that most churches would consider priestly. I don't think there is much to be gained in that line of questioning. Of course you have the right to do so I just don't see the point when there is so much more than mere semantics.

A "saint" in Mormon parlance is an active member of the Mormon Church in good standing. That's all.

 

[Empress]

I hit a nerve with a few, and that is interesting.

Let me lay my cards on the table.

In this thread, we have been discussing a church which seems to be built on the lies of a con man.

The BoM is full of non-facts, the BoA is complete balderdash, the racism is messed up, the calling of certain people as prophets, seer and revelators is just not so, polygamy was commanded, then wasn't, etc.....something is wrong.

At least that is my belief. I understand different people are allowed to believe anything they wish.

My statement to Cat Tale, is one designed to make her take an honest look, at what she calls herself.

If she is a saint, then I see no problem with her calling herself one. If she is not a saint, is that just another in a long line of misinformation, or what?

Nothing personal, this is about the veracity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day............... well you know what they call themselves.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that (obviously Janadele and skyrider excepted). The problem is that you're using the term "saint" strictly in one sense, when it's clear it also means a member of a church. It's certainly most common with the LDS, but Catholics also use it. The "communion of saints" refers to all Christians, dead or alive, and only the damned excluded.

Saint certainly can mean someone who is canonized, it can mean a very virtuous person, or it can mean a member of a church. All of those are valid definitions, and the LDS are using the term in the latter sense. Cat Tale strikes me as a sensible, honest, and good person, and probably doesn't see herself as perfect or a "saint" in that sense. But as a Christian, she does see herself as a member of saints.

 

[zooterkin]

Are there any cults other than the LDS and splinter groups that use the word "saint" in their title and that its members are non-ironically called "saints" by themselves or outsiders?

Well, there is this lot, though not all outsiders call them Saints.

 

[deaman]

I just don't see the point. Who cares what labels they use or how they define terms? So long as we understand what is meant then I'm fine with that. Mormons have a lot of unusual definitions of terms. A priest is a young man. Typically younger than 18 and has no duties that most churches would consider priestly. I don't think there is much to be gained in that line of questioning. Of course you have the right to do so I just don't see the point when there is so much more than mere semantics.

A "saint" in Mormon parlance is an active member of the Mormon Church in good standing. That's all.

So, the Prophet is indeed a Prophet, and the Apostles are indeed Apostles, and we should all listen and follow what The Second Testament of Jesus Christ, The BofM says, because that is what they call themselves.

I am sorry, but that is incorrect, for me, anyway. I could not walk around calling myself a saint, unless I truly felt I was one.

But, I understand, Cat Tale has a right. I hope she will weigh in on this.

 

[deaman]

What I am trying to get at, imperfectly obviously, is deceit.

Is the BofM what it claims to be or not?

Is the heirachical society of the mormons to be treated as true, or not?

Is Joe Smith a Prophet, Seer and Revelator?

Is the translation/dictation of the BofA as the mormons see it, fact or not?

Are the people who belong to the church saints, or not?

Please, I am very interested in your responses, to these questions.

Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

So, the Prophet is indeed a Prophet, and the Apostles are indeed Apostles, and we should all listen and follow what The Second Testament of Jesus Christ, The BofM says, because that is what they call themselves.

I am sorry, but that is incorrect, for me, anyway. I could not walk around calling myself a saint, unless I truly felt I was one.

But, I understand, Cat Tale has a right. I hope she will weigh in on this.

I really don't understand your argument. I don't know what you mean by "that is incorrect". In England the word "pants" is for women's underwear. I could say "that's wrong for me" but what is the point of that? I'm not trying to provoke you I just don't understand you. Words aren't laws of physics that govern the universe. They are simply tools, a means to convey ideas. Once the terms have been defined then that should be that.

In Australia a rubber is an eraser not a prophylactic/contraceptive. So what if that is wrong for you? Once you understand that, could you not have a conversation with an Aussie and ask to borrow his "rubber"?

 

[RandFan]

Are the people who belong to the church saints, or not?

As they define "saint", yes. I can say that as I was a member in good standing for 30 years. I considered myself a saint in the Mormon parlance of the word. Yes. Of course, members in good standing are "saints". That's what they call themselves. That's what others call Mormons. So what if they have a different usage of of terms?

 

[deaman]

As they define "saint", yes. I can say that as I was a member in good standing for 30 years. I considered myself a saint in the Mormon parlance of the word. Yes. Of course, members in good standing are "saints". That's what they call themselves. That's what others call Mormons. So what if they have a different usage of of terms?

Let me try to explain my hackles.

It was inferred by Janadele, that I am a lesser person, spiritually, becuase I do not accept the mormons doctrines. Inherent in that statement is that fact that she (or members of the church) are somehow better, more fortunate to have gained god's approval.

Members of the church are "saints". People, not in the church, or of darker skin color are what? Less than?

It is not true!

 

[deaman]

It is, perhaps, a fault of my own, that I could not, in good conscience, walk around all day saying, I am a saint. Not to mention the absence of humility, for someone, who thinks they are better than others based on a belief in an imaginary being.

Sorry.

So, back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

In England the word "pants" is for women's underwear.

No, it's gender neutral