Aw... shucks...
PSST...
...you spelled beAst wrong.
Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Says who, and why? Seriously all you did was express an opinion with no justification or basis in fact.
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.
PSST...
...you spelled beAst wrong.
When you post at DOUBLE the Beast’s number; hard breathing IS required!
Revelation 13:13
And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.
Do you REALLY want to ride this horse?
They like to claim that no one could read so they can justify the Church from withholding Scripture from the laity.
The same place they would have cast gold.
Do you ever think through what you are posting?
Don’t change the subject. I didn’t say you gave power to the priest to forgive sin.
You didn’t answer the question either. You just deflected.
Talk about ignorant.....
Your post is about the most absurd that I've ever seen.
The conversation was about babies for one thing. What father is going to command his toddler to kill his daughter?
Additionally, children are to obey their parents IN THE LORD. That precludes obeying commands that God said are sin.
But then again, considering how Catholics can justify disobeying clear commands of Jesus, I'm not surprised at the thought processes I see coming from them.
Don't call any man *Father*.
Don't forget, Jesus also said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
IOW, He clarified that He did NOT mean literally eating literal flesh and blood, which would have violated many parts of the Law, which prohibits the consumption of blood but that He was talking about SPIRITUAL truth and spiritual eating, not physical.
You just defeated your own argument.
They were married under Jewish Law which recognized their marriage as valid although not yet consummated.
That’s why Joseph had in mind to DIVORCE her.
You only divorce someone you are legally married to. You aren’t divorcing someone when you break off an engagement.
If birth control is inherently wrong, then it’s wrong no matter how it’s practiced.
The sin of Onan, which Catholics claim was birth control, was *natural*.
It didn’t use artificial contraceptives, and yet Catholics use that as the justification for condemning birth control.
I'm sure you didn't but now you do because you've been told and can no longer claim ignorance.
BTW, if birth control is wrong, then *natural* birth control is just as much a sin as *artificial* birth control, no matter how the church wants to approve of it and relabel it.
Says who, and why? Seriously all you did was express an opinion with no justification or basis in fact.
True, metmom’s statement is an expression of opinion, but whether one agrees with it or not is based on one’s values.
For anyone who is interested in learning more about the Catholic teaching, it is addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC 2360-2379, The Love of Husband and Wife. CCC 2368 states:
“A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
“When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.”
A more detailed explanation of this teaching can be found in “Humanae vitae.”
Peace,
Rich
Post #1377 - Place Marker.
At least I missed “the” number.
But it doesn’t look like I missed anything else.
Same old same old.
I’d like to diagram these threads, identify the “critical turn points, map them, and catalog the thread - just to make tracking easier.
But I digress.
As usual.
That’ll be on the map too.
LOL - even in that brief moment someone ELSE got #1377
... and the dibil nevuh sleeps don’tchaknow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.