An exercise for Mormons

[tkdnick]

Casen:

RE: Please don’t say the bible has the fullness of the gospel as the book of mormon. Your faith does not teach that.

Wrong again. See the introduction to the Book of Mormon…

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
(*Book of Mormon *| Preface Introduction:1)

So if this is the case, then it is safe to assume the the BoM contains the “fullnes of the gospel” insofar as it is translated correctly correct? In which case, there must be errors right?

 

[Casen]

tkdnick,
There is something I don’t have clear. Is the Catholic position that the Catholic Bible comprises all scripture ever revealed and ever to be revealed? Do Catholics believe the heavens are sealed and God can reveal no more scripture?

Could it be that God had prophets on the American continents and that Christ even visited them? Or is there something that doctrinally prevents this possibility?

 

[Casen]

RE: So if this is the case, then it is safe to assume the the BoM contains the “fullnes of the gospel” insofar as it is translated correctly correct? In which case, there must be errors right?

From the title page of the Book of Mormon, written by Moroni, the last prophet to write on the plates:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ.

And from Mormon:

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;
(Ether 12:25 - 26)

However, since the Book of Mormon only had one translator it has gone through less revisions than the Bible. For that reason Joseph Smith said:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

 

[tkdnick]

Casen:

tkdnick,
There is something I don’t have clear. Is the Catholic position that the Catholic Bible comprises all scripture ever revealed and ever to be revealed? Do Catholics believe the heavens are sealed and God can reveal no more scripture?

Could it be that God had prophets on the American continents and that Christ even visited them? Or is there something that doctrinally prevents this possibility?

The Catholic Church believes that everything that needed to be revealed was. The Church does not deny the ability of God to reveal things. However, we do make a distinction. There is public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation (revelation required to be believed by all) was revealed once and for all through Jesus Christ to His apostles and handed down through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (the Bible). Private revelation is possible, probable, etc. One important distinction is that private revelation must not contradict the deposit of faith (Bible and Tradition).

So…to answer your questions 1 at a time…
1)Yes, the Catholic Church believes all scripture is found in the Bible.
2)Yes, the Catholic Church believes God will not reveal any more scripture.
3)Yes, it is possible that God had/has prohpets on the American continent. (I hold a different definition of prophet than you do I think)
4)Yes, it is possible that Christ visited/visits the American continent. (though I look at this in a different way than your question implies)

Now I have a question. Is it possible that Jesus Christ gave His message completely to His twelve apostles and not to some other group in America?

 

[tkdnick]

Casen:

However, since the Book of Mormon only had one translator it has gone through less revisions than the Bible. For that reason Joseph Smith said:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

So then the BoM isn’t really scripture on the same level as the Bible then is it? It’s actually on a ‘higher’ level because it only had one translator (who was translating another person’s translation of someone else’s writing).

 

[oat_soda]

the LDS belief is that we’re living in the “Dispensation of the Fulness of Times” and the true church has been restored for the final time before the Second Coming of the Savior:

now i can say the same, that the fullness of truth subsits in the catholic church, according to the catholic church. so why do you believe in the LDS concept of the “dispensation of the fulness of times”.

the church has a method of interpeting scripture. i do not subscribe to the mormon interpretation. there is absolutely no evidence that the BOM is historical or BOA. so why believe what the mormon church teaches?

 

[Tmaque]

Casen:

Tamque: *I think you misunderstand Trinitarian doctrine.

In his book The Forgotten Trinity James White gives an excellent definition of what the Trinity is.

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (TFT, p. 26) *

I agree that I don’t understand Trinitarian doctrine. So, if there are three coequal persons and hence we see all three showing up at Jesus’s baptism, is it possible that Joseph Smith could have seen God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ as seperate persons standing next to each other? Or am I still not understanding correctly?

I think that the story of the “First Vision” is in line with Trinitarian doctrine. I don’t believe God the Father has a physical body, but he can certainly manifest himself in any way he chooses.

 

[Casen]

Tmaque said: I think that the story of the “First Vision” is in line with Trinitarian doctrine. I don’t believe God the Father has a physical body, but he can certainly manifest himself in any way he chooses.

Very interesting; I’ve learned something about Trinitarian doctrine today. I still don’t understand it but it’s apparently something different than what I thought it was. And it appears that we’re not really that far apart. So if we put a cross on our churches and espoused the trinity would everyone quit calling us non-christian?? It’s not going to happen but I wonder…

Tmaque said: So then the BoM isn’t really scripture on the same level as the Bible then is it? It’s actually on a ‘higher’ level because it only had one translator (who was translating another person’s translation of someone else’s writing).

Actually, Joseph Smith translated the Book that Mormon authored by Mormon and Mormoni, which was a compilation of writings from other prophets. Anyway, the reason we consider it the keystone of our religion isn’t because the doctrine is different than the bible but rather because the church rises or falls on the BOM. If the book is what it proports to be then Joseph Smith was a true prophet and he really did restore the true church of Jesus Christ. However, if the book is a fraud (i.e. an invention by Joseph Smith or some other contemporary) then Joseph Smith was also a fraud and the church he founded is also a fraud. But if you’re asking which book we consider more worth studying, I personally consider them equal since they both contain the fulness of the gospel, and I study them both together.

oat soda,
If you want to jump back to the “evidence of the BOM” thing I suggest we do it on another thread. I’ve got a whole bunch of fun stuff I can share with you…

 

[gryskull]

Casen:

I pointed out that there is evidence early Christians practiced Baptism for the Dead, something practiced in LDS temples. To this you had no response.

1 Cor 15:29 actually ends with a ?. He was writing to the christians in Corinth and asking why baptize the dead if the resurrection is not true. Here he is talking about some of the christians who were denying the resurrection. There is a great inconsistency with their belief because St. Paul was preaching about Christ’s resurrection. If you look at the previous passages, start at verse 12, you’ll see what I mean.

Basically we can see from these passages that the so called christians of corinth who denied the resurrection were the ones who practiced baptism for the dead. This also was something that the pagans were practicing. St. Paul was basically talking about these two classes of people.

so if your saying that baptism for the dead was practice by the early christians, I would say yes. But not by the orthodox christians who were being pastored by St. Paul.

 

[gryskull]

Casen:

You could be right… or maybe I’m right. You know, I used to work with a colleague that was an Evangelical Christian and we used to go to lunch together and discuss religion at length. He was a smart guy and knew the Bible very well but it seemed we always ended up back on the topic of the Trinity and neither of us ever made any headway. You interpret those scriptures I posted differently then me. The traditional Trinitarian doctrine with three in one and one in three never made any sense to me. A very confusing God if you asked me. Christ says to Mary not to touch him because he hasn’t visited his Father yet. What does this mean if they are the same person! And when Jesus was baptized we hear God the Father proclaim from heaven that he is proud of his beloved son. Where is this voice coming from if Jesus and the Father are the same person? Is God saying he’s proud of himself? That’s a strange thing to do. But if the Father is a separate personage and is watching from the heavens his son be baptized I can understand him being proud and proclaiming such from the heavens. And the Holy Ghost appears in the very same baptismal scene descending like a dove, also as a separate being. So in one scene in the Bible we have all three parts of the Godhead manifesting themselves as unique entities. The Trinitarian doctrine just doesn’t make sense to me. Anyway, I suspect that neither of us will convince the other so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think that’s where the problem is. Your trying to fit God, who is infinite, in your finite mind. That is something that you cannot do. Understanding the totallity of God is impossible. That’s why it called the mystery of our faith. Even St. Paul admits it.

You’ve cited some passages from the Gospel. But I think you forgot to read the part where Jesus says “If you’ve seen me you also have seen the Father…” In the Gospel of John Jesus says multiple times “I and the Father are ONE” Now ask yourself how could Jesus say that. Was He also strange to say that?

The trinitarian dogma say that there is only ONE GOD in three distinct persons. This is something that I myself cannot fully comprehend. But that’s why we walk by faith and not by sight.

 

[gryskull]

Casen:

RE: Casen, what date did you pick for step 1?

Apostasy doesn’t happen overnight but rather happens slowly over time so picking a magic date is difficult but I would say that by AD 570 the Great Apostasy was in full swing.

By then Pope Gregory the Great had blessed Phocas, a cruel dictator that had murdered some of his own family, absolving him of his evils. Gregory had also invented the crusade and practice of “converting” by force. He popularized doctrines such as relic worship and made the doctrine of purgatory official. And “Papal absolutism” came from the foundation of his administration. So I think that’s a fair date to pick. But I could be swayed to choose a different date if you prefer.

I agree that apostasy doesn’t happen overnite. But the theory of the great apostasy has to happen at a particular point in time when every person here in this world didn’t believe in Christ and HIS teachings. Could you pin point that date? I don’t think so because it never happened. JS needed this theory so he could be considered the restorer of the Church of Christ because if there was no Total apostasy there would be nothing to restore.

When it comes to your reference to Pope Gregory the Great I think you need to do a little bit more research. Pope Gregory the Great reigned as pope during the 6th century. He died 604 AD. The first crusade was on 1069 under the reign of Pope Urban II and this was just a response to the need of the Church in the East when the Byzantines were being sacked by the turks. How then can Pope Gregory invent the crusades.

Gregory the great never popularized the worship of statues or relics because up to this point the Catholic church hasn’t taught that. The worship of statues is a total misconception of the Prostestant church. Although we kneel in front of statues, it is suppose to just aid us in our prayers. To remind us of the lives of these holy men and women who have gone before us so that we can imitate them.

The doctrine of Purgatory is not something new. The Maccabeans believed in this although the word purgatory is not explicit in the Bible(2 Maccabees). Don’t try to find 2 Maccabees in your Bible 'coz you’ll never find it. But just in case you want more proof look at 1 Cor 3:14-15. Here is a better description of purgatory quoted from newadvent.com

Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined: “Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983). Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.

I hope this helps you get a better understanding of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Imconfused]

gryskull:

I agree that apostasy doesn’t happen overnite. But the theory of the great apostasy has to happen at a particular point in time when every person here in this world didn’t believe in Christ and HIS teachings. Could you pin point that date? I don’t think so because it never happened. JS needed this theory so he could be considered the restorer of the Church of Christ because if there was no Total apostasy there would be nothing to restore.

When it comes to your reference to Pope Gregory the Great I think you need to do a little bit more research. Pope Gregory the Great reigned as pope during the 6th century. He died 604 AD. The first crusade was on 1069 under the reign of Pope Urban II and this was just a response to the need of the Church in the East when the Byzantines were being sacked by the turks. How then can Pope Gregory invent the crusades.

Gregory the great never popularized the worship of statues or relics because up to this point the Catholic church hasn’t taught that. The worship of statues is a total misconception of the Prostestant church. Although we kneel in front of statues, it is suppose to just aid us in our prayers. To remind us of the lives of these holy men and women who have gone before us so that we can imitate them.

The doctrine of Purgatory is not something new. The Maccabeans believed in this although the word purgatory is not explicit in the Bible(2 Maccabees). Don’t try to find 2 Maccabees in your Bible 'coz you’ll never find it. But just in case you want more proof look at 1 Cor 3:14-15. Here is a better description of purgatory quoted from newadvent.com

Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined: “Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983). Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.

I hope this helps you get a better understanding of Catholic doctrine.

People on the LDS forum keep running on about 570 AD. this is when the Church went wrong and so forth. Check a history timeline on the Internet and find out what truly significant thing happened in exactly 570 AD. What was it? It resulted in the second largest Church in the world with it’s own theology. What truly happened in 570 AD.? The birth of Mohammed, the great prophet of Islam. All the rest of these apostasy musings do not compare with that event.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Dear Casen

Regarding Temple Marriage. If one had to be a worthy Catholic to attend a Catholic wedding there would be no one to attend. Even the Priest could not enter. The Bride and Groom would have to find another way as well. The fact that we are not worthy, none of us, but Jesus still calls us to himself is the beauty of it all. As Catholics we see each other in the great line of confession including the Pope, the Cardinals and the Priest. Only Christ Himself is Worthy as He is Worthiness.

Just the Temple Marriage alone tells me that something is not right. All should be welcome, as all sinners are welcome into the Catholic Faith, into Christ himself.

There was only one Temple that ever meant anything, the old Temple made way for the new. The Veil has been torn away. God no longer dwells alone in the Temple, he now, through Christ dwells in a Christian Heart. The Old Temple housed the Ten Commandments, some Manna (the Tabernacle is found behind the Alter in our church, it houses the body of Christ – wha else is there but the One Body of Christ? ) and a Staff. The New Temple is burnt into our hearts by a Cross that our God endured for us. The Old Law has been passed by, it was necessary but it is now made New in Christ Jesus. There were no secret ceremonies, are no secret ceremonies, Christ is for all who turn to Him in humility, not pride. These revelations are real and found within the Body of Christ, His Church.

God Bless
www.catholic-rcia

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

Regarding Temple Marriage. If one had to be a worthy Catholic to attend a Catholic wedding there would be no one to attend. Even the Priest could not enter. The Bride and Groom would have to find another way as well. The fact that we are not worthy, none of us, but Jesus still calls us to himself is the beauty of it all. As Catholics we see each other in the great line of confession including the Pope, the Cardinals and the Priest. Only Christ Himself is Worthy as He is Worthiness.

As I have done with Catholic things (worshiping Saints, praying to Mary/Saints, Purgatory/Baptism of Desire, or FAITH FOR BAPTISM, …; I invite you to do with things LDS.

All who enter the Temple participate in Temple ordinances. Nobody enters as a mere spectator. Just as the FAITH of the BAPTIZED infant is a communal faith of the parents/god parents/(and even parish family), the witnesses of a Temple sealing are participants and contributors to the eternal linkage that occurs. Temple marriage is about forming a bond that ultimately connects all those who accept the fullness of Christ’s gospel, and so all who are present are participants.

Now with this more full view of Temple Marriage ask these questions. Do you think it is appropriate for a non-Catholic to act as the Priest in a Catholic wedding? Do you believe I could bless the oil for a Catholic confirmation? What about blessing the sacrament at mass? To participate in a Temple Marriage one must be a faithful LDS who is making choices to live a group of commandments “adapted for the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints.”

I totally agree that no one is worthy but Christ, but just as you would excommunicate for some things, remove from the priesthood for some things, deny the Right of Christian Initiation for some things, … the CoJCoLDS prescribes what one must do/believe to participate in our ordinances.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Why did this thread get resurrected?

I think I said this recently in another thread, but there is a profound difference between the way the word Apostasy is used by Catholics and the way it is used by LDS.

When LDS use the term Apostasy they mean that there is a complete loss of divine authority. They mean that the Catholic Priests/Bishops/Popes are likely good Christian servants of God and men, but have not ordained authority.

Catholics generally use Apostasy to mean a complete departure from the Christian faith. Even heretics who pre-Vatican II were clearly “Outside the Catholic Church” were not apostate unless they denied Christ.

Now with that being clarified, at some point in time the LDS believes that the authority established by Christ ceased to be possessed within the earthly church. I personally suggest that the Petrine authority was never passed from the Apostles to the first Bishops of Rome (or Antioch). I cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint when the lesser authority of Bishops ceased to be properly carried down, but I link this to the acceptance of heretical baptism.

Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

acceptance of heretical baptism.

By this you mean infant baptism?

 

[catholic-rcia]

Since the veil was torn apart God has come to dwell in us, not in the shadows of a Temple. The One Temple that existed, existed to house the tablets, the Ten Commandments, Manna and the Staff. It was a place where sin could be offered up and forgiven. Nothing was hidden then, nothing in Christ is hidden now. Christ is the Temple, Christ is the commandments and He is the Manna, he is the staff. The Temple was a forshadowing of Christ to come.

If a mother and father who are not LDS cannot attend the wedding of their daughter, a time that both father and mother have dreamed of all of their lives for the love of their daughter, I ask you this.

Does someone get hurt by this practice?

Would our God cause this kind of pain?

What would be different about an orthodox Christian wedding?

In a Catholic Wedding do not all participate in this Sacraments as well as the Bride and Groom? Is the Eucharist hidden from those who do not profess its authenticity nor receive it? Who would keep another, especially one who is not worthy from being in the presence of this Sacrament, the presence of Christ? All can attend, all that have a love for the two who are to be joined together. There is nothing hidden in this Sacrament, it is for all to witness. Every word, every Holy kiss. What would there be to hide? What would offend another? I could post the words if you would like.

“In a marriage a man and a woman pledge themselves to one another in an unbreakable alliance of total mutual self-giving. This is done for all to witness, so as to think about there own vows made with Christ being at the center. It is the gift of oneself to the other.

This gift is most fulfilled by looking to the gift of Christ as the groom to the Church herself.

It is the gift of oneself to the other. It is a gift to be shared for all humankind to witness. The Lamp on the stand is for all to see.

It is a love to be proclaimed before the eyes of the whole world. It is unconditional. To be capable of such love calls for careful preparation from early childhood to wedding day. It requires the constant support of Church and society throughout its development.

If Society is to be healed, if Society is to find God who searches for them, then what better observation is there than the Christian Marriage between a man and a women. The ultimate for Catholics would be receiving Communion in Christ while the vows are being held up in the presence of Christ, for all to witness.

Those baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus are married in his name also. Their love is a sharing in the love of God. He is its source. The marriages of Christian couples, today renewed and blessed, are images on earth of the wonder of God, the loving, life-giving communion of Three Persons in one God, and of God’s covenant in Christ, with the Church. Christian marriage is a sacrament of salvation for all to witness first hand. It is the pathway to holiness for all members of a family”……… Author Unknown

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Do you think it is appropriate for a non-Catholic to act as the Priest in a Catholic wedding?”

No, but all are welcome and all can attain this if this is their calling. Nothing hidden.

Do you believe I could bless the oil for a Catholic confirmation?

If your calling was to be a Priest, then yes. But even though you are not Catholic, or a Catholic Priest you could still attend. You would be very much welcome.

What about blessing the sacrament at mass?

No, but you would still be welcome. By being there you would be participating, because Christ would welcome you with open arms.

To participate in the Mass one only needs to be present. The Mass also extends to those who do not participate because Christ is for all. The Mass has overflowed throughout time to all who live by the Grace of God whether they are aware of it or not. As all that is good in anyone is Christ Himself.

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholic-RCIA,

Two things that I see you addressing. Secrecy and Inclusion.

I believe that secrecy was part of the early church. Some things that were originally sacred/secret were de-secretized. Other things may have disappeared. But the early church struggled with those who were not in communion with a Bishop ordained through an Apostolic linkage teaching sacred/secret doctrines that were polluted or invented. The result was de-secretizing.

Concerning inclusion, I maintain that the Catholic Church is not inclusive in all things. I was at a Catholic funeral recently were a pagan and an atheist partook of the sacrament with the approval of the priest. Is this the type of inclusion you advocate? I hope not.

The question becomes what things require ordination, what things require orthodoxy, and what things require orthopraxy? Are you suggesting that the way LDS answer this question is evidently evil based on common sense, and the way Catholics answer this question is evidently inspired/good based on common sense? Or some other measure?

And what could be more inclusive than to link the entire world, all of God’s children into one family through the sealings and proxy sealings that occur in LDS temples. No, you who do not see the truth of the CoJCoLDS cannot be physically present, but one day God’s grace will reach out and include you in this blessing too.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Jerusha:

By this you mean infant baptism?

No, I meant heretical Baptism. This clearly was a controversy that occurred in the 3rd century between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen.

I believe the practice of infant baptism was also a development, but the evidence is not as convincing.

You are correct though as people are baptized without proper authority AND as people are baptized without having faith (individual faith assuming this is necessary), their future ordinations would be invalid and eventually there would be no validly ordained folks. So, I guess infant baptism should be part of this too (from a LDS perspective of course).

Charity, TOm