An interesting approach to the Book of Mormon

[Peter_John]

I’ve read the Book of Mormon enough and don’t believe there is anything in there which absolutely denies that God the Father might have a body. It says God is a Spirit, but I don’t think that is enough to deny that the Father might also have a body. Even the Nicene Creed really doesn’t deny that the Father might have a body – the Nicene Creed simply declares that Jesus was eternally begotten of God. While I reject the idea the Father has a body, I don’t think the idea that he does have a body would necessarily invalidate the teaching on the Trinity. Mormons deny the teaching on the Trinity when they declare that God the Father has a Father and that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods.

Put simply, the idea of God having a body through the Incarnation of Christ is actually inherent in the concept of the Trinity. The idea of the Eternal Father or the Holy Spirit having bodies is antithetical to it.

However, LDS doctrine is that God the Father had a separate body from Christ (and in fact gaqined it through an independent mortal existence himself). The Book of Mormon does not justify this belief, and in fact contradicts it:

Ether 3:7-10
7And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?
8And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.
9And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this? lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/3?lang=eng&query=finger+God

The important line is “shall take upon me flesh and blood”. This is Incarnation Theology, as is:

Alma 11:38-40
38Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else. forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=544519

This is not only Incarnation Theology, but Trinitarian theology, and other verses throughout the Book of Mormon emphasize them both. Nothing ever separates the Father and the Son, and the only corporeal representations of God are given as the Body of Christ. If the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” and self sufficent, i.e. has the fulness of the Gospel, it should be used to demonstrate why non-Trinitarian LDS teachings are inaccurate,instead of being used to make the book of Mormon appear non-Trinitarian.

If the Book of Mormon justifies any source for outside interpretation, it would be the Bible, do to its association of the two throughout. It would also be the Catholic canon of the Bible, due to its description of the deuterocanonical books being removed – the plain and precious parts removed after the Bible went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles.

Again, I am only using the Book of Mormon to demonstrate fallacies in its interpretation, not to argue the liturgical principles on their basis, as I do not consider it source for basis of doctrine. I no longer believe it true.

 

[BartBurk]

Are these Mormon teachings found in the Book of Mormon?

The idea of God the Father having a Father isn’t. The normal Mormon would say the idea of three Gods is throughout the Book of Mormon simply because they are named as three entities and it is impossible to add 1+1+1 and get 1.

 

[Stephen168]

The idea of God the Father having a Father isn’t. The normal Mormon would say the idea of three Gods is throughout the Book of Mormon simply because they are named as three entities and it is impossible to add 1+1+1 and get 1.

The few quotes I’ve read in the Book of Mormon say that 1+1+1=1, so for a Mormon is say that is impossible would have to be an idea given to them outside the Book of Mormon. So the Book of Mormon does not teach Mormon teaching.

 

[ParkerD]

The few quotes I’ve read in the Book of Mormon say that 1+1+1=1, so for a Mormon is say that is impossible would have to be an idea given to them outside the Book of Mormon. So the Book of Mormon does not teach Mormon teaching.

Stephen,

The Book of Mormon never says it stands alone. It says it confirms that the Bible is true, and is the word of God. The Bible is where one reads the Intercessory prayer, as I noted previously. There, in that sublime prayer, 1+1+1+millions+Grace through the Atonement=a grand total of…1.

 

[Peter_John]

The idea of God the Father having a Father isn’t. The normal Mormon would say the idea of three Gods is throughout the Book of Mormon simply because they are named as three entities and it is impossible to add 1+1+1 and get 1.

Its description of this relationship, however, is consistent with Trinitarian theology, as in the references I provided.

 

[Peter_John]

Stephen,

The Book of Mormon never says it stands alone. It says it confirms that the Bible is true, and is the word of God. The Bible is where one reads the Intercessory prayer, as I noted previously. There, in that sublime prayer, 1+1+1+millions+Grace through the Atonement=a grand total of…1.

The Book of Mormon states on the Title Page, in the portion which Smith claimed was part of the plates, that the Book contains the fulness of the Gospel. Last I knew fulness means complete. Later, as part of its own internal fulness, it refers to the Judaic scriptures and the New Testament, and it affirms the truth of the Old Testament before it went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles – which would mean it should include the plain and precious truths in the Deutercanonical books, which were removed first by the Jews andlater by the Protestants after the Old Testament was passed from the Jews to the Gentiles.

Even if you do not wish to accept that, you have Smith’s affirmation that "the Book of Mormon is the most correct of all books and the keystone of our religion, and a man may grow closer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Its precepts teach a Trinitarian view of God. The promise of praying for a witness can arguably be construed to associate that promise with the Book of Mormon and Bible together, but not any other revelations.

Since as the most correct book it testifies to the unabridged Biblical canon, It would mean (were it true to begin with) that if anything were used to interpret its teachings, or together with it to interpret any future revelation, it would be the unabridged Biblical canon. Catholicism already applies that canon to determine the validity of continuing revelation, and has without interruption since the First Century.

Hence, to really know what to think of it you must refer to those who use the unabridged Biblical canon. Despite its Trinitarian teachings, and its support of the deuterocanonical books, it embeds a few heresies which invalidate as revelation on its own merits, according to the Bible.

 

[BartBurk]

The truth or falseness of Mormonism does not depend upon their understanding of the Trinity. The Trinity is never explicitly taught in the Bible – it comes from the tradition of the church. The truth of Mormonism depends on the reliability of Joseph Smith. That was the entire point of this thread. That Joseph was basically dishonest in his changing of revelations undermines his reliability.

 

[Peter_John]

The truth or falseness of Mormonism does not depend upon their understanding of the Trinity. The Trinity is never explicitly taught in the Bible – it comes from the tradition of the church. The truth of Mormonism depends on the reliability of Joseph Smith. That was the entire point of this thread. That Joseph was basically dishonest in his changing of revelations undermines his reliability.

First, tradition of the Church, in this context, means Revelation. It is not revelation of new doctrine, as the basic arguments for the belief are reflected in scripture, they just are not spelled out. It also means that the description of the nature of God in the Book of Mormon – taken on its own – is more supportive of Catholic tradition than of LDS “revelation” – even as some heresiies within the book and the book’s appliation serve to point people away from Catholicism.

From an LDS perspective the validity of the Book of Mormon in general is a crucial issue, as they believe God has given them a personal witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon. This witness testifies for them to the proof of Joseph Smith as a prophet.

The issue of this thread comes from LDS dissenters, or even some who have never accepted the religion but call themselves “Book of Mormon Christians”. They have found a great wealth of spiritual support from the Book of Mormon, attribute their Christian testimony to the Book of Mormon, but have observed inconsistency between the Church and the Book. It also applies to people who belong to splinter groups of Mormonism, like the Community of Christ. While these latter groups do not allow for a “fallen prophet” scenario, they still believe Smith’s work and consider the Salt Lake LDS institution wrong.

What none of these groups may recognize is how many of the things in the book they find inspiring already exist with other names. Many Book of Mormon caharacters have exact or partial counterparts in the Lives of the Saints and the Acts of the Apostles.

And relating this to your post in particular, I affirm that the Book of Mormon’s inconsistency with the statements Smith made about his First Vision go to Smith’s inconsistency. The discrepancy with its presentation of Trinity and Smith’s own account of his First Vision means that the discrepancies entered before the Book of Mormon existed, not after. This would mean that he was not a “fallen prophet” but never a prophet at all. That means that even the Book of Mormon was not the product of divine revelation. This dismisses the fallen prophet approach along with the idea that he was a prophet at all.

 

[Peter_John]

jsfellowship.com/

This person says that Joseph Smith was only called to translate the Book of Mormon and nothing more based on Book of Commandments:

As far as this forum goes. this is about as anti-Catholic as it gets. Joseph Smith, it says, was only supposed to complete the work begun by Luther – it extends an Islamic sort of approach – Jesus’ work didn’t last, others had to finish it.

For all the reasons I have argued in my earlier posts, the argument that Joseph Smith was a valid prophet when the Book of Mormon was published seems internally inconsistent.

 

[JSF]

Nice dialogue. Few points to add:

1. The mystery of God will remain until the Seventh angel sounds, arguments over the Godhead therefore are to be avoided.
2. During the First Vision, Joseph was absolutely instructed that the answers he sought would yet come forth, i.e. the Book of Mormon.
3. The argument that because more than one version of Joseph’s First Vision exists they all must be wrong is desperate. According to that logic the Bible must be discarded also. Let’s grow up.
4. Please clue us in what you meant PJ: "it (BoM) embeds a few heresies which invalidate as revelation on its own merits, according to the Bible. "

Can’t wait.

 

[JSF]

What none of these groups may recognize is how many of the things in the book they find inspiring already exist with other names.

I accept there is nothing new under the sun; one word of God should sound familiar with another by patterns, content or verbatim expressions.

The discrepancy with its presentation of Trinity and Smith’s own account of his First Vision means that the discrepancies entered before the Book of Mormon existed, not after. This would mean that he was not a “fallen prophet” but never a prophet at all. That means that even the Book of Mormon was not the product of divine revelation. This dismisses the fallen prophet approach along with the idea that he was a prophet at all.

According to the Biblical definition of a prophet, Joseph was one; your forcing of a trinitarian definition is somewhere between weak and desperate - no offense.

As far as this forum goes. this is about as anti-Catholic as it gets. Joseph Smith, it says, was only supposed to complete the work begun by Luther – it extends an Islamic sort of approach – Jesus’ work didn’t last, others had to finish it.

There is plenty the Reformers did not get to, that premise is accurate in light of the fallacious notion that infants need baptism, Mary was a perpetual virgin, etc.

For all the reasons I have argued in my earlier posts, the argument that Joseph Smith was a valid prophet when the Book of Mormon was published seems internally inconsistent.

For all the reasons you posted? Honestly, you’re intelligence was called into question the minute you reached for the “different First Visions” argument. Why would you stoop to that? Surely you have more substantial refutes than that, and surely you won’t condemn a book that confirms the divinity of Jesus by it would you? I want to know what spirit I’m dealing with before proceeding further as the spirit of anti-Christ cannot be swayed toward supports of Christ.

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead and was not simply drugged? If you saw Jesus today, how would he appear?

 

[Di_bear]

Question:

If Joseph Smith was given the instruction to translate the Book of Mormon, then Joseph Smith was given the keys of revelation by God. If so, then how does one decide which revelation is of God and which one isn’t?

So, Joseph Smith says “God told me to give the Book of Mormon to the World”, then he says, “God gave me the Priesthood blessing (a.k.a. apostolic keys) to lead his church”.

Now, who gets to decide that one is true while the other isn’t?

Hmmm…good question. How about Jesus? Is he a reliable source for determining who holds the keys?

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

– Matthew 16:18-19

The Catholic Church was built on this rock.

Yeah, but I didn’t agree that REASON ALONE gets to decide.

The Church - Catholic or LDS - do not rise and fall by REASON. It rises and falls by the Power of God.

As previously quoted:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The Church will not fall.

This brings up the question from another thread of how Jesus can have a double standard, He can tell people in his own time to respect the authority of the Pharisees, even as they conspire for his death. He can assure people in the 19th Century that the authority will never be taken away, to the point that officials will die before they will apostasize. But despte the fact that he told Peter the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church Peter woukld organize, its leaders would become to corrupt for God to recognize their authority.

In simpler terms: If the principal that the authority is valid even if those holding it are corrupt apllies in one time, the same principal has to apply in another times, or Jesus has a double standard.

You missed the point of what Jesus was saying. You also missed the point that Jesus is a NEW covenant, so things have changed. The Jews had to sacrifice lambs, basically payment for their sins. With Christ’s death, resurrection, and glorification, he became the Paschal Lamb. That is why we have the Eucharist. We aren’t resacrificing Christ at every Mass. We are perpetuating his Sacrifice, as he commanded us. We make it present. THIS is why things change. (See CCC Article 4.)

Regarding what he said about the Pharisees, this applies always because there will always be hypocrites. Christ said,

"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

– Matthew 23:2-3

…meaning that they taught the truth, but they did not lead by example. In spite of their sins, this did not lessen the importance or the meaning of the Word of God. The same holds true today. We are all sinners. The laity, priests, bishops, the pope; but that does not mean that we don’t teach the truth.

It is totally appropriate to describe Jesus as “Father” in that He is the father of our salvation and redemption, the father of the creation of this earth and the heavens by virtue of the power and delegation of authority and purpose He received from His Father to be the Creator, and the father of those who become spiritually “begotten sons and daughters unto God.” The Book of Mormon teaches these aspects of the fatherhood of Christ for those who become His disciples in several wonderful, uplifting teachings that can enliven the life of someone who reads by their getting the power of the Holy Ghost into their hearts and lives, if they read with a sincere heart and with faith in His redeeming grace and enduring love.

Wow. This totally conflicts with the Bible.

There is only one God. Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are one being. Just one. There is only one God. ONE GOD. One. I can’t stress this enough, and God did a pretty good job stressing it, as well:

You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I have chosen To know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none. It is I, I the LORD; there is no savior but me. It is I who foretold, I who saved; I made it known, not any strange god among you; You are my witnesses, says the LORD. I am God, yes, from eternity I am He; There is none who can deliver from my hand: who can countermand what I do?

– Isaiah 43:10-13 (Isaish is full of references to the Trinity. Read it.)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

– John 1:1

God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.”

– Exodus 3:14

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be,** I AM**.”

– John 8:58

That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

– John 8:24

 

[Di_bear]

I ran out of room in my previous post, so I’m continuing here…

It is totally appropriate to describe Jesus as “Father” in that He is the father of our salvation and redemption, the father of the creation of this earth and the heavens by virtue of the power and delegation of authority and purpose He received from His Father to be the Creator, and the father of those who become spiritually “begotten sons and daughters unto God.”

Sorry to break it to you, but if you “delegate” to yourself, you aren’t really delegating. God didn’t delegate. He chose to reveal himself in three different ways, or persons, but **the fact is that God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is Jesus is God. One God. **

The true nature of the Trinity is a mystery because it defies human logic, but God made it quite clear that He is only one, and God in the form of Christ, who was fully human and fully divine (again, a mystery), made it very clear that He is God. (See my previous post for Bible quotes.)

 

[Peter_John]

According to the Biblical definition of a prophet, Joseph was one; your forcing of a trinitarian definition is somewhere between weak and desperate - no offense.

Whoa, didn’t mean to goad you, but you know that kicking against those goads you only hurt yourself. You will see further down one specific reason why I do not think that Joseph Smith fits the Biblical model of a prophet.

There is no forcing of a Trinitarian interpretation in the verses I quoted from the Book of Mormon. They clearly state that Jesus and the very Eternal Father are the same, and that in Jesus the very Eternal Father will assume flesh and blood.

You define yourself as Protestant. What Protestant denomination does not believe in the Trinity, defends the Book of Mormon, and calls Joseph Smith a prophet? With the level of your rhetoric I would expect you to be so proud of being LDS you would have it on your screen name.

I am not sure what you mean by a “different First Visions” argument. I only applied Smith’s own account of his fist vision, showing its inconsistency with the Book of Mormon. If you can find a reference within the Book of Mormon that redefines Jesus and the Father as separate and distinct individuals, or that God the Father has a corporeal body apart from the Body of Christ, please cite them and enlighten us – but just calling me stupid is not a very foundational argument.

I will otherwise not respond to your ad hominim remarks because one thing you said stands out as more significant:

.
Surely you won’t condemn a book that confirms the divinity of Jesus by it would you? I want to know what spirit I’m dealing with before proceeding further as the spirit of anti-Christ cannot be swayed toward supports of Christ.

That first sentence was exactly the position I took in a book I wrote but never published years ago entitled , *The Christians We Call Mormon. *Maybe I will blog it out one of these months. It is a deeper question than you realize. I do not condemn the book in anything I wrote. While I call it a fabrication, I believe I treat the Book of Mormon with respect.

1. The books Les Miserables, In His Steps, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Ben Hur all offer tremendous testimonies of Christ, but that makes them no less fiction. That does not make them the Word of God. Does it condemn them to call them fiction?
2. However, none of those books include any inherent heresies (unless you interpret C.S. Lewis’ allegory and metaphor literally), so there may be no harm in embracing them as enlighteners of faith. The Book of Mormon just considered as fiction may testify of Christ’s divinity, but it detracts from his work. It appropriates stories of actual Saints in the history of the spread of Christianity – most particularly the Christian martyrs of the first three centuries.

Devotion to a book of fiction as equal to scripture thus detracts from the actual sacrifices of history upon which such stories are based. In addition, accepting the Book of Mormon as a valid witness, fictional or otherwise, means advancing some heretical notions, like the pre-existence of anyone but Jesus, the allowability of God ordering murder (not self-defense) when other options exist, baptism as a valid sacrament (ordinance) prior to John the Baptist.

Most significantly, Even Moses was refused entry into the Promised Land for a moment of self-aggrandization. The Book of Mormon includes the heresy that Joseph of the Old Testament prophesied of the coming of Joseph Smith, as a great seer like Moses, of whom it also says Joseph prophesied. I know of no account in scripture of any prophet’s mission requiring self-aggrandization. lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/3?lang=eng&query=Joseph .That heresy alone justifies rejecting the Book of Mormon as an acceptable witness of Christ.

You will find however that posts I have made in other threads affirm how influential my devotion to the teachings of the Book of Mormon in and of itself – without reference to outside sources – was in my conversion to Catholicism. There were many things in it that I did not see the LDS Church doing. I found these things in Catholicism, and then began to recognize the heresy.

1. The third possible reason not to accept its witness is the one I rejected. One reason I considered was how thoroughly it seemed to teach Catholic values even as leaqding the reader away from Catholicism. I could just imagine the adversary telling people who followed it, “But the book told you …”. I emphasize that I reject this. I only use it to completely answer your question…

I just considered it for awhile. However, were it true the pertinent example from Christ would be that when demons testified of Him he told them to shut up. If I believed this approach, I would not even use the Book of Mormon for my arguments. But it is another example of what you speak of regarding accepting any witnesses promoting Christ’s divinity. You actually answer that yourself in the sentence after the question.

Let me leave you with these thoughts:
As long as we believe that any part of us can exist independently of God, we cannot believe in God’s total omnipotence.

Jesus does not have a double standard. If he did not negate the authority of the Pharisees in His day despite their corruption even leading to his execution, he would not negate the authority of those through whomit was later passed on, however corrupt they may have become. He promised Peter that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his work.

The Book of Mormon promotes both of these beliefs.

 

[Peter_John]

You missed the point of what Jesus was saying. You also missed the point that Jesus is a NEW covenant, so things have changed. The Jews had to sacrifice lambs, basically payment for their sins. With Christ’s death, resurrection, and glorification, he became the Paschal Lamb. That is why we have the Eucharist. We aren’t resacrificing Christ at every Mass. We are perpetuating his Sacrifice, as he commanded us. We make it present. THIS is why things change. (See CCC Article 4.)

Regarding what he said about the Pharisees, this applies always because there will always be hypocrites. Christ said,

I did not miss any points, I was just trying not to preach to the choir. LDS are very familiar with the example of the Pharisees being presented by the Church as one of importance to accepting the authority of their Priesthood. My purpose was not to apply a full exegesis of the passage, but to consider the implications of that one limited interpretation in context of the hteory pof a Great Apostasy. I expressed it sparsely not wishing top re-open an argument from an already closed thread.

Yes, there is a lot more to it, but it remains semantically valid: The seat of the prophets … the Chair of Peter. Incomplete exegesis, yes. Invalid if narrow application, no.

I’m not sure where you get the sense that I consider that we are sacrificing Jesus over and over, other than one distant post where I mentioned having that perception as an LDS missionary – in which perception I did miss the point, but that was nearly 30 years ago.

In fact, I would affirm that instead of saying we are perpetuating his sacrifice a better choice of words would be that we are participating in His perpetual sacrifice. He sacrifices Himself, we do not sacrifice Him. Better wording still would be participating in his Eternal sacrifice. You will find I have commented on this in other posts. It was my initial impression of mass upon conversion – this is a sacrament apart from time and space, and all participating in it at all times and in all places are participating in one Sacred meal.

 

[Peter_John]

Nice dialogue. Few points to add:

1. The mystery of God will remain until the Seventh angel sounds, arguments over the Godhead therefore are to be avoided.
2. During the First Vision, Joseph was absolutely instructed that the answers he sought would yet come forth, i.e. the Book of Mormon.
3. The argument that because more than one version of Joseph’s First Vision exists they all must be wrong is desperate. According to that logic the Bible must be discarded also. Let’s grow up.
4. Please clue us in what you meant PJ: "it (BoM) embeds a few heresies which invalidate as revelation on its own merits, according to the Bible. "

Can’t wait.

Please don’t call me PJ,

 

[Di_bear]

I did not miss any points, I was just trying not to preach to the choir. LDS are very familiar with the example of the Pharisees being presented by the Church as one of importance to accepting the authority of their Priesthood. My purpose was not to apply a full exegesis of the passage, but to consider the implications of that one limited interpretation in context of the hteory pof a Great Apostasy. I expressed it sparsely not wishing top re-open an argument from an already closed thread.

Yes, there is a lot more to it, but it remains semantically valid: The seat of the prophets … the Chair of Peter. Incomplete exegesis, yes. Invalid if narrow application, no.

Fair enough, but also, not all of us read all of the threads. I’d rather just throw out the facts than let an argument go round in circles.

I’m not sure where you get the sense that I consider that we are sacrificing Jesus over and over, other than one distant post where I mentioned having that perception as an LDS missionary – in which perception I did miss the point, but that was nearly 30 years ago.

That was not my intention. My intention in mentioning that was to support the other part that you have already addressed. It was a “big picture” comment.

In fact, I would affirm that instead of saying we are perpetuating his sacrifice a better choice of words would be that we are participating in His perpetual sacrifice. He sacrifices Himself, we do not sacrifice Him. Better wording still would be participating in his Eternal sacrifice. You will find I have commented on this in other posts. It was my initial impression of mass upon conversion – this is a sacrament apart from time and space, and all participating in it at all times and in all places are participating in one Sacred meal.

This is a useless argument on semantics. If you don’t like my wording, then take it up with the Catholic Church, because it is used in the CCC. …and I did say it was “his Sacrifice.”

Don’t forget, there are people in this thread who are not Catholic and do not understand the Eucharist. This is my purpose for thoroughness. I suggest that you also practice respectful thoroughness unless you are here for the enjoyment of the fight.

 

[Peter_John]

Fair enough, but also, not all of us read all of the threads. I’d rather just throw out the facts than let an argument go round in circles.

That was not my intention. My intention in mentioning that was to support the other part that you have already addressed. It was a “big picture” comment.

This is a useless argument on semantics. If you don’t like my wording, then take it up with the Catholic Church, because it is used in the CCC. …and I did say it was “his Sacrifice.”

Don’t forget, there are people in this thread who are not Catholic and do not understand the Eucharist. This is my purpose for thoroughness. I suggest that you also practice respectful thoroughness unless you are here for the enjoyment of the fight.

Understood. I don’t consider it an argument, just wanted to sow I do understand the concept.

Good point about people not understanding what the Eucharist is. I did not even know what the word meant until I was nearly 40.

 

[JSF]

That first sentence was exactly the position I took in a book I wrote but never published years ago entitled

You’re lucky, had you done so that may have sealed your fate.

Devotion to a book of fiction as equal to scripture thus detracts from the actual sacrifices of history upon which such stories are based. In addition, accepting the Book of Mormon as a valid witness, fictional or otherwise, means advancing some heretical notions, like the pre-existence of anyone but Jesus, the allowability of God ordering murder (not self-defense) when other options exist, baptism as a valid sacrament (ordinance) prior to John the Baptist.

For someone acting like an authority, i.e. “I wrote a book” you’re choice of arguments reveals who I’m dealing with. The spirit of Anti-Christ will go to great lengths to deny the one book that confirms the divinity of Jesus.

For future readers please note, to equate acknowledged books of fiction with holy writ is a mockery to those prophet and peoples who lived and died for their belief in Jesus.

Secondly, the Holy Book of Mormon confirms the pre-existence of Christ and does NOT support the teachings of Mormonism. Anyone who read the Book of Mormon would know that.

Thirdly, the fact that baptism was being practiced by John the Baptist before the crucifixion of Jesus confirms its practice in the Book of Mormon was correct. Add to that the fact that Catholics, Protestants (most) and Mormons baptize children AND only practice ONE baptism shows extreme ignorance of both its practice and purpose.

Whereas the Catholic church removed the simple instructions from the Bible regarding baptism and Communion the Holy Book of Mormon restored them. That alone is enough to warrant the greatest respect and admiration of the sincere followers of Christ.

 

[Peter_John]

For future readers please note, to equate acknowledged books of fiction with holy writ is a mockery to those prophet and peoples who lived and died for their belief in Jesus.

Hey, at least I did not say that it was the work of the devil.

First off, holy writ can be in any genre. PArables, for example, do not have to describe events that literally happened. Only some biblical genres are inherently non-fiction. It still takes something significant for it to qualify as holy writ. Among other things, it cannot advance heresies.

What is the evidence that the Book of Mormon is Holy Writ?

Secondly, the Holy Book of Mormon confirms the pre-existence of Christ and does NOT support the teachings of Mormonism.
Anyone who read the Book of Mormon would know that.

At last someone who agrees with me. I have been saying that through a bunch of posts, including the ones you criticize (which makes me real curious of your denomination).

Unfortunately it also teaches that the 12 Apostles also came down from Heaven, which contradicts Jesus’ own words. The Bible supports pre-existence of nobody but Christ. The Book of Mormon affirms that Jesus not only visited the Americas and established 12 apostles here as well, also heretical. If it is any kind of Holy writ, it is a parable at best. However, it is not so treated. Parts of it qualify as poetry.

The main thing is it introduces nothing valid not already included in the Bible, the writings of the Church fathers, or in the History of Christianity – it just places it all in the Americas.

Thirdly, the fact that baptism was being practiced by John the Baptist before the crucifixion of Jesus confirms its practice in the Book of Mormon was correct.

The fact it was practiced before Christ’s crucifixion does not justify its practice all the way back to Adam. The teaching of the detailed Doctrine of Christ’s incarnation is inconsistent withbthe unfolding knowledge of God evident in the Biblical record.

Add to that the fact that Catholics, Protestants (most) and Mormons baptize children AND only practice ONE baptism shows extreme ignorance of both its practice and purpose.

The fact it was practiced before Christ’s crucifixion does not justify its practice all the way back to Adam. Jesus called John to Baptize, perhaps even when He led his Mother to visit John’s Mother before His birth.

IF you are of the opinion that the Book of Mormon teaches re-baptism, that is interesting. Must not have read that part closely enough.

Whereas the Catholic church removed the simple instructions from the Bible regarding baptism and Communion the Holy Book of Mormon restored them. That alone is enough to warrant the greatest respect and admiration of the sincere followers of Christ.

That assumes facts not in evidence. The last I read the Bible the Instructions for Holy Communion are right in there. What evidence have you that these instructions were removed?

What the Book of Mormon says about the plain and precious truths removed from it are that they were removed after the Bible went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles – a perfect descritption of how the deuterocanonical books were eliminated.

It doesn’t say anything about Catholics taking the instructions for baptism out of the Bible.