Another Mormon Question - Jesus as Savior?

[majick275]

well i was trying to find concise links that captured the most relevant bible verses.

I would submit to you that early mormons were trinitarians. You can read in the testimony of the 3 witnesses to the book of mormon this quote: And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

and the BoM scriptures: (alma 11)

*28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No. *

35 Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God.

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

and especially Mosiah 15:

*1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. *

Notice the detailed effort to explain the trinity here. These are Mormon sources. I don’t believe that LDS theology disavowed the Trinity until Sidney Rigdon came up with binitarianism in Lectures on Faith (Lecture 5 I believe.) which is still mentioned in the intro to the D&C as “profitable for teaching”. Current LDS doctrine is still “unclear” on the Holy Spirit as he has no body but a physical body is a requirement for exaltation.

as far as biblical support:

OT:

Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”

Deuteronomy 4:35 “To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.”

Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.”

Isaiah 43:10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.”

and the NT:

James 2:19 “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

that’s probably a good start.

 

[Allweather]

I suppose this statement is what is of interest to me, could you point out those biblical passages that show the triune nature as taught by Catholic doctrine. Thanks

Paul

Hi again, Paul. Unfortunately, I’m on business far away from home right now and don’t have my usual materials with me. I believe that Majik has gone into sufficient detail for you.

As a general rule, I avoid Bible exegisis, because I don’t consider myself qualified for such behavior. I do read a lot of Bible, however. It seems to me that the New Testament is full of inferences of Trinity. I can certainly see how a person could read these inferences and conclude that they are describing separate gods. However, as we know, the Hebrews are very big on the idea of there being only the One God. I think that the early Christian thinkers had to reconcile the New Testament with the Torah in terms of nature of God. It couldn’t be possible that the One God suddenly split apart into multiple beings upon the incarnation. The explanation is the Trinity, which is a multiplicity of persons as parts of the same being, or something like that.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you for the links, however, I would much more prefer to dialogue with you as to your own thoughts in the posts themselves, I do not have the time to read through such documents to glean what you are trying to communicate to me. Perhaps you could condense these points in your posts. Thanks

Paul

Don’t be duped by what they say Paul. The following points should be noted with regard to the LDS theology of the Trinity, or the Godhead:

1. Mormonism is not “anti-Trinitarian”. Mormonism believes 100% in the Trinity—the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The first article of Faith states:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

What it does not believe in is the Trinity of post-Apostate Christendom—the “three in one and one in three” garbage. Mormonism believes in the Trinity of the Bible, which consists of three separate beings united in mind, purpose, and will.

1. Mosiah 15:1–7 does not teach the Trinity of post-Apostate Christendom. The doctrine that it teaches is vastly different. Read it carefully, and you will soon figure that out.
2. The doctrine of the unity of God, or of the members of the Trinity, are as much taught in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price as it is in the Book of Mormon. The idea that doctrine has “changed” between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price, is a figment of their imagination. If you listened to them, you wouldn’t think that we believed in the Book of Mormon any more! D&C 20:17, 27, 28; 68:8; Moses 1:6, 24; 5:9; 6:66 are some good examples.
3. At the same time, the doctrine of the separate identity of the members of the Godhead is equally taught in the Book of Mormon, as in the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price. 2 Nephi 31:11, 12, 14, 15, 18; 3 Nephi 11:6–8; are some examples.

Indeed, Joseph Smith received his First Vision, in which the doctrine of the separate identity of the members of the Godhead was revealed to him for the first time more comprehensively than to any previous prophet, long before he had translated the Book of Mormon or organized the Church.

1. As far as the Bible is concerned, it is just as easy to go through it, and to compile a comprehensive exegesis supporting the doctrine of the plurality of Gods, or of the Trinity, as it to compile one supporting their unity. No big deal in that.

zerinus

 

[MelanieAnne]

OK Zerenius, except for the fact that your “scripture” requires that we believe that Joseph Smith saw revealed “scripture” using magic rocks he viewed at the bottom of a hat that no one else has ever seen (and also the fact that Mormon missionaries never tell anyone about the magic rocks, and are also trained with non-sequiter answers just in case some more informed person asks about the magic rocks, giving rise to the question, why do you hide the part of the development of your religion as it pertains to the magic rocks?)

But the bigger point is ~ Can you prove your point from the Bible? I’ll wait to see it. You’ve submitted nothing so far.

The mormon question is really so easy! Anyone with a modicom of sense and scholarship can readily ascertain that Joseph Smith made it all up! It’s patently obvious! And he plagiarized the King James Version of the Bible when it suited him. Maybe he even had the Bible there when he “dictated” because, and correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t the person who wrote down his “dictation” have a screen or cloth or something to impede clear vision in between? So, didn’t Joseph Smith basically dictate “in secret”?

This has all the characteristics of a massive fraud. That many Mormons of today are nice people doesn’t change that. I have many very nice Mormon friends, and I pray for them every day. The fact that many Mormons are nice people does not change the possibility that their religion is based on a total fabrication.

I’ll wait, but I will not hold my breath, for Zerenius or anyone to provide proof from the Bible.

 

[Paul_G]

OK Zerenius, except for the fact that your “scripture” requires that we believe that Joseph Smith saw revealed “scripture” using magic rocks he viewed at the bottom of a hat that no one else has ever seen (and also the fact that Mormon missionaries never tell anyone about the magic rocks, and are also trained with non-sequiter answers just in case some more informed person asks about the magic rocks, giving rise to the question, why do you hide the part of the development of your religion as it pertains to the magic rocks?)

But the bigger point is ~ Can you prove your point from the Bible? I’ll wait to see it. You’ve submitted nothing so far.

The mormon question is really so easy! Anyone with a modicom of sense and scholarship can readily ascertain that Joseph Smith made it all up! It’s patently obvious! And he plagiarized the King James Version of the Bible when it suited him. Maybe he even had the Bible there when he “dictated” because, and correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t the person who wrote down his “dictation” have a screen or cloth or something to impede clear vision in between? So, didn’t Joseph Smith basically dictate “in secret”?

This has all the characteristics of a massive fraud. That many Mormons of today are nice people doesn’t change that. I have many very nice Mormon friends, and I pray for them every day. The fact that many Mormons are nice people does not change the possibility that their religion is based on a total fabrication.

I’ll wait, but I will not hold my breath, for Zerenius or anyone to provide proof from the Bible.

The Jewish high priest wore a breastplate of stones that was understood to be a means to receive communication from God, so it is not so far fetched as it might seem. Here are some biblical passages that give the impression that there is indeed a separation Between the Father and the Son. There are also passages that show a separation of location, as at the baptism of Jesus, and the mount of transfiguration.

*1Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

Mark 13:32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

John 5:19 "Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

John 17:20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,*

Paul

 

[MelanieAnne]

With all due respect Paul, despite the voluminous answer you gave, you didn’t really answer the question.

There are NUMEROUS reasons why the “scriptures” that are said to have been “translated” by Joseph Smith using the “magic rocks” that he used for the Book of Mormon are specious and you didn’t really address any of them. But thank you for trying. Your attempts are at least more creative than most missionaries of the Mormon Church, but they are not determinative.

The bottom line is this. Jesus asked us to go into the whole world and proclaim Him. I am not making this up, this comes from our own (Catholic) Holy Father.

I am going to ask you to do something that is probably very hard for you because Mormonism is not just a faith, it is a society, a lifestyle. It is hard to change. But I can tell you in all loving faith that ~

I know the Mormon Church is NOT true
I know that Joseph Smith is NOT a prophet of God

I say this to you in this way because I know you will recognize the form of a testimony. I know, if you examine the entirety of the Mormon faith, with your intellect, you will also come to know this truth. (If you choose to ignore the facts, well, you do, and no one can help that. The facts are there and available.)

And further, I will tell you (again, in sort of in the form of a “testimony”) ~

I know that the Catholic Church IS true. I know that the Catholic Church was the actual church founded by Jesus Christ. I know that Jesus, our Redeemer, is the Son of God and He is, at the same time, in one substance with the Father, the one that some in your church would call “Heavenly Father”. I know that the Holy Spirit, another aspect of God, is our teacher and guide. I know that they are all the same. I know that they are not separate “personages” but one God. I know that in Jesus we can place our trust and faith because He has told us we can. (Does that correspond with some “Catholic” testimony? NO! That’s ME talking! If you want a profession of faith, we have the Nicene Creed! It was a profession of faith over a thousand years before Joseph Smith thought to invent a church!)

I will pray for you, earnestly, because I am sure you are faithful and you yearn for the truth, otherwise, you really wouldn’t be posting on a Catholic forum. Mormonism is not the truth. I grieve for you that you are in such a predicament because to be where you are, wondering, and yet stuck in such a quagmire, is so very difficult. And escape from the various tentacles of the Mormon faith is very difficult. Because it is a lifestyle, not just a faith. I know it is hard but you can break free. It won’t be easy, but it will be worth it. Not just for you, but for your family.

And, unlike any of your prayers to date, I suspect, I will also pray for you through Mary, the Mother of God. We Catholics have the benefit of praying to the Mother of God, perhaps in the sense that we can ask her to “tap Jesus on the shoulder” and ask HER to ask HIM to hear our request. Do we worship her as is often said about us? NO, we don’t. We ask her to ask her SON, the SON of GOD, to help us. We know that a Son will often be attentive to the requests of His Mother, that is all. And so I will ask her to intercede on your behalf and ask Her to ask Jesus to help you in your quest for truth.

The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all. Thanks be to God.

 

[zerinus]

1. Mosiah 15:1–7 does not teach the Trinity of post-Apostate Christendom. The doctrine that it teaches is vastly different. Read it carefully, and you will soon figure that out.

One more good scripture I forgot to mention. The doctrines of Mosiah 15:1–7, expressed in different words, are also taught in D&C 93:1–4. (Read to the end of the section for more comprehensive insight.) So there is no “change” in LDS doctrine from the Book of Mormon to the D&C, or anywhere else. LDS doctrine does not change, and has not changed. It has increased and progressed, which is a different thing. God teaches mankind a little bit at a time, not all at once. Knowledge comes “line upon line, and precept upon precept”. God revealed to Joseph Smith ten years down the line things which He had not revealed to him in the first year; but that did not mean that doctrine had “changed”. You may learn something in tenth grade which appears to contradict what you learned in first grade. That is not because “truth” has changed, but because you know more. God reveals nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts what He revealed to him later on in the D&C. He just revealed to him more.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

aaah good old Z, no substance but lots of fear induced trash talking.

Show me how in the BoM the explanation for ONE God isn’t consubstantial.

Show me how the Lectures on faith (originally canonized scripture that was removed without a vote of the church and is still referred to in canonized scripture as "profitable for teaching) wasn’t a change with it’s two members of the “godhood” and the father NOT having a physical body. (the holy spirit was their “shared mind”…consubstantial?)

Show me how current LDS teaching of the three being one in purpose isn’t a change.

Show me how in LDS doctrine a being without a physical body can be fully exalted as God.

Paul,
Thank you for your bible scriptures. I believe that many of them prove my point. let’s look:

1Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

This appears to show that Jesus is both God AND man as the Catholic church teaches. I don’t see anything problematic since we do believe they are different PERSONS.

Mark 13:32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
this one looks good for your position but the context is one of Jesus on earth in his mortal existence. He chose to forgo much of his divinity during that time for our sake. I would attribute this to the limitations that he willingly accepted then.

*John 5:19 "Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”
*

This seems to prove the Catholic viewpoint.

John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

I would make the exact same comment here that I did about Mark 13:32

John 17:20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

I don’t see a problem here. we believe in three persons.

*Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
*

same here

*John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
*

this again speaks to Jesus becoming fully man while on earth. what I said about Mark 13 still applies

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

Same as above.

perhaps zerinus would be willing to explain his own mormon scriptures apparent trinitarian view rather than just claiming we are all apostates and it doesn’t say that…

 

[majick275]

One more good scripture I forgot to mention. The doctrines of Mosiah 15:1–7, expressed in different words, are also taught in D&C 93:1–4. (Read to the end of the section for more comprehensive insight.) So there is no “change” in LDS doctrine from the Book of Mormon to the D&C, or anywhere else. LDS doctrine does not change, and has not changed. It has increased and progressed, which is a different thing. God teaches mankind a little bit at a time, not all at once. Knowledge comes “line upon line, and precept upon precept”. God revealed to Joseph Smith ten years down the line things which He had not revealed to him in the first year; but that did not mean that doctrine had “changed”. You may learn something in tenth grade which appears to contradict what you learned in first grade. That is not because “truth” has changed, but because you know more. God reveals nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts what He revealed to him later on in the D&C. He just revealed to him more.

zerinus

kind of like when he revealed in the original D&C that polygamy was bad and LDS don’t do it…but then revealed in the updated version that it was good and that it led to exaltation and then later revealed not to practice it so that the legal troubles would stop?

 

[majick275]

The Jewish high priest wore a breastplate of stones that was understood to be a means to receive communication from God, so it is not so far fetched as it might seem.
Paul

actually the high priest went into the temple and spoke to God. the urim and thummim were attached to the breastplate and were thought to give yes/no answers by using them to “cast lots”. There does not appear to be any biblical support for looking into stones and receiving scripture like Joseph Smith claimed. in fact we see God using dreams and visions only in limited circumstance. his primary form of speaking to prophets was to speak to them. as mormons claim that God came down and spoke to Joseph in person and later sent an angels as messengers one wonders why he would have ever needed to resort to the “seer stone” to receive revelation.

 

[Paul_G]

actually the high priest went into the temple and spoke to God. the urim and thummim were attached to the breastplate and were thought to give yes/no answers by using them to “cast lots”. There does not appear to be any biblical support for looking into stones and receiving scripture like Joseph Smith claimed. in fact we see God using dreams and visions only in limited circumstance. his primary form of speaking to prophets was to speak to them. as mormons claim that God came down and spoke to Joseph in person and later sent an angels as messengers one wonders why he would have ever needed to resort to the “seer stone” to receive revelation.

There are many versions of how the translation proceeded. Joseph Smith didn’t leave a detailed description of the translation process behind, the use of the Urim and Thummin is also shrouded in similar uncertainly. It would be difficult, I believe, for one to pronounce that there is not precedence for the use of such things in earlier times. It is clear that the Urim and Thummin was used for a communicative purpose, for one to suggest that it is not possible for God to use such things in a different manner , places restrictions on what God can or can not do to further His will. It is a marvellous mystery.

Paul

 

[majick275]

I certainly don’t mean that God is limited in any way. I merely point out that it doesn’t appear to be his established. method of doing things. as to what Joseph smith left behind, I think we have very good detail on how translated. In any case though, I was specifically referring to certain sections of the D&C which clearly state that the revelation was received via the seer stone.

 

[zerinus]

There are many versions of how the translation proceeded. Joseph Smith didn’t leave a detailed description of the translation process behind, the use of the Urim and Thummin is also shrouded in similar uncertainly.

That is true. The following extract is from an article by Elder Neal A Maxwell published in the January 1997 of the Ensign:

Many who read the Book of Mormon understandably desire to know more about its coming forth, including the actual process of translation. This was certainly so with faithful and loyal Hyrum Smith. Upon inquiring, Hyrum was told by the Prophet Joseph that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon” and that “it was not expedient for him to relate these things” (History of the Church, 1:220). Thus what we do know about the actual coming forth of the Book of Mormon is adequate, but it is not comprehensive.

The whole article is interesting, and can be read Here:

lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e491dbdcc370c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Seems to me, one immediate problem of the early Christian theologians was to reconcile New Testament oral and written traditions, in the gospels and other NT materials, with existing Scriptures, which at that time were what we call Old Testament today.

Old Testament is relentlessly about One God. The Jews did not, and do not, believe in a plurality of gods. It was the plurality of gods of the pagan religions that caused God so much “heartburn” and the constant return of the Hebrews to these pagan beliefs that caused them so much tragedy.

When Jesus appeared, revealing a certain “complexity” with respect to the relationship of incarnate God with the Father, and also speaking of the coming Comforter, Christian theologians were faced with the problem of reconciling these with the ancient Hebrew understandings. God couldn’t have become suddenly many. He was One God, but with the advent of Jesus had shown Himself in more than one person. The answer is the Trinity, which holds to the singularity of God while understanding Him to has revealed himself in more than one person (which is not the same thing as more than one being).

The Mormon confusion about this results from their disconnection from the ancient faith and its authority to interpret and teach Scripture and Tradition. A bumpkin sitting on a log reading the Bible can come to some pretty idiotic conclusions about various things. It is the Church and the Magisterium which gathers the truths together, rendering them comprehensible. Those sects separated from the Catholic Church and the authority which Jesus vested in it are necessarily subject to bizarre conclusions that lead them farther and farther away from orthodoxy. The Mormon trinity is a perfect example of this.

 

[Allweather]

There are many versions of how the translation proceeded. Joseph Smith didn’t leave a detailed description of the translation process behind, the use of the Urim and Thummin is also shrouded in similar uncertainly. It would be difficult, I believe, for one to pronounce that there is not precedence for the use of such things in earlier times. It is clear that the Urim and Thummin was used for a communicative purpose, for one to suggest that it is not possible for God to use such things in a different manner , places restrictions on what God can or can not do to further His will. It is a marvellous mystery.

Paul

The method of communication is beside the point. If God wants to speak through a donkey’s mouth, he can do that, as we know.

The problem is what was “revealed.” What was revealed is error. And, the error grew over time. It started relatively small (though significant). Over time, it became increasingly outrageous. We can know that it was error because we can compare it to what was already in place.

Debating about methods of communication between God and man are fruitless, since God is perfectly capable of calling forth prophets from stones if he chooses. But analysis of the INFORMATION contained in the revelations tells us whether it comes from God or not. After all, God isn’t the only spirit being in the house. Discernment is critical. These things can’t be left to the individual, but rather to the authority of the Church that Jesus left in charge of his people, which is the Catholic Church.

 

[zerinus]

The method of communication is beside the point. If God wants to speak through a donkey’s mouth, he can do that, as we know.

The problem is what was “revealed.” What was revealed is error. And, the error grew over time. It started relatively small (though significant). Over time, it became increasingly outrageous. We can know that it was error because we can compare it to what was already in place.

Debating about methods of communication between God and man are fruitless, since God is perfectly capable of calling forth prophets from stones if he chooses. But analysis of the INFORMATION contained in the revelations tells us whether it comes from God or not. After all, God isn’t the only spirit being in the house. Discernment is critical. These things can’t be left to the individual, but rather to the authority of the Church that Jesus left in charge of his people, which is the Catholic Church.

It is your entire premise and absurd logic that is in error. If anything was indeed “revealed,” assuming that it was “revealed,” then that implies that what previously existed was in error, otherwise it wouldn’t be necessary for anything to be “revealed”. So you either discount all possibility of new revelation outside of the Catholic Church altogether; or else if you want to allow for that possibility, then you must also allow for the possibility that what previously existed (i.e. in the Catholic Church) must be in error.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

It is your entire premise and absurd logic that is in error. If anything was indeed “revealed,” assuming that it was “revealed,” then that implies that what previously existed was in error, otherwise it wouldn’t be necessary for anything to be “revealed”.

If Zerinus were visited by a spectre who “revealed” that there are men on the moon who dress like Quakers and live for 1,000 years, we could be pretty well-assured that this is a false revelation. Not certain, but in view of what we know about the moon today, pretty well-assured. Therefore, the “fact” of the revelation being given, even by a supernatural being, wouldn’t speak to its authenticity. We would need to look outside the revelation to see whether it could be true. Is there air on the moon? Can people live in the lunar day dressed as Quakers? Would it be likely that a Quaker living in the lunar day, dressed as he is, would live for 1,000 years? No. Therefore, the revelation would be properly judged as false, and would hardly represent a proof that “what previously existed was in error.”

So you either discount all possibility of new revelation outside of the Catholic Church altogether; or else if you want to allow for that possibility, then you must also allow for the possibility that what previously existed (i.e. in the Catholic Church) must be in error.

zerinus

I don’t “discount all possibility of new revelation.” Nor do I discount that God can, will, and sometimes does, work “outside the Catholic Church.” What I do discount is the claims of a religious zealot to have had visions and revelations which do not line up well with truth that has come before.

There are dozens of religious zealots who claim to have had special things revealed unto them. Joseph Smith is merely one among many. Each is unique in some way, except that they all have one thing in common: They all, every one of them, reject the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is that commonality alone which is most significant, and which you should think about.

 

[zerinus]

If Zerinus were visited by a spectre who “revealed” that there are men on the moon who dress like Quakers and live for 1,000 years, we could be pretty well-assured that this is a false revelation. Not certain, but in view of what we know about the moon today, pretty well-assured. Therefore, the “fact” of the revelation being given, even by a supernatural being, wouldn’t speak to its authenticity. We would need to look outside the revelation to see whether it could be true. Is there air on the moon? Can people live in the lunar day dressed as Quakers? Would it be likely that a Quaker living in the lunar day, dressed as he is, would live for 1,000 years? No. Therefore, the revelation would be properly judged as false, and would hardly represent a proof that “what previously existed was in error.”

Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, a volume of scripture from the Lord on a par with the Bible; the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price, two other volumes of scripture on a par with the Bible; the Restoration of the priesthood, after the original one was lost through the Apostasy; and the full organization of the true Church of Jesus Christ, which no longer existed through the Apostasy. That is what I judge him by.

zerinus

 

[Lehl]

Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, a volume of scripture from the Lord on a par with the Bible; the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price, two other volumes of scripture on a par with the Bible; the Restoration of the priesthood, after the original one was lost through the Apostasy; and the full organization of the true Church of Jesus Christ, which no longer existed through the Apostasy.
zerinus

Thank you for your testimony, Zerinus.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you for your testimony, Zerinus.

You are very welcome!

zerinus