Asking Mormon/Restorationist interpretation of some Scripture passages

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arandur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arandur

Guest
In my Scripture readings recently, a number of passages have been jumping out at me, concerning prophecy. I would honestly like to know how Mormons and other restorationist groups (that believe in new Prophets or new public Revelation beyond what Christ Jesus revealed, necessary for our salvation) interpret these passages in light of their beliefs.

I’ll bold some of the particular parts of these passages that leap out to me, and italicize some thoughts so it’s apparent why I am looking for interpretations, because it seems contrary to restorationist beliefs. Often I’ve tried to include extra verses just for convenience, so people can avoid thinking I’m yanking out of context. I haven’t included extra verses if I don’t think their might be objections.

Some of these are:
Jude 1:3-5
“Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [5] I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards **destroy them **that believed not.”

Seems to indicate that, just as Christ died once for all, so he delivered the faith once for all, not to do so again whether himself (in the Americas) or by additional prophets, like Mohammed, various Protestants, J. Smith, etc. And that those who contended eventually are destroyed, as all their works fall apart (like every heresy that challenged the Catholic Church, but very unlike the enduring Church).

Matthew 11:13
“[13] For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John

Hebrews 1:1-2
“[1] God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, [2] In these days** hath spoken **to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.”

Seems this one is particularly clear, that while prophecy continues in its rebuking and exhortation and guidance fashions spoken of throughout Scripture, the distinctive sense of “prophets” inherent in the mission of the Prophets in providing public Revelation necessary for salvation was clearly concluded and completed in Christ.

Luke 24:44-49
“And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [45] Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
[46] And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: [47] And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. [48] And you are witnesses of these things. [49] And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.”

Matthew 5:17-18
“[17] Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18] For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.”

*Looks like Jesus is talking about fulfilling, including the sense of completing, what had been given before, with no indication that anything beyond what he Revealed would need to go forth hence. Also gets into one of many passages indicating that Christ’s doctrines, those things he finally revealed, were not preached in some pre-Christian Christianity as the JST version of the bible makes out. *
 
The following concern more passages that seem to contradict the idea in the JST version that Christianity was preached and existed before Christ:

Matthew 13:34-35
“All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables he did not speak to them. [35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables,** I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world**.”

1 Corinthians 2:4-10
“And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the Spirit and power; [5] That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
[6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: [8] Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. [10] But** to us **God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”

Ephesians 3:8-12
“To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, [9] And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the **mystery which hath been hidden from eternity **in God, who created all things: [10] That the manifold wisdom of God may be **made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, ***
[11] According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord: [12] In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.”

Colossians 1:25-27
“Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is given me towards you, that I may fulfill the word of God:
[26]** The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to his saints, **27] To whom God would make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ, in you the hope of glory.”

*This one is particularly interesting, as it shows that so great is the truth that the Church is Divinely Instituted, that the Holy Spirit is indeed its Spirit and Christ the Head, that the Church actually teaches the angels. Not the other way around, in the case of the various “angel messages” purporting to give new revelation to the likes of Mohammed and J. Smith.

**Note for non-Restorationist Christians: Please do not hijack this thread or discourage others from posting their interpretations by making snide comments like “of course it contradicts their claims, they have nothing they can say about it” and suchlike, or going on other offensives against them or their beliefs.

If you have similar passages that you’d honestly like to see their interpretations of, to see how they reconcile them with what they believe, I welcome that. We can go back and forth discussing interpretations. I just don’t want this to descend into pile-ons of negativity.**

Thanks, and God bless!
 
In my Scripture readings recently, a number of passages have been jumping out at me, concerning prophecy. I would honestly like to know how Mormons and other restorationist groups (that believe in new Prophets or new public Revelation beyond what Christ Jesus revealed, necessary for our salvation) interpret these passages in light of their beliefs.
I’ll let the bible experts respond to their proper interpretation. However, I do have one question for Catholics?

How is Papal infallibility any different from new revelation, practically speaking?
In both cases the Holy Spirit provides guidance or outright Divine Revelation to guide the Pope in adding to Sacred Tradition.

I think “Papal infallibility” is Catholic code for revelation. The saying goes, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, …”
 
I’ll let the bible experts respond to their proper interpretation. However, I do have one question for Catholics?

How is Papal infallibility any different from new revelation, practically speaking?
In both cases the Holy Spirit provides guidance or outright Divine Revelation to guide the Pope in adding to Sacred Tradition.

I think “Papal infallibility” is Catholic code for revelation. The saying goes, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, …”
I am glad you noticed the similarity, for usually I hear LDS think Catholics don’t believe there’s any continuing guidance by the Spirit.

We mean different things by “revelation;” the word has many senses. We Catholics insist that all revelation necessary for salvation (“public revelation”) was completed in Christ. He literally is Truth Incarnate, and by the Incarnation has revealed God to us fully. All that is left is to understand that revelation.

So the “Deposit of Faith” is complete: all that is God is contained in His Church, because He Divinely Instituted it, and He is in it and through it: the Church is Christ’s Body (he its Head), ensouled by the Holy Spirit. The necessary extension of that is that the Church is eternal, unfailing, and contains all Truth, for it is Divine.

What the pope and the Magisterium do is limited to the greater understanding of that which is already revealed. Revelation unfolds like a blossom, and the Church’s gift of infallibility is the Spirit’s guarantee that it cannot lead astray, not that it is teaching anything new that could not have been known before, just that was not necessarily understood as well before.

The Church has grown in understanding since the time of the Apostles, something many don’t seem to realize, with all the movements to try to return to the Early Church. The Spirit continues to “guide into all truth” and “remembrance of all things” (cf John 16:13, John 14:26).
That latter piece is particularly indicative that all has been revealed in Christ, and the Spirit just reminds us and guides us to greater understanding.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that LDS belief Jesus didn’t complete revelation necessary for salvation, but that more prophets are continually required to keep adding things, not just increasing understanding, but bringing new things, correcting or changing old things, etc.
 
Word usage (definition) between Catholics and LDS is a major issue. When investigating LDS, I was really turned off by some things until I got a feel for what they meant. I kept thinking “Wow, that’s not that different from my Catholic thinking”

I do think LDS is more open to receiving significant revelation but we are also bound by Holy Scripture. Neither LDS Prophet nor Catholic Pope can just say Oops!! Jesus made a mistake and I need to rewrite the Holy Scripture.
 
Word usage (definition) between Catholics and LDS is a major issue. When investigating LDS, I was really turned off by some things until I got a feel for what they meant. I kept thinking “Wow, that’s not that different from my Catholic thinking”

I do think LDS is more open to receiving significant revelation but we are also bound by Holy Scripture. Neither LDS Prophet nor Catholic Pope can just say Oops!! Jesus made a mistake and I need to rewrite the Holy Scripture.
Todd - This isn’t about word usage. LDS believe their prophets receive revelation from God to lead their church and it keeps changing.

Can you give at least one example of an LDS prophecy that was original and **actually came true? **
 
Todd - This isn’t about word usage. LDS believe their prophets receive revelation from God to lead their church and it keeps changing.

Can you give at least one example of an LDS prophecy that was original and **actually came true? **
lax, THE CATHOLIC POPE also receives revelation from God to lead the ‘one true Church’
What the Pope publishes is inafallable expressly because of God’s guidance.

The RCC has 2,000 years of revelation under their belt, so the current volume seems slow compared to LDS :yawn:
 
lax, THE CATHOLIC POPE also receives revelation from God to lead the ‘one true Church’
What the Pope publishes is inafallable expressly because of God’s guidance.

The RCC has 2,000 years of revelation under their belt, so the current volume seems slow compared to LDS :yawn:
Todd - You didn’t answer my question.
 
Todd I hope I can help you to explain Papal Infallability better.

The Pope is bound by the Bible and The Apostolic (Sacred) Tradition. The Pope can not claim to recieve any revelation beyond what is taught in those areas. For example the Mormon belief in Exaltation and Progression unto Divinity could never be taught by the Roman Catholic Church becuase it is based on later revelations claimed to be made to the LDS prophets. Many Mormon doctrines based on Latter-Day revelations can not be accepted by the Church because all public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Pope is bound by all the revelations made until that point, while LDS prophets do not believe that Jesus gave us the fullness of revelation and that revelation continues.

I hope this helps.
 
Todd I hope I can help you to explain Papal Infallability better.

The Pope is bound by the Bible and The Apostolic (Sacred) Tradition. The Pope can not claim to recieve any revelation beyond what is taught in those areas. For example the Mormon belief in Exaltation and Progression unto Divinity could never be taught by the Roman Catholic Church becuase it is based on later revelations claimed to be made to the LDS prophets. Many Mormon doctrines based on Latter-Day revelations can not be accepted by the Church because all public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Pope is bound by all the revelations made until that point, while LDS prophets do not believe that Jesus gave us the fullness of revelation and that revelation continues.

I hope this helps.
Below is the more official LDS view. I honestly don’t see any real difference.
A Prophet doesn’t change Christ’s teachings but he can and will add to or modify teachings of previous Prophets to meet modern challenges.
When God is finally planning the big End of Days party, I expect a whole lot of Catholics and other Christians will be getting calls from the Holy Ghost, not just the Pope 😃
Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
 
Below is the more official LDS view. I honestly don’t see any real difference.
A Prophet doesn’t change Christ’s teachings but he can and will add to or modify teachings of previous Prophets to meet modern challenges.
When God is finally planning the big End of Days party, I expect a whole lot of Catholics and other Christians will be getting calls from the Holy Ghost, not just the Pope 😃
Lax16 provides a distinction in post #6 that you seem to be missing and/or ignoring.

A prophet prophecies. Some Popes have been prophets, but it is not required, and they are not given the title just to give the impression they’re a prophet, when they’re not.
 
Lax16 provides a distinction in post #6 that you seem to be missing and/or ignoring.

A prophet prophecies. Some Popes have been prophets, but it is not required, and they are not given the title just to give the impression they’re a prophet, when they’re not.
What I see is an observation on LDS dependent on your definition of prophet. Your definition of prophet is based on your Catholic heritage.

The Mormon defition of prophet is much more at home with a Charismatic Catholic, who nurtures and thus fully expects to hear from the Holy Ghost on a more regular basis.

Being called a Prophet in the LDS is not about “predicting the future” It’s the title of the guy who has the keys to the LDS church (same as Pope for practical purposes)
 
What I see is an observation on LDS dependent on your definition of prophet. Your definition of prophet is based on your Catholic heritage.

The Mormon defition of prophet is much more at home with a Charismatic Catholic, who nurtures and thus fully expects to hear from the Holy Ghost on a more regular basis.

Being called a Prophet in the LDS is not about “predicting the future” It’s the title of the guy who has the keys to the LDS church (same as Pope for practical purposes)
Mormons not only regard the President as a “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator”, but also sustain the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators”. Therefore, at any given time, there are 15 people sustained as prophets in the LDS church.

The question then becomes, what is the Biblical definition of “prophet”, and do the 15 LDS prophets, seers, and revelators fit that definition. Is foretelling the future part of what all prophets do, from the Biblical portrayal of prophets?

Anyway, it seems as if Arandur has a specific topic for his thread, so I’m not sure if he would consider this to be on topic. 🤷
 
Mormons not only regard the President as a “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator”, but also sustain the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators”. Therefore, at any given time, there are 15 people sustained as prophets in the LDS church.

The question then becomes, what is the Biblical definition of “prophet”, and do the 15 LDS prophets, seers, and revelators fit that definition. Is foretelling the future part of what all prophets do, from the Biblical portrayal of prophets?

Anyway, it seems as if Arandur has a specific topic for his thread, so I’m not sure if he would consider this to be on topic. 🤷
Yes, I do think that this has been taken a wee bit off topic, but as to Arandur’s question, the very fact that those scriptures he quotes EXIST disproves his interpretation of them as refering to the idea that there was to be no more prophecy, or prophets, after Christ. In fact, his interpretation is extremely circular, giving as it does the following train of logic: (in its simplest form…)

There is no more prophecy after Christ.
I know this because Paul said so.
Paul can be trusted because he recieved revelation and said that Christ told him this.

oops.
 
Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

This is where Catholics would disagree. The Deposit of Faith is set in stone, nothing will be added or changed to our teachings.
 
Can you give at least one example of an LDS prophecy that was original and **actually came true? **
Todd -

I am not trying to get off topic here, but don’t know that my question is worthy of a new thread. However, it obviously ties into Mormon prophets and revelations.

I have noticed that several posts have spun off of my question, but it has not yet been answered.

If necessary, I will start a new thread *but it should only require one post *from you or another LDS poster.
 
Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

This is where Catholics would disagree. The Deposit of Faith is set in stone, nothing will be added or changed to our teachings.
This is a great reminder that all people need to hear - however it is not originial and not revelation. Just good advice.
 
Todd -

I am not trying to get off topic here, but don’t know that my question is worthy of a new thread. However, it obviously ties into Mormon prophets and revelations.

I have noticed that several posts have spun off of my question, but it has not yet been answered.

If necessary, I will start a new thread *but it should only require one post *from you or another LDS poster.
I have no knowledge of divine revelation as predictive prophecy in LDS.
Before tested any claims, if i was so inclined, I would need verification or certainty that the content was “revelation” and not speculation, conjecture, or even a firm belief expressed with conviction by the churck leader.

But, i have no interest in this subject so my apologies for not debating facts.
 
I do think LDS is more open to receiving significant revelation but we are also bound by Holy Scripture. Neither LDS Prophet nor Catholic Pope can just say Oops!! Jesus made a mistake and I need to rewrite the Holy Scripture.
Actually, it seems like JS DID just say “Jesus made a mistake and I need to rewrite the Holy Scripture.” Witness the JST version of the Bible. And, arguably, the BOM and other works.

In addition to what Lax pointed out:
According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
This is another point of disagreement. Catholics believe God has spoken finally through His Incarnate Word. He can’t speak any more to us than to become one of us, to make us one with Him (in the Body of Christ) and filled with His Spirit. There is no closer intimacy or greater revelation possible, by definition.

Thus, God has already revealed everything. It’s just now a journey of understanding that infinite truth. The Spirit no longer hides, but guides, helping us to understand better what was already revealed. It’s like explaining calculus to a toddler. It’s been demonstrated, it’s there all along, but until that toddler grows up and learns all the basics of math that will help him understand calculus, he will not fully comprehend what it was that was revealed to him.
A prophet prophecies. Some Popes have been prophets, but it is not required, and they are not given the title just to give the impression they’re a prophet, when they’re not.
Rebecca, we Catholics accept other definitions of “prophet” than just prophesying about the future. We are baptized as “priest, prophet, and king.” That role is one of rebuking, convicting, and communing with God. There is sufficient room for prophetic gift and role in the Church without predictive proclamations.
Mormons not only regard the President as a “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator”, but also sustain the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators”. Therefore, at any given time, there are 15 people sustained as prophets in the LDS church.
Anyway, it seems as if Arandur has a specific topic for his thread, so I’m not sure if he would consider this to be on topic.
CatholicGuy, you’ve put your thumb on another problem. “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” appears to grant the proverbial “direct line to God” for use as a sort of divine dictaphone. Never before were there a set number of constant offices that should force God to grant this power.

As for being on topic, some discussion of the nature of restorationist claims to revelation and prophecy is warranted, but I would like an answer about their interpretations of those passages.
as to Arandur’s question, the very fact that those scriptures he quotes EXIST disproves his interpretation of them as refering to the idea that there was to be no more prophecy, or prophets, after Christ. In fact, his interpretation is extremely circular, giving as it does the following train of logic: (in its simplest form…)
There is no more prophecy after Christ.
I know this because Paul said so.
Paul can be trusted because he recieved revelation and said that Christ told him this.
Nice try. Without even giving your own interpretation of those passages, you can’t get anywhere with accusations. For it sounds like your alternative is to say that “Paul received revelation, so his words here about an end to prophetic revelation can’t possibly mean such an end.” How’s that for circular, internally-contradicting?

You need to be more attentive or honest to what I’ve said, and the sense in which I’m meaning “revelation,” so we don’t get back into that problem where Mormons use all senses of revelation at once and confuse every discussion of it, because as soon as a Catholic narrows the sense down, the Mormon switches senses…

To put it simply (as I have several times already), Christ revealed all. Paul is repeating and explaining what Christ revealed. He’s saying that there is no more need for prophets, because Christ came and God spoke to us through him. Once, as Jude clarifies.

Also, Christ revealed things in his time on earth that had always previously been hidden–thus no JST version “pre-Christian Christianity;” Adam and Enoch, Noah and Abraham and others, they did not receive Christ’s full gospel, as if he had already come and died for us and sent us the Holy Spirit (which sending was the first of its kind, not happening in previous ages).

So, taking what I said in context and not confusing the various potential meanings of “revelation,” want to take another stab?
 
Hi Arandur,

you have started a pretty interesting thread here.
I hope many will participate and you will get your answers.

I have also been studying the Restored Scriptures for quite a time now. - And I found out that at least 50 % is nothing new (concerning the Book of Mormon) - but either completely copied from the (partly even false translated; I mention: Beersheba) King James Bible and in other parts some actions are simply set in the Land of Nephi - but otherwise the message is completely identical. Just recently I read a passage in the Old Testament and was surprised to find an identical story which I have already read in the Book of Mormon (And this was no literal Quote - like Nephi and Jacob did with Isaiah!). - Nevertheless, I am sorry: I don’t have neither the passage in the Book of Mormon, nor the one of the Old Testamend handy… :confused:

To conclude, I’d like to say, although, apparently the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants are “inventions” by Joseph Smith Jr. and his collegues - they are really worth reading. Not in the Light of a New Relevation but as words from a wise and faithful Man (Joseph Smith Jr) and to deepen your understanding (of course only Partly! - Especially the Book of Mormon is quite good in this respect!) of the Holy Bible. - Especially the Study Guide at the End of the BOM was really quite useful to me - especially because important persons and places of the Bible (besides the BOM and the LuB) are described well.

In Christ,
Esdra
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top