Catholic and Mormon Theodicy

[ParkerD]

But you didn’t answer my question about how tough it is being single in the church and if this is the case how can it be the “True” church? I will not say they have no use for single grown (over 30) adults, but there is almost that feeling. They really need to change the name of the church… - for couples.

TikiTokiguy,
You could write to Sheri Dew, who served as a counselor in the General Relief Society presidency, about how “tough” it is. You could read her talks encouraging single women in the LDS church despite being “single”. Single women are doing fine in the LDS church as fully participating members and doing fine in their communities as fully participating, actively involved citizens.

Any man who says “being single in the LDS church is difficult” ought to look in the mirror and say, “whose fault is it that I’m single” and then change that (over time, with patience) if they want to change that. If not, then that’s OK–there are plenty of single men and I knew many in my ward years ago where I served as their local leader. They served well, enjoyed our ward, some married while in the ward, and I don’t think they felt isolated at all in their situation in life. They were an integral part of our ward–the single women also (several of whom also married while I served in that calling as local leader).

 

[ParkerD]

But the word even doesn’t mean “who are” or “specifically those who are”, so I don’t see your meaning here even when you change “and” to “even”.

Zaffiroborant,
The word “even” in that translation conveys what is called in the dictionary “an intensive particle” that emphasizes the subject, object, or verb following the word “even”. That’s why I tried using a form of English that would be more in use today with the words “specifically those who are” rather than an archaic expression of “even the widows”. But if you like the archaic expression, then the phrase “unmarried even the widows” works for me just fine. Those translating today might include a hyphen, as: “unmarried–even the widows” and that perhaps brings better clarity about what Paul was writing, and about whom he was writing.

Peace to you and all.

 

[PaulDupre]

No matter what Paul or anyone else said, for Catholics what Jesus said matters the most.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

• Matthew 19:12

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
The word “even” in that translation conveys what is called in the dictionary “an intensive particle” that emphasizes the subject, object, or verb following the word “even”. That’s why I tried using a form of English that would be more in use today with the words “specifically those who are” rather than an archaic expression of “even the widows”. But if you like the archaic expression, then the phrase “unmarried even the widows” works for me just fine. Those translating today might include a hyphen, as: “unmarried–even the widows” and that perhaps brings better clarity about what Paul was writing, and about whom he was writing.

Peace to you and all.

It still doesn’t say what you say it says, yes “even” emphasizes but it does not mean specifically.

Adults and children should exercise regularly, even those with a healthy body weight.

The emphasis on the person or object, is that it is included in the thought expressed previously although people might feel it doesn’t apply to the emphasized person or object.

Paul was not referring specifically to widows he was talking to unmarried and the use of even here is more of a “yes that includes widows”. Just like my daughter was not specifically referring to people with a healthy body weight. She was talking about adults and children and pointing out that the statement about exercise was addressed to those with a healthy body weight, although many people equate regular exercise with weight loss.

 

[ParkerD]

It still doesn’t say what you say it says, yes “even” emphasizes but it does not mean specifically.

The emphasis on the person or object, is that it is included in the thought expressed previously although people might feel it doesn’t apply to the emphasized person or object.

Paul was not referring specifically to widows he was talking to unmarried and the use of even here is more of a “yes that includes widows”. Just like my daughter was not specifically referring to people with a healthy body weight. She was talking about adults and children and pointing out that the statement about exercise was addressed to those with a healthy body weight, although many people equate regular exercise with weight loss.

Zaffiroborant,
I can see your point, in that you have used one of the different meanings for the word “even” as noted in a good dictionary. So we just plain differ in which meaning for the word we think was intended within the context of the passage. That is what happens with language–different meanings can be conveyed with the same words, and two people can hear the same conversation and come away with quite different versions of what they understood to have been said.

What I honestly can’t understand if you really think Paul was saying all people who are unmarried should remain unmarried for the rest of their lives, is how in the world he would have thought that and taught that for the entire church membership–that only those should stay married who were already married, and all single members should stay single unless they were so “weak” in their ability to control their desires (for a marriage relationship) that they needed to marry. How would he be thinking the world population/church membership population would continue long term, if he was thinking every faithful member of the church who was single should stay single? Surely Paul was not that short-sighted, is what I think.

 

[ParkerD]

No matter what Paul or anyone else said, for Catholics what Jesus said matters the most.

Paul,
No doubt that verse is used to justify celibacy as a teaching of the Savior. It’s pretty ironic that the Savior gave that verse after the disciples (apostles) had heard Him say that divorce was only allowed under the Mosaic law but “from the beginning it was not so” (19:8), and that He was thus responding to their frustration at the “higher law teaching” He had just given about marriage. “This saying” in verse 11 is referring to the marriage without divorce as described in verses 5 and 6. “This saying” is the subject of the entire passage that follows. “All men cannot receive this saying”, He said in verse 11. Meaning, some men will have problems in their marriage and will find it necessary to divorce, so they will be living by the Mosaic law and not the higher law of no divorce. (In other words, the Savior was not taking the apostles’ words and using them as a new teaching. Why would He do that? He was the teacher, and they were the students.)

So verse 12 is stating that the alternative suggested by the disciples/apostles’ words (“If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”) is an alternative that is acceptable for those who think they are not going to be able to marry and stay married without having problems within their marriage and thus would eventually need a divorce. They are the ones for whom “it is not good to marry” (per the apostles) and for whom they “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”–meaning that in order to reach heaven, they choose not to marry because they realize the “higher law” (i.e. no divorce as an option) is too difficult for them to contemplate.

 

[Returning_Home]

Zaffiroborant,
I can see your point, in that you have used one of the different meanings for the word “even” as noted in a good dictionary. So we just plain differ in which meaning for the word we think was intended within the context of the passage. That is what happens with language–different meanings can be conveyed with the same words, and two people can hear the same conversation and come away with quite different versions of what they understood to have been said.

Do you mean like the term ‘exhaltation’ meaning to attain godhood when the only times it’s used in the BOM it has nothing to do with such an interpretation?

But overall, no, the church uses its terminology deceptively, well aware of the fact that no one else assigns such meanings to words and that people will inevitably become confused and come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[ParkerD]

Do you mean like the term ‘exhaltation’ meaning to attain godhood when the only times it’s used in the BOM it has nothing to do with such an interpretation?

But overall, no, the church uses its terminology deceptively, well aware of the fact that no one else assigns such meanings to words and that people will inevitably become confused and come to the wrong conclusion.

One would want to spell the word “exaltation” correctly when writing about its use.

The word “exaltation” is not in the Book of Mormon, at all.

My favorite passage talking about the idea of “exaltation” or “becoming exalted” through Christ’s grace, is what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 5:

1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Returning_Home]

One would want to spell the word “exaltation” correctly when writing about its use.

The word “exaltation” is not in the Book of Mormon, at all.

My favorite passage talking about the idea of “exaltation” or “becoming exalted” through Christ’s grace, is what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 5:

1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Exaltation is used twice in the BOM, both in 2 Nephi, I believe. I don’t have one handy, but look it up and prove it to yourself. You can apologize later, okay?

That’s the best you’ll be able to do, catching me in a spelling error because your own works undermine the point you’re trying to make here. You’re trying to use the Christian definition of the term since we know that the BOM usage has nothing to do with this. And since the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ you have no idea whether what you’re quoting here is correct anyway so your words fall flat.

Again.

 

[ParkerD]

Exaltation is used twice in the BOM, both in 2 Nephi, I believe. I don’t have one handy, but look it up and prove it to yourself. You can apologize later, okay?

That’s the best you’ll be able to do, catching me in a spelling error because your own works undermine the point you’re trying to make here. You’re trying to use the Christian definition of the term since we know that the BOM usage has nothing to do with this. And since the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ you have no idea whether what you’re quoting here is correct anyway so your words fall flat.

Again.

Any internet user can go to lds.org, use the link under “Gospel Library” to the Scriptures, use the search tool with the specific word “exaltation”, pull up only those verses from the Book of Mormon within the search, and find there are no uses of the specific word “exaltation” in the Book of Mormon. (I had already done that when I replied to your earlier post.)

The LDS believe the Bible literally word for word so much more than other religions, as for example the earlier discussion herein, that there is no comparison–it’s not even close.

 

[Returning_Home]

Any internet user can go to lds.org, use the link under “Gospel Library” to the Scriptures, use the search tool with the specific word “exaltation”, pull up only those verses from the Book of Mormon within the search, and find there are no uses of the specific word “exaltation” in the Book of Mormon. (I had already done that when I replied to your earlier post.)

The LDS believe the Bible literally word for word so much more than other religions, as for example the earlier discussion herein, that there is no comparison–it’s not even close.

2 Nephi 12:2 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.”

But you’re right, there’s no comparison between that and the current version of the word because when Smith wrote the BOM, he hadn’t yet come to the conclusion that men could become gods.

This also goes a long way to show that while Mormonism is a ‘restoration’ of the church that the Mormon jesus established on earth and that the BOM, like the Bible, contains the ‘fulness of the gospel,’ it not only brings nothing new to the table, but thus precludes the later material that Smith wrote or ‘translated.’

Since Joseph Smith taught that men can become gods, it shows that he had a fundamental misunderstanding of Christians being given perfected bodies with which to rule with Christ at the end of time.

You believe the Bible is correct word-for-word? Okay, but you’re now going to hang yourself with that position (not that I believe you accept that as fact anyway) because the BOM you place so much faith in clearly says (seven times so as not to be misunderstood) that the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ We also know that you can’t legally use the JST so you’re left to rely on the faulty, mistranslated, and erroneous KJV that your church has canonized.

I’m going to start a new thread later about this topic so this one doesn’t get closed out. I welcome all LDS apologists to give me what verses from the Bible they think confirms Mormonism. I promise that you’ll be suprised.