Help with debating a Mormon

[twopekinguys]

I have been paying attention to your absolute blind hated for the Catholic Church. Even a simple fact of history, like the Table of Contents of the New Testament is Catholic Tradition, provokes an attack by you.

After the irrational nature of your attack has been pointed out, you are now trying to make a distinction without a difference on the development of scripture. The Catholic Church took hundreds of years of prayerful contemplation and came up with the Canon of the New Testament. The Canon is part of our Sacred Tradition. The Mormon Church came up with the Book of Abraham.

I tried starting a thread about this, but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

However, it does seem to fit here.

I ran across this article, where an apologist for LDS, appears to be backing away from the Book of Abraham in some ways, by choosing to defend portions of it, and not others.

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

Shouldn’t ALL of scripture be defended?

 

[dianaiad]

I have been paying attention to your absolute blind hated for the Catholic Church. Even a simple fact of history, like the Table of Contents of the New Testament is Catholic Tradition, provokes an attack by you.

After the irrational nature of your attack has been pointed out, you are now trying to make a distinction without a difference on the development of scripture. The Catholic Church took hundreds of years of prayerful contemplation and came up with the Canon of the New Testament. The Canon is part of our Sacred Tradition. The Mormon Church came up with the Book of Abraham.

I asked that someone point out to me where the church acknowledges, in any form, that their choices for the canon were made as the result of direct confirmation from God, by revelation.

I acknowledged that the church used scholarship and research in making these decisions.

If you want to call that ‘blind hatred,’ you may. You may also call a cat a chicken, but that won’t make Tabby cluck.

 

[dianaiad]

I tried starting a thread about this, but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

However, it does seem to fit here.

I ran across this article, where an apologist for LDS, appears to be backing away from the Book of Abraham in some ways, by choosing to defend portions of it, and not others.

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

Shouldn’t ALL of scripture be defended?

I didn’t see where he was “choosing to defend portions of it, and not others.” What did I miss?

 

[ParkerD]

I tried starting a thread about this, but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

However, it does seem to fit here.

I ran across this article, where an apologist for LDS, appears to be backing away from the Book of Abraham in some ways, by choosing to defend portions of it, and not others.

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

Shouldn’t ALL of scripture be defended?

Twopekinguys,
What I gleaned from that article was that the Book of Mormon is part of the foundation of whether someone is going to believe in the Mormon church and living prophets, or not. If people have a hang-up about the Book of Abraham, they will not get it resolved by studying the origins of the Book of Abraham or even the doctrines in that book of scripture, because that is like putting windows on a building–they are not the building itself, nor its foundation. The writer was saying that intellectual arguments about the Book of Abraham are going to lead nowhere, except into a lot of wasted effort.

Scriptural truths are their own defense. The Holy Spirit defends truth–we needn’t do that, although we can hope people will seek the Holy Spirit and find truths themselves.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I asked that someone point out to me where the church acknowledges, in any form, that their choices for the canon were made as the result of direct confirmation from God, by revelation.

I acknowledged that the church used scholarship and research in making these decisions.

If you want to call that ‘blind hatred,’ you may. You may also call a cat a chicken, but that won’t make Tabby cluck.

Read Dei Verbum.

The Church acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Perfect Revelation of God. In understanding the Incarnation, of the Word of God made flesh, we understand God lived in the world. He suffered died and was buried. On the the third day He rose again in fulfillment of scripture. How much more direct do you want Revelation to be?

Scripture is a witness to this Revelation. The Holy Spirit, given by Christ to the world, searches hearts and confirms to each the Truth of Jesus Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

I tried starting a thread about this, but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

However, it does seem to fit here.

I ran across this article, where an apologist for LDS, appears to be backing away from the Book of Abraham in some ways, by choosing to defend portions of it, and not others.

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

Shouldn’t ALL of scripture be defended?

Dianaids argument amounts to: The Holy Spirit was active in determining Mormon Scripture but not active when the Catholic Church (the historical Church actually established by Christ) established the canon of the New Testament.

My reason for bringing up the Book of Abraham is Joseph Smith’s ‘translation’ has been shown to be false by scientists. So the fruit of the Mormon Church establishing scripture is the sham Book of Abraham.

I did find the article interesting. It seems to me John Gee was making a case for backing away from the Book of Abraham all together. He seems to be saying: Mormons believe in a pre-mortal existence; that is what is important not the little details of the Book of Abraham. I would assume he means the little details like:

1. The fragments we have were the same fragments that Joseph Smith had.
2. We have about 1/3 of the fragments that Smith had.
3. The fragments we have are dated 1700 years after the time of Abraham.
4. The fragments we have were identified as a funeral text.
   Therefore; in order for the Book of Abraham to be a translation as Joseph Smith claims; 1/3 of it would have to be a funeral text and it could not have been written by Abraham.

The other interesting part of the article was the Mormon apologetic strategy of “this is all SO complicated,” so just believe the Mormon Church. History is complicated, reasoning is complicated, and science is complicated. In Mormonism, “complicated” seems to mean: When Mormon belief contradicts science, history, and reason.

 

[twopekinguys]

I didn’t see where he was “choosing to defend portions of it, and not others.” What did I miss?

From the article:

“Second, not every argument or point is worth defending. “Even widely held opinions do not need to be defended if they are mistaken,” he said.”

The way I took it, he was saying that as far a BoA is concerned, only the part about pre-existance matters.

I am having trouble with his view that some scripture is more important than others. Shouldn’t all scripture be defended with the same vigor?

Another quote:

“Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?” he asked. “It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

How can he say it isn’t central, when one of your beliefs involves the pre-existance.

I’m just confused how something can be scripture for so long, be defended for so long, then given what appears to me, a lesser position.

I’m sure that you have heard that as a Catholic, if you attend Sunday Mass every week for 3 years, you will hear virtually the entire Bible. My point being, that all of scripture is important enough to be proclaimed during the Mass.

I just don’t see the same emphasis when it comes to the Book of Abraham.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
What I gleaned from that article was that the Book of Mormon is part of the foundation of whether someone is going to believe in the Mormon church and living prophets, or not. If people have a hang-up about the Book of Abraham, they will not get it resolved by studying the origins of the Book of Abraham or even the doctrines in that book of scripture, because that is like putting windows on a building–they are not the building itself, nor its foundation. The writer was saying that intellectual arguments about the Book of Abraham are going to lead nowhere, except into a lot of wasted effort.

Scriptural truths are their own defense. The Holy Spirit defends truth–we needn’t do that, although we can hope people will seek the Holy Spirit and find truths themselves.

I don’t think it was the writer saying this, it was an LDS apologist.

How can someone say that defending what you consider scripture is a “wasted effort”?

If you consider the Book of Abraham scripture, great, fine, go for it. But defend it with the same vigor you defend other scripture with.

 

[dianaiad]

Read Dei Verbum.

The Church acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Perfect Revelation of God. In understanding the Incarnation, of the Word of God made flesh, we understand God lived in the world. He suffered died and was buried. On the the third day He rose again in fulfillment of scripture. How much more direct do you want Revelation to be?

That’s not a statement of personal revelation about a specific item of scripture. That is a statement of faith in Jesus Christ; a powerful one, certainly, but not what I was talking about.

Scripture is a witness to this Revelation.

That’s circular, Rebecca.

The Holy Spirit, given by Christ to the world, searches hearts and confirms to each the Truth of Jesus Christ.

Agreed.

but not what I was asking for.

I read the article to which you sent me…and unless I missed something, the Pope referred to ‘revelation’ specifically as applying to the scripture currently accepted: that is, those writings which are in the bible. He is rather careful to differentiate revelation (i.e. scripture) from the interpretation, or confirmation, of scripture, and equally careful to avoid using the word in terms of confirmation or interpretation.

He refers to Sacred Tradition as being equal with Sacred Scripture, but he is rather careful to describe the workings of Sacred Tradition (especially in terms of interpreting scripture) as a matter of careful reading, scholarship, placing in context—all important things, but in that entire article I did not once see an invitation to ask God if one’s interpretation is accurate.

I may have missed it, though. I only went through it twice, and I very well may have not seen it; perhaps it’s there and simply couched in language/code that I don’t have the background to decipher.

Would you look and show me exactly where that is? You used to be a Mormon; you claim to understand us very well…you know what I am looking for, then. Can you show me where it is?

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaids argument amounts to: The Holy Spirit was active in determining Mormon Scripture but not active when the Catholic Church (the historical Church actually established by Christ) established the canon of the New Testament.

No. That’s not my argument. My argument is that the Catholic church (as far as I have been able to read, anyway) doesn’t seem to give God much credit for discerning that which is scripture and that which is not. I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit WAS very much involved, but given what I’ve read so far, it might be ‘in spite of,’ rather than ‘because of’ the attitude of those who were involved. To put it bluntly, it seems to me that by emphasizing the scholarship, the learning and the research skills of those involved, they are (perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not…) downplaying the role of divine inspiration/revelation involved in recognizing those works that belong in the canon.

My reason for bringing up the Book of Abraham is Joseph Smith’s ‘translation’ has been shown to be false by scientists. So the fruit of the Mormon Church establishing scripture is the sham Book of Abraham.

You should have read the article we were sent to, yourself. The book of breathings by Isis is not the Book of Abraham. That’s the only thing that has been ‘scientifically proven,’ and nobody argues with that. Harping on that is like claiming that the copy of the headlines from this morning’s paper is false because it doesn’t match the torn piece of the want ads you found on the street this morning.

I did find the article interesting. It seems to me John Gee was making a case for backing away from the Book of Abraham all together. He seems to be saying: Mormons believe in a pre-mortal existence; that is what is important not the little details of the Book of Abraham. I would assume he means the little details like:

1. The fragments we have were the same fragments that Joseph Smith had.

Except that we only have fragments. Joseph Smith had a great deal more than we do. Hence my analogy to the headlines of a paper vs. the want ads.

1. We have about 1/3 of the fragments that Smith had.

How nice of you to argue our position…actually, we have less than that–perhaps 20%.

1. The fragments we have are dated 1700 years after the time of Abraham.
2. The fragments we have were identified as a funeral text.
   Therefore; in order for the Book of Abraham to be a translation as Joseph Smith claims; 1/3 of it would have to be a funeral text and it could not have been written by Abraham.

Ok. And?

The other interesting part of the article was the Mormon apologetic strategy of “this is all SO complicated,” so just believe the Mormon Church. History is complicated, reasoning is complicated, and science is complicated. In Mormonism, “complicated” seems to mean: When Mormon belief contradicts science, history, and reason.

Actually, to me the article simply seems to say…don’t get bogged down in arguing the inarguable; how many angels CAN fit on the head of a pin?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Dianaiad, are you asking whether Catholics pray for confirmation of the Bible, or whether prayer/revelation was part of the canonization process? It seems that you’re asking about both at the same time, which is confusing, at least for me, what you’re actually asking/what your point is.

“Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for “we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying.””

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Diana: How explicit is the “revelation” required in LDS canonization?

Does the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve meet in the Holy of Holies and wait for God to show his face? Does he speak audibly so that everyone in the room physically hears the affirmation?

Or is it more likely that the individual brethren pray about it, wait for that personal confirmation, and then subsequently, as a group, sustain the revelation through a vote?

How is this substantially different from how canonization worked during the first 500 years of Catholicism via council and synod?

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad, are you asking whether Catholics pray for confirmation of the Bible, or whether prayer/revelation was part of the canonization process? It seems that you’re asking about both at the same time, which is confusing, at least for me, what you’re actually asking/what your point is.

I’m sorry. I am asking about the role of revelation in the canonization process.

I have no doubt that individual Catholics prayerfully study the scriptures as they attempt to understand what they say, and what those words mean to them, specifically.

“Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for “we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying.””

Thank you for posting this; yes, I have seen many passages like this, where Catholics are admonished to read scripture prayerfully–and I have no doubt whatsover that y’all do exactly that. However, these passages refer to what should be done with scripture that everybody agrees IS scripture. What I have not seen is where the role of prayer/revelation came into play while the works were being chosen for the canon in the first place, and it is that I’m asking about.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana: How explicit is the “revelation” required in LDS canonization?

Does the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve meet in the Holy of Holies and wait for God to show his face? Does he speak audibly so that everyone in the room physically hears the affirmation?

I believe that this actually has happened a time or two…

Or is it more likely that the individual brethren pray about it, wait for that personal confirmation, and then subsequently, as a group, sustain the revelation through a vote?

That is also possible, though I believe that the personal confirmation is probably more, er…solid than one might first think.

How is this substantially different from how canonization worked during the first 500 years of Catholicism via council and synod?

I don’t know. That’s what I’m asking about. From what I have read, those who worked on the canonization process concentrated on scholarly expertise and intense research, and didn’t really mention the role revelation might have in the process.

I am NOT downplaying the role of scholarship here, at all. Please don’t think I am. It is a vital part of the process no matter who is looking. It’s just that I get the feeling that those who were working on the compilation of the canon were missing a step–or at least not admitting to taking it.

Anyway, that’s what I’m asking for; some writings that indicate that they DID feel that this divine confirmation was as important as the research.

 

[Stephen168]

I have been paying attention to your absolute blind hated for the Catholic Church.

I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit WAS very much involved, but given what I’ve read so far, it might be ‘in spite of,’ rather than ‘because of’ the attitude of those who were involved.

Even a simple fact of history, like the Table of Contents of the New Testament is Catholic Tradition, provokes an attack by you.

 

[twopekinguys]

(Snip to here)

I don’t know. That’s what I’m asking about. From what I have read, those who worked on the canonization process concentrated on scholarly expertise and intense research, and didn’t really mention the role revelation might have in the process.

I am NOT downplaying the role of scholarship here, at all. Please don’t think I am. It is a vital part of the process no matter who is looking. It’s just that I get the feeling that those who were working on the compilation of the canon were missing a step–or at least not admitting to taking it.

Anyway, that’s what I’m asking for; some writings that indicate that they DID feel that this divine confirmation was as important as the research.

I checked with in the catechism, Is this what you are looking for? (bolding mine)

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

1117 As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, the Church, **by the power of the Spirit **who guides her “into all truth,” has gradually recognized this treasure received from Christ and, as the faithful steward of God’s mysteries, has determined its “dispensation.” Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.

 

[dianaiad]

I checked with in the catechism, Is this what you are looking for? (bolding mine)

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

this refers to the original authors of the scriptures…Matthew, Mark, Luke, John…et.all, not the men who chose which of these writings to include in the canon.

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

1117 As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, the Church, **by the power of the Spirit **who guides her “into all truth,” has gradually recognized this treasure received from Christ and, as the faithful steward of God’s mysteries, has determined its “dispensation.” Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.

We may be circling it–(and circling is the correct word for the problem I keep encountering…)

The above sections of the catechism refer to what happens after these writings have already been accepted as scripture; why we should pay attention to them. The assumption is that, of course, they ARE scripture.

While section 1117 seems to come closer to answering the question I asked, it still doesn’t quite land on it, because it too is about exegesis of already determined scripture, not about the process of discerning whether a specific book or letter actually is scripture.

In other words, the above sections make perfect sense if they refer to already accepted scripture, such as Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians.

They do not address the process by which it was decided that this particular letter is scripture in the first place.

This may sound like a quibble…but it’s not, since the question is about how one comes to believe that a certain piece of writing IS scripture or not. Once it is declared to be scripture, the approach to it becomes very, very different indeed.

Does this make more sense?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I think we may forget that at every Ecumenical Council, the Holy Spirit is present and inspiring the proceedings. It is because we believe the Holy Spirit is present that we can say that they are infallible. As Catholics, we emphasize that Scripture was accepted as inspired not just because people received testimony that these books were so (and that is not denied), but because the process was rooted in history, and not accepting the books simply at face value. The emphasis of archaeology, study, etc. are just some of the ways that we believe God worked in the Church to lead to the canonization of the Bible. I think we need to remember that when we pray, God does not always answer in the way that we want, and God very well could (and we believe did) answer those involved in the canonization process through the various academic and rational processes that lead to the canonization. Every Ecumenical Council emphasizes the presence of the Holy Spirit, and this was no different during those that addressed the Biblical canon (which really wasn’t set in stone until the Council of Trent).

catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
cbcponline.net/documents/1960s/1962-ecumenical_council.html
catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.shtml

 

[John_Larocque]

The original temple rituals were introduced in Nauvoo after Joseph Smith and most of the elders of the LDS church joined Masonry. Although the meaning is different, there are similarities (which have been noted at some sites), including the oaths people took to keep its ceremony secret.

President Brigham Young once made a statement to the effect that the ceremonies that the Masons use is a corrupted version of the ones that are in use by the LDS, which restored the ancient usage and practice. This is frankly something I find unbelievable, given that Masonry is only a few centuries old. Freemasonry despite its claims, doesn’t go back to the time of Solomon, and neither do its rituals.

Interestingly enough, there ARE some similarities between the temple ceremony and the original Christian liturgies… the time. They kept compressing the liturgy for length. The St. James liturgy in compressed form evolved into the St. Basil’s liturgy which in compressed form evolved into the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Roman Rite history is a bit messier and involved in the liquidation and borrowing of elements from the now-unused (in the RCC) liturgies such as the Gallican Rite. So something which was hours long can be done now in less than an hour and a half in the Christian East… and under the Novus Ordo rite in the west, even less

The original Christian liturgies were also kept from outsiders, typically in “house churches”. Of course, back then, people feared for their own safety.

I don’t know what length the LDS temple ceremonies are now, but I’ve read they were originally somewhere in the orbit of 9 hours years and years ago. LDS do not discuss changes to the ceremonies - “sacred not secret” - but there’s anecdotal evidence out there that they’ve gone through a similar process.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The original temple rituals were introduced in Nauvoo after Joseph Smith and most of the elders of the LDS church joined Masonry. Although the meaning is different, there are similarities (which have been noted at some sites), including the oaths people took to keep its ceremony secret.

President Brigham Young once made a statement to the effect that the ceremonies that the Masons use is a corrupted version of the ones that are in use by the LDS, which restored the ancient usage and practice. This is frankly something I find unbelievable, given that Masonry is only a few centuries old. Freemasonry despite its claims, doesn’t go back to the time of Solomon, and neither do its rituals.

Interestingly enough, there ARE some similarities between the temple ceremony and the original Christian liturgies… the time. They kept compressing the liturgy for length. The St. James liturgy in compressed form evolved into the St. Basil’s liturgy which in compressed form evolved into the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Roman Rite history is a bit messier and involved in the liquidation and borrowing of elements from the now-unused (in the RCC) liturgies such as the Gallican Rite. So something which was hours long can be done now in less than an hour and a half in the Christian East… and under the Novus Ordo rite in the west, even less

The original Christian liturgies were also kept from outsiders, typically in “house churches”. Of course, back then, people feared for their own safety.

I don’t know what length the LDS temple ceremonies are now, but I’ve read they were originally somewhere in the orbit of 9 hours years and years ago. LDS do not discuss changes to the ceremonies - “sacred not secret” - but there’s anecdotal evidence out there that they’ve gone through a similar process.

Wrong thread. I think you meant to post this in “Freemasonry in Mormonism”.