F
Fauken
Guest
There are also several places where “life” refers to just that – life. Specifically mortal life. Matthew 16:25:
There is no reason to assume then that Peter was referring to eternal life.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Protestants-and-Catholics-think-of-Mormons/answer/James-Hough-1
- Status
G
gazelam
Guest
John 21:22, 23
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple [John] should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
3 Nephi 28:6,7
6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
D&C 7
1 And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
4 And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom.
I hope this helps…
G
gazelam
Guest
Which life do you believe Peter was referring to in 1 Peter 3:7?
S
SunshineGrandma
Guest
I think you need a new bible!
You will see in all of these translations that it doesn’t say John never died:
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 21:23
Also, I don’t recognize LDS scripture as valid.
You will see in all of these translations that it doesn’t say John never died:
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 21:23
Also, I don’t recognize LDS scripture as valid.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Before I get to a few other post to which I hope to respond …SunshineGrandma:
How about the Bible?
1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of [eternal] life; that your prayers be not hindered.
@SunshineGrandma @Fauken @Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman
I just learned a little bit of LDS apologetics today from Gazelam (thanks!)
I would suggest that the three of you must have felt the WEIGHT of his apologetic and thus you claimed it was not in the Bible and could not be true. I further suggest that if it is in the Bible, you recognize it as evidence for “eternal marriage.”
I was briefly skimming this thread and missed that this was about “eternal marriage.” All I saw was the implication that Gazelam was trying to lie by putting a word in the Bible (documented well by brackets) and the three of you making a big case about the added word to the point of “feeling lied to.”
Like I said, I skimmed and didn’t even know this was about eternal marriage until I started this response and saw that question in SunshineGrandma’s part of the quote. BUT, I was sure that “eternal life” was a very clear read of the passage as @Gazelem claimed. I was so SURE that I figured I could find a Biblical commentary that claimed “eternal life” for 1 Peter 3:7. The VERY first I came to was:
Not only does it describe “eternal life” in reference to this passage, but John Gill claims, “the Syriac version renders it, ‘the gift of eternal life.’”
So, there is your BIBLE that has “eternal life” in it. I have too much to do to figure out if the Syriac Bible is ANCIENT, but my guess is that it is 5th-6th century or earlier. I will however claim that it is virtually certain that Joseph Smith never read the “Syriac Bible” and thus his teaching on eternal marriage does not source from the Syriac Bible, but sources from the SAME DIVINE REVELATION that gives us the Bible.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
What it shows is that Mormons misinterpret the meaning of John 21:22-23 and other verses in the Bible.
Mormons interpret this verse to mean that the Apostle John is still literally alive walking the earth. That he never died. You’re wrong. He isn’t still alive on this earth. He died. And you need to be teaching that he died.
Mormons interpret this verse to mean that the Apostle John is still literally alive walking the earth. That he never died. You’re wrong. He isn’t still alive on this earth. He died. And you need to be teaching that he died.
L
lokisuperfan
Guest
Luke 9:27
“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.”
“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.”
G
gazelam
Guest
How does the Fourth Century Discourse on Abbaton by Timothy, Patriarch of Alexandria work for you?
http://www.thinlyveiled.com/Abbaton2.2MB.pdf
Go to page 11
. . . concerning the Holy Apostle Saint John, theologian and virgin, who is not to taste death until the thrones are set in the Valley of Jehosaphat, which is the place wherein the last strife of the world shall take place.
I hope this helps…
H
Horton
Guest
Why is it so difficult to answer a direct question? We both know there is a difference in who Jesus Christ is between Christianity and the LDS. Across Christianity, from Catholic to store front non-doms, the basic concept of who Christ is remains the same. The LDS have a very different idea of who Christ is. Both cannot be correct. Since it has been established for 2000 years for Christianity who Jesus Christ is, and not yet 200 years (and has ever changing doctrine) for the LDS, it seems to make since to go with history and numbers.
Please answer this question.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Hello SunshineGrandma,
I have been unable to post for a while, but have had time to ponder. I will discuss anti-Mormonism and anti-Catholicism shortly, but I am not convinced I have this all nailed down.
Anyway, I did not mean to offend you. I have also been clear (and not "disingenuous"). I have explained where LDS who mostly engage via Sunday worship, our scriptures, and devotional literature are UNAWARE of these debates and thus think little about "mere man" or "sinful man" or God the Father having a Heavenly Father. And where informed LDS in large numbers differ from my position, ie many informed LDS believe that God the Father had a Heavenly Father and I do not.
Concerning the sinking ship:
I will say that there are some things that have happened within (and peripheral to) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the last 5 years that I wish hadn’t happened, but I do not feel like anything has impacted my conclusion that this is God’s Church. Furthermore during that same time period (finally culminating about 4-5 months ago) I concluded the strongest Catholic community is the community on the periphery aligned with SSPX priests and bishops. This is a big change in my assessment. Karl Keating, Edward Fesser, Raymond Arroyo, Thomas Weinandy, many scholars and Catholic clergy and many stalwart Catholics KNOW well why I now say this (and Dave Armstrong has specifically linked these things to driving folks to the SSPX or Sedavacantist position in his disagreements with Karl Keating so my conclusions are reasonable in Armstrong’s assessment though wrong in his and Karl’s and probably all in the list).
But, to my Catholic brothers and sisters and to my LDS brothers and sisters, I still say, "Ten thousand problems do not a doubt make." If you have a firm conviction that the Catholic priest uniquely transubstantiates the Eucharist, the machinations within recent Catholic history may be 10000 problems, but should not create doubt. For the LDS if you have a firm conviction that the Book of Mormon came from God than the machinations within recent LDS history may be 10000 problems, but should not create doubt.
Charity, TOm
I have been unable to post for a while, but have had time to ponder. I will discuss anti-Mormonism and anti-Catholicism shortly, but I am not convinced I have this all nailed down.
Anyway, I did not mean to offend you. I have also been clear (and not "disingenuous"). I have explained where LDS who mostly engage via Sunday worship, our scriptures, and devotional literature are UNAWARE of these debates and thus think little about "mere man" or "sinful man" or God the Father having a Heavenly Father. And where informed LDS in large numbers differ from my position, ie many informed LDS believe that God the Father had a Heavenly Father and I do not.
Concerning the sinking ship:
I will say that there are some things that have happened within (and peripheral to) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the last 5 years that I wish hadn’t happened, but I do not feel like anything has impacted my conclusion that this is God’s Church. Furthermore during that same time period (finally culminating about 4-5 months ago) I concluded the strongest Catholic community is the community on the periphery aligned with SSPX priests and bishops. This is a big change in my assessment. Karl Keating, Edward Fesser, Raymond Arroyo, Thomas Weinandy, many scholars and Catholic clergy and many stalwart Catholics KNOW well why I now say this (and Dave Armstrong has specifically linked these things to driving folks to the SSPX or Sedavacantist position in his disagreements with Karl Keating so my conclusions are reasonable in Armstrong’s assessment though wrong in his and Karl’s and probably all in the list).
But, to my Catholic brothers and sisters and to my LDS brothers and sisters, I still say, "Ten thousand problems do not a doubt make." If you have a firm conviction that the Catholic priest uniquely transubstantiates the Eucharist, the machinations within recent Catholic history may be 10000 problems, but should not create doubt. For the LDS if you have a firm conviction that the Book of Mormon came from God than the machinations within recent LDS history may be 10000 problems, but should not create doubt.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am a fallen away Catholic. I do not accuse all critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of being anti-Mormon. On this thread I have called out njlisa, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen as not anti-Mormon. In response to someone claiming that “fair criticism” of the CoJCoLDS should be read, I pointed out that The New Mormon Challenge is fair criticism written by non-LDS for the purpose of demonstrating that the CoJCoLDS is not God’s Church, AND that I have NEVER seen a Catholic here point to a book by a non-Catholic that criticizes Catholic truth claims and call it a “fair criticism.” I am still waiting.
That being said, I must admit that the appellation “anti-Mormon” is something I apply based on how I feel more than some objective test. Furthermore, when I claim I am not “anti-Catholic” it is again about how I feel. I am not sure how to solve this conundrum.
Here is an attempt:
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/What_is_anti-Mormonism.html
Here is some more:
Both of these I think would call what I say here and what The New Mormon Challenge says, “anti-.”
Perhaps it is anti- if those who offer it do not follow Krister Stendahl’s 3 rules:
(1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don’t compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for “holy envy.”
I like this because I have here pointed to my “holy envy” and I do not think a non-LDS poster has EVER done such for my church on this board (and some have said things like “I have no holy envy for Mormonism because …”. But I suspect I like this because I want to feel good about myself and still vilify those who say horrible things about my faith.
Ultimately, I do not have a solid definition. I generally think we need to try to understand what the other person believes and celebrate or criticize it. That being said, there must be room to say that Brigham Young taught xyz even if I reject it or Pope Honorius taught xyz and this has impacts on the truth claims embraced by the LDS or the Catholic.
Charity, TOm
H
humbleseeker
Guest
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I hope people actually follow the link and read what it says (or read the HTR document).TOmNossor:
Yes, there are no quotes from the early church which support your claim that God the Father having a body of flesh and bones was a common belief in the early church.
…
Basically, simple men with no instruction need an image, they understand, as an object of prayer.
Like Audaeus, Joseph Smith, a simple man with no instruction, changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.
It discusses the controversy over Bishop Melito and Origin was not the only ANCIENT author who thought Melito believed divine embodiment (I think it was the 20th century before ANYONE questioned that Bishop Melito believed in divine embodiment).
It also points to Tertullian and references his writings. He is not, “a simple man with no instruction.”
It IMO is radically clear from Augustine alone that many Christians until the 4th century believed in divine embodiment. It is radically clear from Origin that Origin knew that real Christians believed in divine embodiment (including intelligent Christians in some of his writings), but he was trying to say this should not be part of Christianity. Origin’s Alexandrian allegorical methods existed in conflict with the Antiochian literal methods for interpreting scripture, and the Alexandrian methods have had much more effect upon the doctrinal developments in the early church. Furthermore, the presence of such conflicts in the surviving texts demands that the texts that didn’t survive took sides in opposition. There is a well documented practice of destroying the writings of the losers AND the only way writings survived is if the winners copied and recopied them to preserve them.
What I will admit is unclear is the following:
It is possible that divine embodiment was an assumption that was not held because of divine revelation but because the content of divine revelation spoke in anthropomorphic terms because these are the terms men understand. That these prevalent anthropomorphic terms are a product of imprecise language in scripture AND not a product of God’s desire to communicate that he is embodied. And that the purging of this belief is a product of defining truth NOT aligning with the precepts of Platonism and neo-Platonism that was much celebrated.
I lean away from this belief, but if I was Catholic I would embrace it and not consider such a huge problem.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I can see how that wouldn’t make you anti-Mormon.
I suspect you do not mean that I KNOW that am trying to “justify my rejection of the Catholic Church,” but that this is a subconscious truth. The history I have offered here many times I think witness against (but does not prove false) this interpretation, but I find it foolish to argue that I would KNOW I lacked a subconscious conception as the definition of “subconscious” precludes me knowing that it exists.
I will however say that those former-LDS who speak of their former faith in ways totally unrecognizable to current LDS (even current LDS who were around 1, 5, 20, and 50 years ago) are more likely to be harboring this subconscious need to justify their rejection of the CoJCoLDS. And you who have never been a LDS could harbor a subconscious need to justify your refusal to join and fellowship with those you knew in Utah. My point is that pointing to a “subconscious” is a two edged sword.
I will furthermore state that the case for the Catholic Church COULD exist in historical documents that so demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome was the man at the head of the Church started by Jesus of Nazareth that having arguments that criticize the CoJCoLDS on a site for the purpose of defending Catholicism would be unnecessary. But the historical record does not make the papacy clear AND Catholic Answers has many documents here directly addressing the CoJCoLDS. I might add that:
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/
Do not have documents on the errors of Catholicsim like Catholic answers does. This is true even though the CoJCoLDS teaches that there was an apostasy so such discussion is part of our truth claims (and can be found in a number of books by LDS in case you think it doesn’t exist because it cannot be argued). Catholic Answers could ignore the CoJCoLDS if its POSITIVE truth claims were strong enough from objective evidence, but unless the CoJCoLDS can prove visions and other supernatural things (non-objective things) occurred, evidence of an apostasy is an important component of our truth claims.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
Husbands and wives should live together in such a way that they help each other get to heaven. There is nothing in this verse or Christian teaching that claims “marriage” continues in heaven. In fact reason would tell us that it is pointless.
P
Pattylt
Guest
What did your Prophets think? Did any address this issue that you disagree with? I’m just curious and if it helps, I’m neither Catholic nor LDS. Thank you.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I do not believe Joseph Smith taught that God the Father had a Heavenly Father. I do think from Brigham Young probably and Lorenzo Snow certainly till some time in the 20th century (probably till the late 20th century) the prophets did embrace this. President Hinkley claimed we don’t teach it and it is not well understood. I agree. I should mention before someone else that Hinckley later claimed to know of it and understand where it comes from, which I believe is consistent with his original claim (if it is important, i can dig up the references to both Pres. Hinckley statements,. The first was very public and the second was more LDS-centric, but still very public - this is important to those who claim Hinckley was trying to trick non-LDS).TOmNossor:
What did your Prophets think? Did any address this issue that you disagree with? I’m just curious and if it helps, I’m neither Catholic nor LDS. Thank you.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thank you! I appreciate the answer.
H
hope
Guest
I was introduced to LDS believing God the Father was a man by LDS missionaries. Only in the forums here did I first run into that it wasn’t was believed. I than asked a friend who is LDS if I had misunderstood. I was told no that I had understood correctly but that they had a system(I am not quoting directly) that they give milk first before they give meat. She meant by it that the teachings are given in stages and not revealed until the person was able to understand the teaching.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am fine with all of this, as long as you recognize what you called “a system” derives from the Bible.TOmNossor:
I was introduced to LDS believing God the Father was a man by LDS missionaries. Only in the forums here did I first run into that it wasn’t was believed. I than asked a friend who is LDS if I had misunderstood. I was told no that I had understood correctly but that they had a system(I am not quoting directly) that they give milk first before they give meat. She meant by it that the teachings are given in stages and not revealed until the person was able to understand the teaching.
I don’t believe it has been part of the missionary discussions for years, but many informed LDS missionaries know about it and might teach about it today.
What I claim is the lack of understanding here is that LDS leaders have never called God the Father a “mere man” or a “man who sinned.” Reflection upon this AND the origin of the teaching namely John 5:19 IMO results in a very different doctrine than is criticized by non-LDS (and in fairness is believed by many LDS, incorrectly IMO).
Charity, TOm
- Status