If the Book of Mormon is true, what does this mean for non-Mormons?

[JeanMichel]

As a non-Mormon who knows next to nothing about Mormonism, even I can see the problem with what you say here.

It appears to me that Parker is stating that his position towards Catholicism is similar to Catholicism’s position towards Protestantism in general. Catholics don’t deny that there is some truth to what most protestants believe but say that protestants don’t have the whole picture and that some of what they believe is wrong. We would say the same thing about Mormonism, though I think we would tend to think there is less truth there (no offense meant of course, but you can see that if what you believe is further from what we believe, we would see it as containing less truth).

It would make sense that other religions feel the same way about us. This whole “do you think we’re retarded or do you think we’re right” thing is not a terribly good way of looking at things.

In terms more similar to what you are using, I think the Mormon position as presented by Parker is that Catholicism is false (that is, not in possession of the whole truth, and in possession of some falsehoods) but that there is some truth in it, with the specific reasons he already gave you. Since we say the same thing about nearly every non-Catholic religion currently in existence (though not for the same reasons as Parker claimed) I cannot see a problem with a statement like this taken in and of itself.

Thank you Iron, I was beginning to shake my head at why there were so many poor arguments here and you reignite my faith that all is not lost. Does no one study logic or philosophy anymore?

 

[Nominefili]

The better question is this: If the real Scriptures are true (and by that I mean the Old and New Testaments without all the Joseph Smith editing,) what does that mean for Mormons?

 

[rainman10]

If the Book of Mormon is true it doesn’t prove the LDS Church is true, but it does prove the Catholic Church is false. If the Book of Mormon is false, it does prove the LDS Church is false.

1 Nephi 13:5-6:
And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity. And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

If this verse is true, then since the devil founded the Catholic Church, doesn’t that make the Bible the devil’s tool and totally useless? The Bible would not have any validity whatsoever, yet the Mormons use it for what portions they deem as truth. Does the Holy Spirit guide them into deciphering what is truth and what is not truth from the devils work?

 

[Esdra]

I think much more discussion on this might be more well suited for another thread though (and I imagine there are several threads devoted to it elsewhere).

Here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7502429#post7502429

Hope you’ll come around!

 

[Miriam1947]

I’ll play advocatus Diabolus now: Are you sure the Church was after the Bible?
Hm, what about the Septuagint then? (The first “Bible” of the first Christians)? - It was, well, a hundred to two hundred years before Christ?!

Yep the Septuagint was there. But, it was not what we know of as the canon of books that we call the Bible.

That canon was determined by the Catholic Church.

 

[Esdra]

Yep the Septuagint was there. But, it was not what we know of as the canon of books that we call the Bible.

That canon was determined by the Catholic Church.

The Septuagint is and was the whole OT, this means the bigger part of what we call now Bible!

You see, most Eastern Churches still use the LXX as their OT!

So, the greatest part of the Bible was indeed BEFORE the Church.

But, actually, I’ve started a new thread. - Maybe we should switch there…

 

[lax16]

BartBurk,

Both of your statements here contain wrong premises. A person considering these premises would do well to read and sincerely try to understand Jacob 5 (which, by the way, is one of the most difficult chapters in the Book of Mormon to understand, as it is an allegory and is thus symbolic). They would understand that the Book of Mormon says the Catholic church grew faster than its roots were ready to sustain, but that its roots are absolutely true and that its branches contain much that is true.

It also reiterates time and again that a person’s individual relationship with God (including two-way communication with love of God central to that communication) and with others (including love of course and all of the other aspects of following the Savior’s teachings about “love thy neighbor as thyself”) are the most important truths one needs to be dealing with in their life.

Hi Parker! I have read some writings from the members of your early church that definitely claimed the Catholic Church was evil and there was nothing good about it.
Also that when the priesthood authority was taken away, darkness filled the earth.

Now, there has been a definite shift away from this, wouldn’t you agree?

The problem that I think Mormons and Catholics have when discussing such things is Catholics have definite, unchangeable teachings that do not evolve and Mormon teachings seem to be always shifting to become more palatable to the masses.

It should not matter how you feel today or what zerinus’ blog states as the new definition of apostasy, what should matter are the teachings of your founder Joseph Smith.

Nobody can back away from that. All religions are built on the teachings of _____ (fill in the blank). Now PEOPLE do that all the time, but should they?

Should Mormons re-define their history and the words and meanings of Joseph Smith and the early followers/leaders? How can truth change?

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

The Septuagint is and was the whole OT, this means the bigger part of what we call now Bible!

You see, most Eastern Churches still use the LXX as their OT!

So, the greatest part of the Bible was indeed BEFORE the Church.

But, actually, I’ve started a new thread. - Maybe we should switch there…

Of course the larger part of the bible was before the church.
larger, but undeniably less important as a Christian. Largely history lessons. The weight of the bible now lay in Jesus Christ, the son of god, whom my faith revolves around.

The New testament is the covenant I follow, informed by the old.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker! I have read some writings from the members of your early church that definitely claimed the Catholic Church was evil and there was nothing good about it.
Also that when the priesthood authority was taken away, darkness filled the earth.

Now, there has been a definite shift away from this, wouldn’t you agree?

The problem that I think Mormons and Catholics have when discussing such things is Catholics have definite, unchangeable teachings that do not evolve and Mormon teachings seem to be always shifting to become more palatable to the masses.

It should not matter how you feel today or what zerinus’ blog states as the new definition of apostasy, what should matter are the teachings of your founder Joseph Smith.

Nobody can back away from that. All religions are built on the teachings of _____ (fill in the blank). Now PEOPLE do that all the time, but should they?

Should Mormons re-define their history and the words and meanings of Joseph Smith and the early followers/leaders? How can truth change?

Lax16,

If you had been more specific about specific statements you have in mind (besides some from Orson Pratt who wrote with a shrill pen and often didn’t bring context with what he was writing), then I could answer your questions. Joseph Smith didn’t single out the Catholic church, to my knowledge. He did say that restored authority was important, especially for such ordinances as the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple marriages and sealing. He also wrote that Heavenly Father is “more benevolent” in how He will treat humankind in their judgment, when all is said and done, than most people have any idea of.

The problem one faces with studying Joseph Smith’s teachings, is that since he was pointing toward exaltation as the goal, then anything less than that is not something he would write encouraging words about. An apostle would not equivocate about the goal of the gospel being to become like Christ, because that is what their witness to the world is–that such is possible, and is promised to those who love Him with all their heart and do His will, including learning to have faith in Him, hope in His redemption and grace, and love for everyone around them and for all the world.

I do think the 19th century had more religious fervor generally, and certainly more people knowledgeable about the Bible and its language, than people generally today, so when people hear some “strong” language today in words written or spoken in the 19th century, they aren’t familiar that what they are reading is language straight from the Bible.

Best wishes, again, to you and your family.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

If you had been more specific about specific statements you have in mind (besides some from Orson Pratt who wrote with a shrill pen and often didn’t bring context with what he was writing), then I could answer your questions. Joseph Smith didn’t single out the Catholic church, to my knowledge. He did say that restored authority was important, especially for such ordinances as the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple marriages and sealing. He also wrote that Heavenly Father is “more benevolent” in how He will treat humankind in their judgment, when all is said and done, than most people have any idea of.

There were many, including Joseph Smith, which you would then say he was repeating what God told him. Namely, the Church I built is a failure and I, God, need you, Joseph Smith to restore it.
There is the BoM itself, of course, supposedly the word of God. God calling His Own Church, the One He Created with His Son and the One the Holy Spirit was to stay with, the whore of the earth.
Joseph Smith: “What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world.”
LeGrand Richards, (I know, if a Mormon doesn’t like what he reads from another they say they were not acting in the name of the church), however I know his book stands on the shelves of my Mormon friends.
Brigham Young, John Taylor, Bruce R. McConkie, Orson Pratt, Joseph Smith, Spencer W.Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, George Q. Cannon, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith.

The problem one faces with studying Joseph Smith’s teachings, is that since he was pointing toward exaltation as the goal, then anything less than that is not something he would write encouraging words about. An apostle would not equivocate about the goal of the gospel being to become like Christ, because that is what their witness to the world is–that such is possible, and is promised to those who love Him with all their heart and do His will, including learning to have faith in Him, hope in His redemption and grace, and love for everyone around them and for all the world.

Parker, JS was trying to discredit other churches,including the One Jesus Christ Himself started, to prove that he was needed, and therefore a prophet to be followed. And many fell away from him and his teachings and today the Mormon church is backing away from him and BY and many others.

I do think the 19th century had more religious fervor generally, and certainly more people knowledgeable about the Bible and its language, than people generally today, so when people hear some “strong” language today in words written or spoken in the 19th century, they aren’t familiar that what they are reading is language straight from the Bible.

I agree that people today are offended by things that their parents and grandparents were taught!

Best wishes, again, to you and your family.

And to you and yours!

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic faith is based on the witness of the original 12 apostles of Jesus Christ and His oral tradition. Nothing more.

What has been added through Tradition and the Magesterium is the witness of Christians and how they have deepened our understanding of God and His sacred mysteries, and a common faith walk that leads us all to Jesus with many different charisms. But always ending with the same message of our Lord expressed in the Gospels.

Case in point: Mary.

In those days, and for a long time afterwards, people did not use books. They could not even afford them. There was a time when a Bible was made of sheepskin and was extremely expensive.

Hardly anyone had them…so there was no conspiracy, just no printing press.

Our belief that makes us apostolic is found in the Apostles Creed/Nicene Creed…developed to fully and conceptually define Jesus Christ, His life, His teaching and morality. The early Church worked with the greatest intent to insure that the truth of the teachings of Christ through His apostles would be passed down through each and every generation, especially when they realized He was not coming back for a long time. And this is what gets people in trouble…alot of presumptions that are not true.

It is the Holy Spirit that is the force behind those consecrated and chosen to serve the Church that makes real that our teachings are truly handed down from Jesus through His apostles.

The other mistake people make is that they lose their faith by turning their attention away from the body of faith in the Church, to errant or scandalous members, and then don’t witness the reform that comes afterwards. The Church is self-reforming, but because the Church is universal, it takes time for issues to be resolved.

However, each day has plenty of its own problems for each one of us. So we have to be patient and keep focused on being faithful and live our faith every day focused on God.