LDS and the bible vs BOM

[RebeccaJ]

I like the precision of you statement.

To just claim something or someone is true means nothing without defining what true is.

The Catholic Church is what it claims to be as a theological and historical fact.

Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Mormon Church are not what they claim to be.

40 years ago the Mormon Church agreed with Joseph Smith and Mormon scripture that the Book of Mormon was a factual history of ALL the American Indians. When I was in high school, if a Mormon said the Holy Ghost told them the Book of Mormon was ‘true,’ they would mean it was true as defined by Joseph Smith, Mormon scripture and the Mormon Church. By the end of the 1970’s science was proving this to NOT be true, so the Mormon Church has been redefining what it means to say the Book of Mormon is true.

I predict that before all the Mormons living today have died, the Mormon Church will have defined the Book of Mormon as an allegory and not historically factual.

(A good liar is one who tells as much truth as possible so as not to get caught in a lie.)

 

[Telstar]

An atheist by claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet like Moses would mean the same thing by claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet like Carnac the Magnificent.

 

[TOmNossor]

An atheist by claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet like Moses would mean the same thing by claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet like Carnac the Magnificent. An atheist would believe the whole prophet thing to be a bunch of silliness. You do have an art for saying something true but with the opposite meaning intended by the author.

Stephen,
You (and presumably Rebecca and Telestar) have less faith in the readers here than I do.
It would seem you thought my point was to give the impression that Vogel’s claim evidences the CoJCoLDS was what it claimed to be. But, you are quite wrong.
Vogel “is an Atheist”
Vogel “made a stop at Christianity on his way out of the CoJCoLDS, but his method of weighing evidence lead him along.”
Vogel “claims Joseph Smith is a prophet just like Moses and others”
My claim evidences that Vogel’s “method of weighing evidence” lead him out of the CoJCoLDS and out of Christianity."
Let me be even more clear.
Vogel, Metcalf, Catholics on this thread - weigh evidence against the CoJCoLDS and claim it is not true.
Vogel and Metcalf use the same methods and claim no religion is true.
It is my position that Catholics on this thread look far more critically at the CoJCoLDS than at the Catholic Church. I am OK with this as I think applying good methods to Catholicism truth claims and bad to the CoJCoLDS truth claims is better than applying bad methods to both truth claims, but I will point it out. And I know you hate it when I claim that some criticism of the CoJCoLDS should have less impact because it is similarly, equally, or more damning to Catholic truth claims; but I call it like I see it.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;12887933:

I can confidently state that “history proves it is true” is an overstatement at best concerning Catholicism. I would not personally say that “history PROVES it is true” concerning the CoJCoLDS, but my opinion is that history makes the CoJCoLDS the more likely successor of Christ’s church we both agree Peter

To just claim something or someone is true means nothing without defining what true is.

Stephen,
I assume you are correcting Horton who said that “history proves Catholicism is true,” and not me who said, “history evidences that the CoJCoLDS is the more likely successor of Christ’s church.” That is a specific claim (I think).
And then Rebecca would be calling Horton a liar not me?

(A good liar is one who tells as much truth as possible so as not to get caught in a lie.)

Got it.

The Catholic Church is what it claims to be as a theological and historical fact.

Is this what the Catholic Church claimed to be before Newman’s theory (when Newman’s theory was met with great suspicion in Rome and Bishops & Scholars in America railed against it? Or the Catholic Church after Newman redefined what it was to “preserve tradition” and Vatican II ran with such thoughts? At least the CoJCoLDS has continuing revelation and has never claimed to be infallible. (This doesn’t mean that an all-white priesthood is something that goes on the “CoJCoLDS is true side” of the ledger just that change - both small and radical - are not near so damning for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS as compared to the Catholic Church).
I will be more specific.
There are numerous problems with the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. There are numerous problems with the truth claims of the Catholic Church. There are numerous strengths that evidence the CoJCoLDS is Christ’s church. There are even strengths that evidence the Catholic Church is Christ’s church. On the balance, my research (outside of my Spiritual testimony) evidence that the CoJCoLDS claims are stronger and thus I am a LDS. And yes, I have read all the things thrown at my church on this board for years (as you say, ". I have tried to receive responses to the things that I question about Catholicism on this board, but often I am told, “there is nothing to see here.” I know that is not true.
So, as I weight the pluses and minuses as best I can, I find the CoJCoLDS is more likely to be the restoration of Christ’s church on earth than is the Catholic Church to be the valid successor of Christ’s Church on earth. There are 10 years of responses to criticisms of my church on this board and 10 years of descriptions of things I see as difficulties for the Catholic Church. Still, I do not make statements like “history proves …”
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Stephen,
You (and presumably Rebecca and Telestar) have less faith in the readers here than I do.
It would seem you thought my point was to give the impression that Vogel’s claim evidences the CoJCoLDS was what it claimed to be. But, you are quite wrong.
Vogel “is an Atheist”
Vogel “made a stop at Christianity on his way out of the CoJCoLDS, but his method of weighing evidence lead him along.”
Vogel “claims Joseph Smith is a prophet just like Moses and others”
My claim evidences that Vogel’s “method of weighing evidence” lead him out of the CoJCoLDS and out of Christianity."
Let me be even more clear.
Vogel, Metcalf, Catholics on this thread - weigh evidence against the CoJCoLDS and claim it is not true.
Vogel and Metcalf use the same methods and claim no religion is true.
It is my position that Catholics on this thread look far more critically at the CoJCoLDS than at the Catholic Church. I am OK with this as I think applying good methods to Catholicism truth claims and bad to the CoJCoLDS truth claims is better than applying bad methods to both truth claims, but I will point it out. And I know you hate it when I claim that some criticism of the CoJCoLDS should have less impact because it is similarly, equally, or more damning to Catholic truth claims; but I call it like I see it.
Charity, TOm

No. I came from atheism. The problem is, approaching religion while still thinking like a Mormon, which is, very literal. The Bible is taken literally. The Book of Mormon is taken literally. Joseph Smith had a literal teaching style. Atheists, in their group interpretation of the Bible, also take it literally.

The change that Chris-WA is referring to, coming from the LDS church, is changing these literal approaches and styles to symbolic. The change starting to take place in Mormonism is, don’t take the Book of Mormon so literally, because it is allegorical. Dark skin curses aren’t to be taken literally, but they are symbolic of good vs evil. Anachronisms aren’t literal descriptions, but symbolic place holders. Horses are tapirs and steal swords are wood and stone war clubs.

Catholics have always had a approach to the Bible that it is comprised of several books, like a library, and contains different genres of literature. The literal, the allegorical and the mystical. Jesus literally died and rose from the dead. God created the earth in 7 days is allegorical.

Some Evangelical interpretations and approaches, particularly of the Book of Revelations, also have the same problem as LDS do, and so you get people like Bart Ehrman (who Mormons seem to love).

But this has nothing to do with history.

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholics have always had a approach to the Bible that it is comprised of several books, like a library, and contains different genres of literature. The literal, the allegorical and the mystical. Jesus literally died and rose from the dead. God created the earth in 7 days is allegorical.

Catholics have not always or universally done this. The CHANGE just predated your paying attention or you ignore it.
The Pope is not infallible in his geo-centrism, but such was not the opinion of Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine who said geo-centrism was “De fide.” Now the celebrated scriptural reference that made geocentrism true is just allegory.
Again, I am not saying that such shouldn’t be viewed as allegory, just that you are not paying attention to your own tradition.
Some Catholics refuse to follow the majority of Bishops in this changing view and are thus geocentrist today. One of my favorite Catholic apologists from 10 years ago, Robert Sungenis, makes all of this very clear. Sungenis has further departed from Catholic Answers over the last 10 years, but he, Scott Hahn, and Peter Kreft predate Jimmy Akin as pillars of Catholic defense.
Atheist consistently say, “The BOM must be understood as a history of ALL North and South American” AND the “The Bible must teach geocentrism.” Thinkers in my church and your church have “left” over such things and other thinkers have stayed. I say you are inconsistent, but maybe you just don’t know the history.
Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

Catholics have always had a approach to the Bible that it is comprised of several books, like a library, and contains different genres of literature. The literal, the allegorical and the mystical. Jesus literally died and rose from the dead. God created the earth in 7 days is allegorical.

Rebecca, what would happen if you (hypothetically) got in a time machine and went to Galileo’s time. If you told the Catholics of that time that that God created the Earth in 7 allegorical days and it literally took Him billions of years, do you they would agree with you?

 

[Stephen168]

Rebecca, what would happen if you (hypothetically) got in a time machine and went to Galileo’s time. If you told the Catholics of that time that that God created the Earth in 7 allegorical days and it literally took Him billions of years, do you they would agree with you?

Yes, Christians have always had this understanding of the Bible.

 

[iepuras]

Rebecca, what would happen if you (hypothetically) got in a time machine and went to Galileo’s time. If you told the Catholics of that time that that God created the Earth in 7 allegorical days and it literally took Him billions of years, do you they would agree with you?

Off the top of my head, I know St. Augustine did. Is that early enough for you?

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, Christians have always had this understanding of the Bible.

Are you saying that Christians have always understood creation to not be just 7 days? I do not think you are correct.

When Christianity was just 200-300 years old, the Alexandrian school emphasized spiritualizing while the Antiochene school encouraged interpreting the bible based on the plain meaning of the text.
The Alexandrian school specifically claimed that without their spiritualizing the scriptures all the books could not be simultaneously true. I think the Alexandrian school went too far in their attempt to align with Greek philosophy, but that is a different discussion.
BTW, the CoJCoLDS is less than 300 years old, perhaps you should weight the change rate of the CoJCoLDS to the change rate of the early Christian Church in say 330AD (when virtually all Bishops were Arian or Semi-Arian).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Off the top of my head, I know St. Augustine did. Is that early enough for you?

Augustine was a Christian 4 centuries after Christ’s death. It will be 2230 when the CoJCoLDS has worked on our understanding of LDS revelation for a similar length of time.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Augustine was a Christian 4 centuries after Christ’s death. It will be 2230 when the CoJCoLDS has worked on our understanding of LDS revelation for a similar length of time.
Charity, TOm

I thought that is why you have a prophet.

 

[TOmNossor]

I thought that is why you have a prophet.

Ok. So you are saying, that Catholicism which lacks the ability to receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire world” necessarily will work more slowly through to its understanding of revelation delivered than will the CoJCoLDS because the CoJCoLDS can receive (claims to be able to receive) revelation to be delivered to the entire world?
So when I point to the Alexandrian school who spiritualized scripture and the Antiochene school who claimed scripture should be read based on the plain meaning of the text, their centuries of divergent thoughts is a product of their inability to receive revelation on the subject.
When I point to the fact that Bishops didn’t embrace Nicea and virtually the entire clerical class was Arian in 330AD it is because of their inability to receive revelation.
When I suggest that Augustine is “not early enough” because his writing happened 400 years after the revelation was delivered, “not early enough” should be excused because of his and his predecessors inability to receive revelation.
…
I am not sure revelation works exactly as you think it does. Speaking as someone with experience (though less than my coreligionists in many cases) with receiving revelation, I can say that God seldom if ever meets my expectations when He reveals things to me. I suspect there is greater connection for the prophet, but not what you seem to think. Peter was celebrated for his profession of Christ, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but it came from God the Father. But Peter went on to attack the guard who took away Christ, deny Christ, and generally disbelieve that Christ would really be resurrected (until Christ was resurrected).
…
But, I see you defending your different way of evaluating the CoJCoLDS as compared to Catholicism. Now that we agree on this we will just need to decide if such a different standard is warranted? Why do you think it is?
…
And of course let me restate what I stated before. I am not convinced Augustine, the Alexandrian school, and the small number of faithful LDS who hold the BOM to be inspired but not historical; are going in the correct direction (I think the opposite actually). I am not convinced that allegorical interpretation of marriage, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, in persona Christi, no salvation without Baptism; is going in the correct direction in the Catholic Church. I am just saying that your claim that Catholicism has always been … is historically inaccurate (which is ironic considering Catholics are claiming that history PROVES Catholicism to be true, perhaps it is this flawed picture of history that proves such things).
Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane_doe View Post
Rebecca, what would happen if you (hypothetically) got in a time machine and went to Galileo’s time. If you told the Catholics of that time that that God created the Earth in 7 allegorical days and it literally took Him billions of years, do you they would agree with you?
Off the top of my head, I know St. Augustine did. Is that early enough for you?

Off the top of my head, I know St. Augustine did. Is that early enough for you?

Unless Augustine is sitting in that congregation, I’m not sure how he’s relevant.

I’m asking, do you think the people-- the common Catholic people of ~1600 — do you think that they would agree with your statement that the Genesis creation story is only allegorical?

 

[Telstar]

Stephen,
You (and presumably Rebecca and Telestar) have less faith in the readers here than I do.
It would seem you thought my point was to give the impression that Vogel’s claim evidences the CoJCoLDS was what it claimed to be. But, you are quite wrong.
Vogel “is an Atheist”
Vogel “made a stop at Christianity on his way out of the CoJCoLDS, but his method of weighing evidence lead him along.”
Vogel “claims Joseph Smith is a prophet just like Moses and others”
My claim evidences that Vogel’s “method of weighing evidence” lead him out of the CoJCoLDS and out of Christianity."
Let me be even more clear.
Vogel, Metcalf, Catholics on this thread - weigh evidence against the CoJCoLDS and claim it is not true.
Vogel and Metcalf use the same methods and claim no religion is true.
It is my position that Catholics on this thread look far more critically at the CoJCoLDS than at the Catholic Church. I am OK with this as I think applying good methods to Catholicism truth claims and bad to the CoJCoLDS truth claims is better than applying bad methods to both truth claims, but I will point it out. And I know you hate it when I claim that some criticism of the CoJCoLDS should have less impact because it is similarly, equally, or more damning to Catholic truth claims; but I call it like I see it.
Charity, TOm

Actually, I was really just laughing at his reference to Carnac the Magnificent, because I could just picture Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon doing that bit. Then, you compared an atheists view of Joseph Smith being in the same category as Moses, as if that was some kind of a compliment to JS. An atheist would think they’re both idiots, so that’s certainly not making JS look any better to anyone that understands atheism. Sorry, but I found that comparison to be pretty funny, especially when Stephen added Carnac to the mix.

 

[Horton]

I can confidently state that “history proves it is true” is an overstatement at best concerning Catholicism. I would not personally say that “history PROVES it is true” concerning the CoJCoLDS, but my opinion is that history makes the CoJCoLDS the more likely successor of Christ’s church we both agree Peter presided over.
It is also IMO not a strength for the Catholic Church that so many folks suggest that history is the path to the Catholic Church and/or that the LDS emphasis upon asking God is to be avoided.
On the LDS board, I would find many folks who agree that history is the friend of the CoJCoLDS, but I do not expect to find many here who agree.
Charity, TOm

I disagree completely with your comment that my statement is an overstatement. The Catholic Church can trace her church right back to Peter, Pope by Pope. We are not afraid of our history, even the bad parts.

And just to be very very clear, the history of the Catholic is ONE of the SEVERAL reasons I converted. An intentional prayer life, listening to God in that path he was leading me was far more compelling than the history.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, what would happen if you (hypothetically) got in a time machine and went to Galileo’s time. If you told the Catholics of that time that that God created the Earth in 7 allegorical days and it literally took Him billions of years, do you they would agree with you?

Origen exemplified the ante-Nicene approach to interpretation of Scripture, by saying Scripture had a body, soul, and spirit corresponding to literal, moral, and allegorical interpretations. Each passage had at least one and sometimes all three meanings.

From “De Principiis” book 4, paragraph 11 (early third century)

In the Proverbs of Solomon we find some such rule as the following laid down, respecting the consideration of holy Scripture: And do, he says, describe these things to yourself in a threefold manner, in counsel and knowledge, and that you may answer the words of truth to those who have proposed them to you. Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters—that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God has decreed before the ages unto our glory; — all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit. For as man is said to consist of body, and soul, and spirit, so also does sacred Scripture, which has been granted by the divine bounty for the salva*tion of man;

From the Catechism:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia

"SYMBOL:

A visible representation of an object or an idea. In Hebrew the word denoting symbol is “ot,” which in early Judaism denoted not only a sign, but also a visible religious token of the mystic relation between God and man. In the latter sense ancient Israel had two fundamental symbols, each regarded as representing the pledge of the covenant made by God with His people. These were (1) the Sabbath, “a sign for ever” (Ex. xxxi. 17), and (2) circumcision, the token of the covenant made by God with Abraham and his descendants (Gen. xvii. 11; comp. Ex. xiii. 9 and Deut. vi. 8). All other instances of symbolism in the Jewish ritual and in Hebrew poetry may be divided into the following groups: (1) the Temple and its accessories; (2) the sacrifices; (3) the officiating priests; (4) numbers; (5) metals and colors; (6) the Cherubim; (7) festivals and holy days; (8) the visions of the Prophets."

“The number seven was the general symbol for all association with God, and was the favorite religious number of Judaism, typifying the covenant of holinessand sanctification, and also all that was holy and sanctifying in purpose. The candlestick had seven lamps, and the acts of atonement and purification were accompanied by a sevenfold sprinkling. The establishment of the Sabbath, the Sabbatical year, and the year of jubilee was based on the number seven, as were the periods of purification and of mourning (Lev. iv. 6, 17; xxiii. 15; xxvi. 21; Deut. xv. 1; II Kings v. 14; Ps. cxix. 164)”

The allegorical would mean, 7 is a number to associate creation as holy and sanctified. The actual amount of time is irrelevant. Be it 7 literal days or billions of years.

 

[Horton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane_doe View Post
Rebecca, what would happen if you (hypothetically) got in a time machine and went to Galileo’s time. If you told the Catholics of that time that that God created the Earth in 7 allegorical days and it literally took Him billions of years, do you they would agree with you?
Off the top of my head, I know St. Augustine did. Is that early enough for you?

Unless Augustine is sitting in that congregation, I’m not sure how he’s relevant.

I’m asking, do you think the people-- the common Catholic people of ~1600 — do you think that they would agree with your statement that the Genesis creation story is only allegorical?

Jane - Do you even know who St. Augustine is? Do you know his writings?

 

[jane_doe]

Jane - Do you even know who St. Augustine is? Do you know his writings?

Yes, I’m actually quite a fan of his.

But again, I’m not asking about a saint, I’m asking the common people of 1600: do you think they would have agreed to Rebecca’s statement?

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, I’m actually quite a fan of his.

But again, I’m not asking about a saint, I’m asking the common people of 1600: do you think they would have agreed to Rebecca’s statement?

Galileo would agree with Rebecca.