LDS and the bible vs BOM

[RebeccaJ]

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?

It doesn’t matter to history. The Book of Mormon was presented, until relatively recently as a historical account. ALL Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were said to be descended of Laman. This is a historical claim.

Creation is a mystical event in the Bible, something God does, and is not part of human history. The names and places are mythological.

The stories of the Bible are not placed into human history until Abraham. Then, Abraham is in a historical time and place, with names of historical cities, rivers, cultures and practices, that put the story in human history.

The Book of Mormon historical claims are claims to what people did, in a place and time, with claimed names of historical cities, rivers, cultures and practices. It is put in context of human history. To remove this claim changes what the Book of Mormon claims, entirely, from a historical account to a sacred myth. That is a huge change.

A comparable event would be for both Jews and Christians to claim that Abraham didn’t really exist, but is an allegory. IF that happened (which I doubt), you better believe the faith of many would fall with that change.

 

[jane_doe]

Origen exemplified the ante-Nicene approach to interpretation of Scripture…
.

Again, Origen is not a common person. The Jewish Encyclopedia was not published until post 1900, and CCC not until 1992. And even if they were published back then, the common person in 1600 was illiterate and couldn’t have read them.

My point here is to compare the beliefs of a common-Catholic-person today (RebeccaJ) with an estimates of a common-Catholic-person’s beliefs in 1600.

So, again, do you think a common-Catholic person in 1600 would say that the Earth not literally created in 7 days?

 

[jane_doe]

Galileo would agree with Rebecca.

And the Catholic church excommunicated him for his beliefs.

 

[Stephen168]

And the Catholic church excommunicated him for his beliefs.

The Catholic Church has always taught the bible can be understand in more ways than literal.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Again, Origen is not a common person. The Jewish Encyclopedia was not published until post 1900, and CCC not until 1992. And even if they were published back then, the common person in 1600 was illiterate and couldn’t have read them.

My point here is to compare the beliefs of a common-Catholic-person today (RebeccaJ) with an estimates of a common-Catholic-person’s beliefs in 1600.

So, again, do you think a common-Catholic person in 1600 would say that the Earth not literally created in 7 days?

I don’t see that it matters. 7 days, a billion, it doesn’t change that creation is a divine act. Knowing that the universe is a billion years old doesn’t change the fact that I believe God is Creator. People in 1600 believed God is Creator. Neither of us can say the how. Genesis addresses the “why”.

You are comparing things that matter to things that don’t matter. Saying dark skin is a curse is different than saying people were allegorically dark. Dark skin curses were taught as an indication of evil which carried forward through generations. You can see the curse.

Generational curses were a thing with Joseph Smith. Now, the LDS church is backing off this teaching. That changes what Mormonism teaches, and changes the whole idea of a generationally cursed people becoming chosen again via Smith’s “restoration”.

If a people are allegorically dark, does an allegory carry forward through generations and does an allegorically cursed people become allegorically chosen, or is it a literal chosen?

Good luck working that out.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And the Catholic church excommunicated him for his beliefs.

No they didn’t. He was never excommunicated.

 

[XuDan]

And the Catholic church excommunicated him for his beliefs.

I’m sorry to bore you with historicity, but it is important to correct the misinformation you present here. He wasn’t excommunicated for his beliefs, he was imprisoned for his actions. Specifically, for insulting the Pope. Things were going fine for him until he called the Pope “Simplicio” - the Simpleton. It wasn’t until his ad hominem retort that he was hauled in and imprisoned.

There is a massive difference between being excommunicated for your beliefs and imprisonment (or even excommunication for) being a jerk to the religious leader of the faith you identify with.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

The Christian bible was translated into the common language with a canon accepted by the western Church almost 400 years after the death of Christ

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

But yet, none of the locations, or people mentioned in the BoM can be found.

The DNA theory of mormonism has been soundly disputed by reputable authorities.

Horses and cement in the BoM are way off based upon the supposed timeframe of the book.

Let’s add in that smith didn’t “translate” the papyri correctly, since it is evidently a funerary text, and, there is no evidence to support the claim of the type of temple worship currently done by mormons.

I would have to say there is no proof that mormon church or the BoM are the church that Christ established, or for that matter, even closely related.

 

[jane_doe]

I don’t see that it matters.

It matters because you’re we’re discussing whether are not the way Catholics view the scriptures have changed through time. And that is important.

Previously you have stated that (me paraphrasing):

Mormon understanding of the nature of scripture has changed through time, whereas the Catholic view of scripture has not changed.

The first part (Mormon understanding of the nature of scripture has changed through time) has been established as fact. Both TOm and I freely admit it, willing elaborate on it, and views such change as welcomed growth.

The second part of the statement (Catholic views of scripture have not changed) is yet to be rigorously examined in this thread, which is what I’m trying to do. You say that Genesis creation is an allegorical account. Now, would a 1600 common-Catholic-person say that is was an allegory? Yes or no.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m sorry to bore you with historicity, but it is important to correct the misinformation you present here. He wasn’t excommunicated for his beliefs, he was imprisoned for his actions. Specifically, for insulting the Pope. Things were going fine for him until he called the Pope “Simplicio” - the Simpleton. It wasn’t until his ad hominem retort that he was hauled in and imprisoned.

There is a massive difference between being excommunicated for your beliefs and imprisonment (or even excommunication for) being a jerk to the religious leader of the faith you identify with.

Jane doe wants to eliminate anyone who wrote on the subject to try and make her point.
“Except for all the people who wrote in agreement with Church teaching, who do you got”

 

[iepuras]

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?

St. Augustine was bishop of Hippo. As a bishop, he preached to the people at least once a week if not more frequently. He was also a prolific writer, including writing letters to laypersons. So common people who attended Masses St. Augustine celebrated and preached at would know that certain passages of the Bible, including the creation story, are allegorical if they were paying attention. The laypersons he corresponded with probably also knew.

 

[jane_doe]

Jane doe wants to eliminate anyone who wrote on the subject to try and make her point.
“Except for all the people who wrote in agreement with Church teaching, who do you got”

As I said in post 281:
My point here is to compare the beliefs of a** common-Catholic-person today** (RebeccaJ) with an estimates of a common-Catholic-person’s beliefs in 1600.

It is an apple-to-apples comparison. Unless RebeccaJ is a professional theologian and in running for sainthood, comparing her to Augustine or other saints is not apples-to-apples.

 

[iepuras]

As I said in post 281:
My point here is to compare the beliefs of a** common-Catholic-person today** (RebeccaJ) with an estimates of a common-Catholic-person’s beliefs in 1600.

It is an apple-to-apples comparison. Unless RebeccaJ is a professional theologian and in running for sainthood, comparing her to Augustine or other saints is not apples-to-apples.

You are ignoring the fact that theologians such as St. Augustine did not exist in a vacuum. As I stated in a previous post, St. Augustine was a bishop who preached in Mass. Many theologians were and are bishops and priests who preach to their congregations. Do you really think that they never preached on such things before their congregations filled with common every day Catholics?

 

[iepuras]

Jane doe wants to eliminate anyone who wrote on the subject to try and make her point.
“Except for all the people who wrote in agreement with Church teaching, who do you got”

Exactly.

Because theologians never talk to ordinary people.

 

[Stephen168]

As I said in post 281:
My point here is to compare the beliefs of a** common-Catholic-person today** (RebeccaJ) with an estimates of a common-Catholic-person’s beliefs in 1600.

It is an apple-to-apples comparison. Unless RebeccaJ is a professional theologian and in running for sainthood, comparing her to Augustine or other saints is not apples-to-apples.

Augustine was Catholic.

Another point to consider is the Catholic Church has locked in almost zero bible verses to any official meaning.

Another thing to consider is Catholics don’t assume to know what others think or do unless they tell us. I’ve heard Mormons assume/judge a lot. So as a Mormon you are free to assume

 

[RebeccaJ]

It matters because you’re we’re discussing whether are not the way Catholics view the scriptures have changed through time. And that is important.

Not Catholics, the CHURCH.

Previously you have stated that (me paraphrasing):

Mormon understanding of the nature of scripture has changed through time, whereas the Catholic view of scripture has not changed.

Please keep my statement in context of what churches teach, not what individuals believe. Mormon understanding changes because what the Mormon church teaches, changes.

The first part (Mormon understanding of the nature of scripture has changed through time) has been established as fact. Both TOm and I freely admit it, willing elaborate on it, and views such change as welcomed growth.

The second part of the statement (Catholic views of scripture have not changed) is yet to be rigorously examined in this thread, which is what I’m trying to do. You say that Genesis creation is an allegorical account. Now, would a 1600 common-Catholic-person say that is was an allegory? Yes or no.

Some would, some would not. Galileo was Catholic, and had Catholic supporters, including a Benedictine abbot.

What did the Catholic Church teach? Galileo nor the Catholic Church addressed anything regarding the 7 days of creation. Most Catholics of the time viewed the creation account in Genesis as placing the earth at the center of creation, while some Catholics viewed the creation account of Genesis as not indicating anything of the kind.

Those who put Galileo, under what we would call today a house arrest, were strong believers of earth being the center, and they had as well the scientific backing for their beliefs. (Galileo’s heliocentrism was not just controversial for religious, it was for the sciences too.)

The Catholic Church had, and still has, no doctrine on the matter.

 

[Stephen168]

Exactly.

Because theologians never talk to ordinary people.

I wonder how Galileo got the word 800 years later?

 

[RebeccaJ]

As I said in post 281:
My point here is to compare the beliefs of a** common-Catholic-person today** (RebeccaJ) with an estimates of a common-Catholic-person’s beliefs in 1600.

It is an apple-to-apples comparison. Unless RebeccaJ is a professional theologian and in running for sainthood, comparing her to Augustine or other saints is not apples-to-apples.

Hi, common Catholics read theological commentaries and the writings of the Saints. Some of us are almost obsessed with reading. Others, not so much.

Pretty much, Church theologians are known and taught to young Catholics, in elementary school, and have been since the School of Alexandria.

 

[Telstar]

And the Catholic church excommunicated him for his beliefs.

No, it did not. He was sentenced to be ‘imprisoned’ under house arrest (if you can call living in a luxury apartment in Rome, and being free to come and go to visit family and friends in their homes, being imprisoned) for the last few years of his life, but he was never excommunicated.