Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Well that has been the point in the last bit of exchange.
- Status
P
Peter_John
Guest
:banghead:Around 1987 while mopping the orderly room floor of my Army unit I overheard an NCO and an officer discussing an upcoming field problem. The officer was a butter-bar 2nd Lt. fresh out of ROTC. The NCO was a Master Sergeant wearing his Vietnam combat patch. The LT was saying , “Yeah, but in a combat situation …”
I feel about the same way as I felt then when I hear a Mormon accuse an informed Catholic of disregarding Biblical teachings. This is impossible to do in Catholicism because the Bible was compiled to support existing liturgy and tradition, not to define liturgical practice.
Claiming that God the Father has a physical body not only disregards Biblical teachings, but Book of Mormon teachings as well. Affirming that Jesus would completely remove His authority from the Earth disregards Biblical teachings (you will cite verses that say there must be a falling away before Jesus returns, and I agree there was. It was called the Reformation.) Disregarding seven books of the Old Testament, as the Protestant canon does, disregards Biblical teaching. Disregarding eight books, as Mormonism does (rejecting Song of Solomon as well) disregards even more Biblical teachings.
Rewriting huge portions of the Bible, as Joseph Smith did, to make them agree with his own professed revelations completely disregards Biblical teaching. Affirming that God caves in to human authority, as the LDS Official Proclamation ending plural marriage does, thouroughly disregards Biblical teaching. Affirming that Man’s will can thwart God’s will, as do some parts of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, expressly contradicts the entire message of the Bible.
Stating, “We belive the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly,” rejects the entire Bible, because part of the message of the Bible is that the Holy Spirit worked through the translators to complete his message … and some mistranslations served to complete the message. “Behold a virgin shall conceive” should have read “maiden” or “young girl” – and in the circumstances for which it was written it was understood as a prophecy for something much more immediate to the king of that time. That verse merely set the stage for what Isaiah wrote next for his contemporaries. For that matter some of the New Testament epistles were actually mutliple letters that got transcribed into one source, and it diminishes there truth none to perceive them as one, if that is how God wants us to understand them.
Not only that, but Job is very little like the pre-Abrahamic Canaanite legend that existed before much of the other oral tradition that got compiled into Genesis. It went through several creative versions at different times before it took on the form we find it in now. The Psalms are poems and do not all express valid dogma, but the people’s perception of valid dogma at that time. That makes them no less true.
The Bible is the story of God’s covenant people continually accepting only part of His message, or rejecting it altogether, and His continuing to honor the covenant anyway. Affirming that their unfaithfulness following His incarnation as Christ led to him no longer honoring the covenant absolutely disregards the Bible in its entirety.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, SteveVH,
I’ll try to explain further about “free will choice” in the context of offering a different Biblical insight than the one a person has had as one of their foundation beliefs.
First, missionaries do seek to “influence understanding and persuade”, but they do that by asking a person to read the Bible, read other scriptures, think, ponder, pray with a sincere question in their heart and a desire for an answer, and thus make their own “free will choice” using direct communication with God through the Holy Ghost and their own personal initiative. If they’re following counsel, then they won’t be “pushing people into a corner” through any means of persuasion or seeking to defend a point of view using the Bible. That is counter to how the Holy Ghost would ever become involved–if the listener felt “cornered”; because that would mean their free will choice had been hampered.
(Hesitant to use the example of this situation, but with apologies here we go.) My response was to one who had presented a point of view that seemed completely thought out (not just off the top of his head) so I was concerned about “backing him into a corner” because that would not allow him to come to an earnest, on-his-own conclusion using the Bible and the seeking of personal inspiration. It just is not in the best interest of someone to “back them into a corner” in any conversation, particularly one dealing with discerning truths about the gospel of Jesus Christ and about how the Savior’s redeeming grace is given to the world in abundance as prophesied by Isaiah.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Peter John,
My comment was as follows:
It was a simple comment regarding a simple statement. It focused on three words, none of which your response dealt with directly, so I suggest that the conversation broke down. I unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on point of view) don’t have either the time or the interest to go down the many paths your comment here brought up. I have gone down those paths before in this forum, and honestly don’t like to be redundant.
Thanks for sometimes having positive comments about aspects of Latter-day Saint beliefs or culture, and wishing peace to all readers.
T
Tony888
Guest
Steve, you are very confused. Perhaps this turn of phrase will help you understand
It’s the Catholics who insist their Pope is infallible, while everyone else claims he is not
It’s the LDS who inisist their President/Prophet is a mere sinful man, while everyone else claims he is not
The LDS do not believe everything uttered by the president is the divine world of God!
If you want to quote official doctrine, then please refer to official sources.
The JOD is not LDS Doctrine.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Is your prophet an official source?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Maybe, but we’re not the one’s making the argument.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
That is not an accurate “turn of phrase”.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Hey Parker, long time no talk to.
Not to start off on a negative note, but that has certainly not been my experience with Mormon missionaries. I have never had one tell me “I’m just here to encourage you to read the Bible and pray to the Holy Spirit”. Sorry, its never happened. I have had them ask me “wouldn’t you love to spend eternity with your wife and family?” My answer, of course, is “Yes, and I plan on doing just that”. Honestly, I have always wished they would send someone with a little more experience as they always end up with the deer in the headlights look and very seldom are able to answer my questions. And then I feel bad because they are so young and I see my own sons standing there and don’t have the heart to press the issue. But no, it has never been that innocent of a statement.
Now you know how I felt.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Some how I don’t believe that you back Soren1 into a corner with your interpretations and understandings. Your ideas don’t somehow make someones well thought out point of view just go poof leaving them stuck in a corner with yours. It seems to me a bit egotistical on your part to think that your opinions carry such great power.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, SteveVH,Hey Parker, long time no talk to.
Not to start off on a negative note, but that has certainly not been my experience with Mormon missionaries. I have never had one tell me “I’m just here to encourage you to read the Bible and pray to the Holy Spirit”. Sorry, its never happened. I have had them ask me “wouldn’t you love to spend eternity with your wife and family?” My answer, of course, is “Yes, and I plan on doing just that”. Honestly, I have always wished they would send someone with a little more experience as they always end up with the deer in the headlights look and very seldom are able to answer my questions. And then I feel bad because they are so young and I see my own sons standing there and don’t have the heart to press the issue. But no, it has never been that innocent of a statement.
Now you know how I felt.
It sounds like “they” never got far enough into a conversation to get to that point of suggesting “pray about it.” But that is just fine. It boils down to the fact that the plan of salvation that leads to the opportunity for exaltation, includes sifting processes to allow people to figure out for themselves what they really want, deep-down, regarding such a thing for example as “eternal marriage” as compared with “eternal really close friends”, so
having provided at least a glimpse of a possibility to you they fulfilled their role of being a “messenger” with a message. It gave you a chance to confirm a choice you have already made, and solidify it in your mind which is fine.
Have a great day.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The point is that they came to influence me, to change my beliefs, not to ask me to read scripture and pray. And your notion that I or any other Catholic are taught to believe that we will just be “eternal really close friends” is inaccurate. I believe I will have even a more intimate relationship with my wife in heaven than I ever could here on earth. But it will be a heavenly relationship in which marriage is as unnecessary to our relationship as eating food will be in order to sustain my glorified body. It all changes, Parker. We, together, will be the Bride of Christ. That is the only marriage ever mentioned in heaven and indicates the closeness we will have with our Lord and each other.
Peace, my friend.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
People who do not understand what infallibility are projecting on to our belief that the papacy is a dictator or a few steps below God.
You can explain and explain, but it takes alot of time to remove that filter, because it is also drilled into people by fundamentalist preachers who themselves have inherited alot of ideas coming from the backwoods of America…far from our Judeo-Christian roots.
People who go to Mass and begin to understand it, are amazed at just how much of Scripture is part of the Mass, and fulfills the Word of God.
I wonder as well how much time Mormons spend evaluating other religions. It always comes across to me with all the temple building drawing on every day Mormons’ paychecks…that these are being used in some way to have Mormonism replace Catholicism…through these so called baptisms of the dead.
You can’t find reason in just one person. But Mormonism would rather believe in Joseph Smith and all his allurements and promises than that of Jesus Christ.
Christ founded only one church, and that is the Catholic Church.
You can explain and explain, but it takes alot of time to remove that filter, because it is also drilled into people by fundamentalist preachers who themselves have inherited alot of ideas coming from the backwoods of America…far from our Judeo-Christian roots.
People who go to Mass and begin to understand it, are amazed at just how much of Scripture is part of the Mass, and fulfills the Word of God.
I wonder as well how much time Mormons spend evaluating other religions. It always comes across to me with all the temple building drawing on every day Mormons’ paychecks…that these are being used in some way to have Mormonism replace Catholicism…through these so called baptisms of the dead.
You can’t find reason in just one person. But Mormonism would rather believe in Joseph Smith and all his allurements and promises than that of Jesus Christ.
Christ founded only one church, and that is the Catholic Church.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
People here have explained over and over what you said I will have even a more intimate relationship with my wife in heaven than I ever could here on earth but it never seems to get through. Perhaps he feels pushed in a corner by everyone.
P
Peter_John
Guest
I suggest a different way to look at this. The Pope is an official and authoritative source, but we only consider him fallible when he asserts this infallibity in dogmatic publication. Though we do not consider him a prophet anymore than any Christian, and though he makes no such claim, we take infallible declarations as dogma (and I am trying to put this in terms that can be generally undertood, not the formal terms we often use ourselves).
Pope Benedict XVI, for example, has just published his second volume of Jesus of Nazareth. He affirms unequivocably that this is not a statement of Catholic dogma, but sharing his personal consideration of Christology.
Mormons not only feel the same way about their prophets and other authorities, they consider it scripture as the principle is contained in the Doctrine and Covenants. Really since Joseph Smith no LDS leader has been able to just declare something doctrine (dogma) on his own and make it so. Even in Joseph Smith’s case the Council of Twelve had to accept his revelations to make them scripture – but he pretty much had their rubber stamp.
Brigham Young did expound and speculate a lot, and in many ways carried greater weight of authority than did Joseph Smith, as he also secularly governed a territory that covered Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, and California (I’m thinking that Monterey was an LDS colony, but I cannot recall for sure).
Regardless, his only unique contribution accepted as LDS scripture was section 136 of the Doctrine and Covenants which involved instructions on moving west lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/136?lang=eng.
He was a party to section 135, the declaration that Joseph Smith was a martyr and had done more for Salvation than any man but Christ, but John Taylor who actually succeeded Young as LDS President (and who was nearly killed by the same mob that killed Smith) wrote it. Only one other individual LDS President has claimed a vision accepted as scripture, and that was Joseph Smith’s nephew when he was a very old man. Two official declarations are considered scriptural, but they involved corporal decisions, not just the vision of one man: the end of polygamy and African descendants being permitted to hold the priesthood.
Young did bring D&C Section 89 into more narrow focus. That is the Word of Wisdom, the LDS code of health. As it is written it is not a commandment, encourages vegetarianism, does not define what hot drinks are, limits alcohol restriction to liquor - “hard drinks”. It actually encourages prudent consumption of beer or ale (soft beverages made from grain). All of these are consistent with existing cultural movements of the day (in England for example gin mills for commoners were getting replaced with pubs and alehouses intentionally).
Young acting as Prophet defined hot drinks as coffee and tea – but one reason he did this was because LDS members were starving rather than drinking soup, and this even though the Word of Wisdon was not a commandment. The narrower focus on any alcohol, and the increasing emphasis on its role as a commandment, began with Young and culminated with Heber J. Grant in the early 20th Century, when the final prohibition on Coffee became emphasized – and we’re talking 1930s and 1940s now. (This rattled an LDS Apostle named J. Golden Kimball who had been a cowboy, drank a lot of coffee. Anecdotally he occasionally asked waitresses to mix coffee in with his hot chocolate).
As far as non-scriptural authority, “The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” carries about the same weight in Mormonism as the writings of the early Church Fathers do in Catholicism. The books “Jesus the Christ” and “Articles of Faith” by James E. Talmage were specifically commissioned by the Council of Twelve to educate LDS members, so they carry heavy weight. From time to time the Twelve or the First Presidency make authoritative statements.
I would finally say that it is hard for Mormons to dismiss formal Church manuals. I give the Institute manuals first weight, Priesthood lesson manuals second weight. The most important thing about LDS lesson manuals is how they have changed over such a short time. As some posts in these pages note, many doctrines strongly affirmed in older lesson manuals now get diminished expression. That just shows, whether they agree with it or not, that Mormonism suppoorts revelation by tradition as well.
If one 20th Century LDS authority will stand out above all others, I expect it will be Gordon B. Hinckley. Even before being a general authority he worked for the church as the writer (beginning with him, a desk, and a typewriter) of its media content. For most of the 20th Century he wrote or suprevised the writing of most LDS media. he is pretty much the father of the contemporary LDS PR machine. He also wrote the Church’s own official abbreviated history of itself, which missionaries are required to read. He influenced how LDS perceive themselves through media, and the face they show the world, more than any other LDS leader of the 20th Century.
While his preceding Presidents were aging and ill he often became the fallback guy to provide extra assistance to the First Presidency, and I think he served as an uncharacteristc third counselor for awhile. He began developing the new approach to temples (smaller, more localized) long before he became LDS president. In short, he changed forever the way LDS observe their religious practices.
P
Peter_John
Guest
Your statement is invalid. What we believe about papal infallibility directly compares to what Mormons believe about the LDS President’s prophetic role. I expound on this in detail in my prior post. The sinfulness of many of our past leaders is right there for the world to see in history. The difference is, we do not try to justify it, as LDS apologetics does for the scandals committed by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Now J. Golden Kimball offered some promise for this to change, but it never transpired. When Paul H. Dunn was caught having lied in official capacity for decades he was quietly retired, but kept his authority. The church employee who exposed him was fired. We could go back and forth on it all day. The simple fact is we do not consider our own leaders as far removed from humanity as you perceive, and you do not in practice acknowledge your own leaders imperfections as much as you profess.
I do agree that the JOD is not LDS Doctrine – However, that does not keep a lot of traditional Mormons from considering it so, as well as Bruce’s Bible – particularly in Utah, Idaho, and Western Colorado. When I was in the MTC 30 years ago it amazed me how many Utah missionaries considered it doctrine that blacks would be white in the resurrection.
T
Tony888
Guest
Not sure if I follow you
If the President/Prophet talks about his favorite food, he’s giving his opinion as a human being on what he likes.
If the Presidehnt/Prophet jointly with the Twelve Apostles issues a proclamation, they are communicating as an ‘official source’ of doctrine. This happens very rarely and only after extensive prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit.
P
Peter_John
Guest
That is a misconception. Catholics do not believe that such a thing as 1/3 of the Trinity can exist. The Trinity is one, indivisible.
Your statement of LDS belief is also not completely accurate, as you do not believe that Jesus always had a body, and you believe that the Holy Ghost will someday get a body.
The first major differnce in LDS/Catholic perception of the Incarnation of Christ is that Mormons believe Jesus HAD TO get a body. To do this he HAD TO be born of woman. They believe the Holy Ghost HAS TO get a body some day, and for that matter, that the Father HAD TO get a body before he gained the status he has now. Is that incorrect?
Catholics believe God’s omnipotence is complete, not relative. He could have created himself a body anyway that he chose, even from absolutely nothing. He chose to be born of woman. He chose to be raised in a family. This was what the whole Creation was about.
The second major difference is only because Mormons do not believe what their own Book of Mormon says about it, affirming that Jesus the person was not the Eternal Father himself. As Alma says in your Book of Mormon, Jesus is the Very Eternal Father. As God told the Brother of Jared in your Book of Mormon, he did not have a physical body, but showed himself to the Brother of Jared in the form he would have when he took on a physical body (this by the way negates the value of any Biblical reference to the body parts of God, or to Moses seeing God as evidence that the Father has a body). As the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon states, Mary is “the Mother of God after the manner of the flesh.”
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Holy Father speaks infallibly on faith and morals within Revelation, and doing so, is always affirmed by bishops and believer around the world, because not only does the Holy Father speak but with the Holy Spirit, and the same Holy Spirit lives within us…
The same Holy Spirit lives within us. Each of us are Alter Christus.
So the Holy Spirit affirms in us what is truth, what is infallible. We are now kowtowing in our obedience.
The same Holy Spirit lives within us. Each of us are Alter Christus.
So the Holy Spirit affirms in us what is truth, what is infallible. We are now kowtowing in our obedience.
P
ParkerD
Guest
SteveVH,
“They” certainly would have gotten to the point of “asking [you] to read scripture and pray” if the conversation had continued for very long–more than twenty minutes or so.
My response wasn’t suggesting I was presenting what you “are taught to believe”. You may call those intimate relationships in eternity whatever you choose to call them, and no doubt they will be joyful and fulfilling–wonderfully so–but they won’t be an eternal marriage and they will be what you desired and chose for yourself, so it’s just fine and is as it should be.
- Status