LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[lax16]

That claim is implicit in 1holycatholic’s post, lax.

No he meant it was assembled by the Catholics and if we are all so off track, why use it?

OH, how to answer that one…

lax,…CHRISTIANS were around early, and remember, we’re Mormons. We don’t think you DID keep error from creeping in. Neither, by the way, do the Protestants, or they wouldn’t have protested.

**Monday Morning Quarterbacks - except your Monday came 1500-1800 years later. **

As to whether Catholics have been perfect at this…though y’all have been very, very, very GOOD at it, I’m going to have to mention the Johanine comma…

This I’ll have to look up!

I personally don’t think that “Catholics” (as a church) think any such thing. I don’t think that Catholics as a group of people think any such thing. 1holycatholic, however, by telling Mormons that we don’t have a right to quote from the bible because it is a ‘Catholic book,’ certainly seems to be making that claim. After all, if it is the Word of God, then anybody may believe in it and quote from it–without being Catholic, specifically.

**He meant it was assembled by the Catholic Church. **

Indeed…though there is some difference of opinion as to what ‘the rock’ actually is.

Yes, I keep hearing that but I keep researching it and it always is the same. Peter!

 

[1holycatholic]

Todd - when did I say that?

I called the Bible a Catholic book because that’s a historical fact. Historical facts and LDS doctrine are incompatible.

I also stated that multiple gods are impossible. True philosophy and LDS doctrine are incompatible.

 

[Todd520]

Todd - when did I say that?

1holycatholic said it in #203

 

[SirThomasMore]

Mormons accepting the Bible is more evidence that there was no Apostasy. The Bible was compiled during the time of the alleged Apostasy. Catholics claim the Spirit guided all the men who compiled the Bible, and that men, with God’s authority, did so.

Mormons accept that.

So, more evidence there was no Apostacy

 

[lax16]

lax,…CHRISTIANS were around early, and remember, we’re Mormons.

Diana - CATHOLICS were around early.

What “Catholic” Means

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos)”, or more colloquially, “universal.” **At the beginning of the second century, we find in the **letters of Ignatius its first surviving use in reference to the Church. At that time or shortly thereafter it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

Ignatius of Antioch - “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp - “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 A.D. 155]).

The Muratorian Canon - “Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church. . . . Of [the Gnostics] Arsinorus, also called Valentine, and of Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those also who wrote the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians [we do not accept]” (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian - “Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago–in the reign of Antonius for the most part–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 A.D. 200]).

Council of Nicaea I - “But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,’ and ‘before he was born, he was not,’ and ‘because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the **Catholic Church **anathematizes” (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea A.D. 325]).

Council of Nicaea I - "Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, ‘the Clean,’ if at any time they come to the **Catholic Church *, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy. However, because they are accepting and following the doctrines of the Catholic and apostolic Church, it is fitting that they acknowledge this in writing before all; that is, both that they communicate with the twice married and with those who have lapsed during a persecution" (canon 8).

 

[lax16]

As to whether Catholics have been perfect at this…though y’all have been very, very, very GOOD at it, I’m going to have to mention the Johanine comma…

Thanks for bringing this up - I never heard of it before. I always like to learn something new.

Q: Define “Johannine Gloss.”

A: The Johannine Gloss or Johannine Comma, as it is more commonly known, is an interpolated passage which appears in 1 John 5:7-8, shown here in brackets: “For there are three who bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.”

The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains that "the bracketed phrases appear in the [Vulgate] version of the Bible, the official version of the Sacred Scriptures for the Latin Rite of the Church. Among scholars these phrases are commonly called the ‘Johannine Comma.’ On the basis of manuscript evidence scholars seriously question their authenticity. The Comma is absent in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the exception of four rather recent manuscripts that date from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.

"The Comma is lacking in such ancient Oriental versions as the Peshitta, Philoxenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. While the majority of the Latin manuscripts of 1 John do contain the Comma, the earlier and better manuscripts, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, lack it. The earliest manuscript in which it appears dates from the ninth century. ’

"The Fathers of the East do not quote or refer to the Johannine Comma in their Christological controversies. This omission indicates that the Comma was not part of the biblical text of their time, for they surely would have used it had it been in the text. Some fourth-century Latin writers, while referring to 1 John 5:8b and giving this a Trinitarian interpretation, failed to give any indication that they knew of the existence of the Comma as a scriptural passage.

“Due to the overcritical spirit that was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Church considered it necessary in its decree of the Holy Office of January 13,1897 to caution its scholars against rashly rejecting or doubting the authenticity of this passage. However, in a decree of June 2, .1927, the Holy Office clarified its earlier statement in declaring that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. No scholar any longer accepts its authenticity. **But even though the Comma is not a biblical passage, it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the [early] Christian was fully Trinitarian.” **

At least it doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching on the subject!

 

[1holycatholic]

Mormons accepting the Bible is more evidence that there was no Apostasy. The Bible was compiled during the time of the alleged Apostasy. Catholics claim the Spirit guided all the men who compiled the Bible, and that men, with God’s authority, did so.

Mormons accept that.

So, more evidence there was no Apostacy

Mormon doctrine is self-refuting in so many ways.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m glad that you agree that there is no historical evidence for Mormonism prior to Joseph Smith. He couldn’t restore what never existed so he fabricated the syncretist religion of Mormonism in the early 1800’s.

We don’t claim that Joseph Smith restored Mormonism. The claim is that Jesus Christ restored the fullness of Christianity…and by appearing to Joseph Smith, made him a prophet, by definition.

 

[dianaiad]

No we don’t think families will be utterly dissolved upon death.

You don’t?

Where is the chapter and verse about that one?

We don’t believe we will be producing spirit children and as perfected human beings our relationships will also be perfected. As a result the dual purpose of marriage, procreation and unity, will no longer be needed in heaven. The relationships we’ve formed though, those will continue on in heaven.

Again, where is the chapter and verse about this? Remember, I was responding to the claim that the answers were all there in the scriptures…by which I imagine that she meant the Catholic canon. I"m not talking here about hope. I’m talking about a specific claim that all the answers are completely spelled out.

How does being married enable people to be together in heaven? Are you forbidden from being with people who are not your family in heaven? Or maybe many would choose not to be with their spouse if there were no marriage, making it somewhat more of an obligation?

Hey, don’t ask me these questions. The claim was that the answers were spelled out. I was challenging that. It’s not up to me to prove that you do NOT believe this or that. The claim was that the answers to these questions was spelled out. So…I’m asking for the references.

 

[dianaiad]

Another of the big Mormon lies. They know it isn’t true, but oh, how they love to say it.

Uhm…it’s in your wedding vows. Specifically. As well, it’s one of the standard ploys against our practice of proxy work for the dead…the mockery goes “and everybody is going to live together under one roof, and the children will live with their parents forever? What about THEIR children?”

You can’t HAVE this both ways, Paul.

However, I will be very glad to acknowledge my fault, and to apologize profusely and humbly if you can show me where, in scripture or Holy Tradition or the catechism or anywhere at all, some official scripture or the equivalent that shows how Catholicism teaches that the family will be together after death, or that husbands and wives will be together.

 

[dianaiad]

And of course Dianaiad has been here long enough to know better.
An aside I ended up on-line looking at LDS because of 2 sets of pugnacious missionaries who presented this view of my belief. The second time (set) really ticked me off, all the synonyms for pugnacious (aggressive, contentious, irritable, belligerent, combative, antagonistic, argumentative, bellicose, quarrelsome) plus the phrase “in your face” applied to this pair. The only thing missing was arrogance, which was present in abundance.

Obviously not.

But I’ll make the same offer to you that I made to Paul, and I’ll say right now that I sincerely and honestly hope you FIND it! This is an apology that I would be most pleased to make.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

That claim is implicit in 1holycatholic’s post, lax.

No he meant it was assembled by the Catholics and if we are all so off track, why use it?

If he meant that, then he should have written that. He didn’t. As you can see, nobody disagrees with the fact that the Catholic church compiled the canon. It was his claim of Catholic ownership–as in “Catholic authorship” that was rather obvious, and not just to me.

dianaiad:

.

As to whether Catholics have been perfect at this…though y’all have been very, very, very GOOD at it, I’m going to have to mention the Johanine comma…

This I’ll have to look up!

It’s 1 John 5:7-8. you can find one examination of it here: bible-researcher.com/comma.html

It IS a fun one.

Most of the sites I found are rabidly on one side or the other of it; the sites written by biblical inerrentists are also fun to read.

The best part is this: neither Mormons nor Catholics think that this little addition invalidates the scriptures…only strict biblical innerentists get the willies.

dianaiad:

I personally don’t think that “Catholics” (as a church) think any such thing. I don’t think that Catholics as a group of people think any such thing. 1holycatholic, however, by telling Mormons that we don’t have a right to quote from the bible because it is a ‘Catholic book,’ certainly seems to be making that claim. After all, if it is the Word of God, then anybody may believe in it and quote from it–without being Catholic, specifically.

He meant it was assembled by the Catholic Church.

With all due respect, lax, that’s not what he WROTE. Therefore deciding that he meant 'assembled by the Catholic Church" is pure eisegesis. I believe that HE, however, has since stated that he meant ‘assembled,’ but since that’s not what he wrote, you can’t get upset at those who react to what he did, actually, write.

dianaiad:

Indeed…though there is some difference of opinion as to what ‘the rock’ actually is.

Yes, I keep hearing that but I keep researching it and it always is the same. Peter!

And I keep diagramming the sentence and it keeps referring back to…revelation.

 

[dianaiad]

I called the Bible a Catholic book because that’s a historical fact. Historical facts and LDS doctrine are incompatible.

I also stated that multiple gods are impossible. True philosophy and LDS doctrine are incompatible.

OK, there seems to be a difuglety here about what you MEAN by the bible being “A Catholic Book.” Could you be specific?

 

[1holycatholic]

OK, there seems to be a difuglety here about what you MEAN by the bible being “A Catholic Book.” Could you be specific?

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church.

I’ve covered this already in the thread.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for bringing this up - I never heard of it before. I always like to learn something new.

Q: Define “Johannine Gloss.”

A: The Johannine Gloss or Johannine Comma, as it is more commonly known, is an interpolated passage which appears in 1 John 5:7-8, shown here in brackets: “For there are three who bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.”

The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains that "the bracketed phrases appear in the [Vulgate] version of the Bible, the official version of the Sacred Scriptures for the Latin Rite of the Church. Among scholars these phrases are commonly called the ‘Johannine Comma.’ On the basis of manuscript evidence scholars seriously question their authenticity. The Comma is absent in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the exception of four rather recent manuscripts that date from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.

"The Comma is lacking in such ancient Oriental versions as the Peshitta, Philoxenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. While the majority of the Latin manuscripts of 1 John do contain the Comma, the earlier and better manuscripts, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, lack it. The earliest manuscript in which it appears dates from the ninth century. ’

"The Fathers of the East do not quote or refer to the Johannine Comma in their Christological controversies. This omission indicates that the Comma was not part of the biblical text of their time, for they surely would have used it had it been in the text. Some fourth-century Latin writers, while referring to 1 John 5:8b and giving this a Trinitarian interpretation, failed to give any indication that they knew of the existence of the Comma as a scriptural passage.

“Due to the overcritical spirit that was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Church considered it necessary in its decree of the Holy Office of January 13,1897 to caution its scholars against rashly rejecting or doubting the authenticity of this passage. However, in a decree of June 2, .1927, the Holy Office clarified its earlier statement in declaring that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. No scholar any longer accepts its authenticity. **But even though the Comma is not a biblical passage, it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the [early] Christian was fully Trinitarian.” **

At least it doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching on the subject!

That’s the biggest reason I love the Johannine comma and those who defend it…the defense is, as it is here, “well, it’s not really scripture, but it goes with our beliefs so it SHOULD be scripture.” The problem is, it’s about the only place in the bible where the doctrine of the trinity as Catholics explain it is found. Very circular.

 

[lax16]

If he meant that, then he should have written that. He didn’t. As you can see, nobody disagrees with the fact that the Catholic church compiled the canon. It was his claim of Catholic ownership–as in “Catholic authorship” that was rather obvious, and not just to me.

With all due respect, lax, that’s not what he WROTE. Therefore deciding that he meant 'assembled by the Catholic Church" is pure eisegesis. I believe that HE, however, has since stated that he meant ‘assembled,’ but since that’s not what he wrote, you can’t get upset at those who react to what he did, actually, write.

Diana - Okay I didn’t see it that way…It seems to me a way for Todd to avoid answering some of the tougher questions by making a whole lotta somethin’ outta nothin’.

 

[dianaiad]

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church.

I’ve covered this already in the thread.

No, my friend, do you mean that the Catholics compiled it, or that it was written by Catholics, or what, precisely?

Remembering that those of us who are not Catholic dispute the idea that Christianity is bound up entirely in Catholicism…and that goes for Protestants as well as Restorationists like us.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana - Okay I didn’t see it that way…It seems to me a way for Todd to avoid answering some of the tougher questions by making a whole lotta somethin’ outta nothin’.

I saw it too, lax…and he has since muddied the waters even further. I think I’m going to wait until he clears things up a bit.

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s the biggest reason I love the Johannine comma and those who defend it…the defense is, as it is here, “well, it’s not really scripture, but it goes with our beliefs so it SHOULD be scripture.” The problem is, it’s about the only place in the bible where the doctrine of the trinity as Catholics explain it is found. Very circular.

The doctrine of the Trinity is found in many places in Scripture. The thing is, it doesn’t matter if it’s there or not. Christianity is not a “religion of the book” like Islam. Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, and the “Word” of God is Trinitarian - three persons in one God. Christ established the Catholic Church - the pillar and foundation of truth. Mormonism has no foundation.

 

[lax16]

And I keep diagramming the sentence and it keeps referring back to…revelation.

That’s why I let experts weigh in on this - obviously I am not a bibical scholar, but these guys are:

christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/peter-the-rock-and-the-confession-matthew-1617-19/

Even some Protestant scholars agree that Peter is the Rock!