LDS vs. Catholic View

[Esdra]

Hi folks,

as some of you may know, I’ve been studying a bit the theology of the LDS (and later on mainly the one of the RLDS) and there I’ve read that the LDS (and RLDS) Church interpret the following verse in bold for a sign for the peoples in the Book of Mormon:

Jn 10:7-18
[7] Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
[8] All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
[9] I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
[10] The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
[11] I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
[12] But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
[13] The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
[14] I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
[15] As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
[16] And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
[17] Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
[18] No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (KJV)

I mean, I know that the BoM is a fiction story and that therefore this can’t be true.
BUT what then does Jesus mean with the other sheep? The Gentiles? As far as I know the NT, Jesus never went to the Gentiles (although later on His Apostles did).
For He says in Mt 15:24, “But he answered and said, ***I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ***” (KJV)

Thanks for your answers in advance,

 

[Spencerian]

Hi.

Yes, the teaching I received (and noted in the USCCB New American Bible footnote here) indicates that Christ is referring to the Gentiles in this passage.

The NAB shows the passage, for comparison, as:

“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

 

[Jesus_123]

+You would be much better off studying Catholic Christian theology . . . LDS/Mormon theology and Christian and Catholic Christian theology are irreconcilablly incompatible . . .

• … I was raised as a child in the heart of “Mormon” country here in the United States … Though I knew many Mormons as friends in school and our neighborhood . . . their belief system is known to Catholics and Protestants alike essentially as a CULT . . . and it is an immensely large one . . . and their understandings, definitions and usage of the same religious and scriptural words are RADICALLY different . . .

Definition:

 

[ZDHayden]

This is the way I see it (I may be wrong, I’m a Latin scholar not a Biblical Scholar). I’ll use the Nova Vulgata, since Latin is a far more specific language. I will include a very rough, on the spot translation.

In 10:16 (NV):
“Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient et fient unus grex, unus pastor.”
[And I have other sheep, which are not from this sheepfold, and it behooves me to draw them, and my voice shall they hear and there shall be made one herd, one shepherd.]

Mt 15:24 (NV):
“Ipse autem respondens ait: ‘Non sum missus nisi ad oves, quae perierunt domus Israel.’”
[However, answering, he himself says, “I am not sent except to the sheep, which has come to nothing, the household of Israel.”]

Notice in the second, the entire passage is in the present tense. The second starts in the present [habeo], moves into a statement about duty [oportet], and then states that the reception of the duty [adducere] will be in the future [audi*ent].

Notice in the Latin that it says that he has other sheep, but not another flock. These sheep have to be adopted into the one flock.

The KJV is nice in its literary qualities, but it is not so nice in its doctrinal clarity.

Hope this helps.

 

[Esdra]

This is the way I see it (I may be wrong, I’m a Latin scholar not a Biblical Scholar). I’ll use the Nova Vulgata, since Latin is a far more specific language. I will include a very rough, on the spot translation.

In 10:16 (NV):
“Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient et fient unus grex, unus pastor.”
[And I have other sheep, which are not from this sheepfold, and it behooves me to draw them, and my voice shall they hear and there shall be made one herd, one shepherd.]

Mt 15:24 (NV):
“Ipse autem respondens ait: ‘Non sum missus nisi ad oves, quae perierunt domus Israel.’”
[However, answering, he himself says, “I am not sent except to the sheep, which has come to nothing, the household of Israel.”]

Notice in the second, the entire passage is in the present tense. The second starts in the present [habeo], moves into a statement about duty [oportet], and then states that the reception of the duty [adducere] will be in the future [audi*ent

].

Notice in the Latin that it says that he has other sheep, but not another flock. These sheep have to be adopted into the one flock.

The KJV is nice in its literary qualities, but it is not so nice in its doctrinal clarity.

Hope this helps.

Hi

very intersting. Thank you. Yes, this does help me. It’s a matter of tenses. I think I understand now.
Although, as far as I now, also in Future Jesus didn’t come in personam to the Gentiles, did he?
Normally I am not fond of the Vulgate, being a Baptist, - I rather prefer Greek (Although I know only really VERY little Greek), - but in this case this was very helpful. Thank you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You might find this thread to be of interest:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=554263

 

[Esdra]

+You would be much better off studying Catholic Christian theology . . . LDS/Mormon theology and Christian and Catholic Christian theology are irreconcilablly incompatible . . .

You know, the funny thing is, the Scriptures of the Mormons, especially the BoM (as the BoM is IMO, a Christian Book - and that the “non-Christian parts” in Mormon doctrine stem from the D&C and especially the Pearl of Great Price), drew me into the hands of the Baptist Church I am in at the moment. So, I really learned a lot which is really similar in Baptist doctrine.

Btw, I quit studying LDS doctrine per se and moved on to the RLDS doctrine which is, in my opinion, most definitely Christian.
Does the CC accept the RLDS baptism as valid, btw?

Well, actually, I am not studying the CC doctrine at the moment, but the Catechisms and Confessions of the Reformed Evangelical Churches (which are to a really great extant identical with the Baptist believe) and the Lutheran Evangelical Church.

 

[ZDHayden]

Hi

very intersting. Thank you. Yes, this does help me. It’s a matter of tenses. I think I understand now.
Although, as far as I now, also in Future Jesus didn’t come in personam to the Gentiles, did he?
Normally I am not fond of the Vulgate, being a Baptist, - I rather prefer Greek (Although I know only really VERY little Greek), - but in this case this was very helpful. Thank you.

Glad I could help. No, Jesus did not physically present Himself specifically to the Gentiles, but used His apostles, especially Peter and Paul.

I don’t know Greek, so I couldn’t give it to you. Latin is, however, as I said, a far more precise language and perfect for use in scholarship because of this.

If it matters, you may want to give a second look at the Nova Vulgata (neo-Vulgate). It may be the official Catholic Bible, but it is translated in a very neutral fashion. In fact, in Gen. 3:15, where most Protestant Bibles read “and he shall crush your head” and most (pre-modern) Catholic Bibles read “and she shall crush your head,” the Hebrew original is ambiguous here. As is the Nova Vulgata (which uses ipsum, the neuter, in this verse).

There are only a few things that mark it as an inherently Catholic Bible:
-it is the official Bible of the Church
-it is in Latin
-it contains the Deuterocannon

It is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew to such an extent that it is not founded upon doctrine, but rather scholarship.

OK, I’m done ranting

 

[Publisher]

Hi folks,

as some of you may know, I’ve been studying a bit the theology of the LDS (and later on mainly the one of the RLDS) and there I’ve read that the LDS (and RLDS) Church interpret the following verse in bold for a sign for the peoples in the Book of Mormon:

Jn 10:7-18
[7] Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
[8] All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
[9] I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
[10] The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
[11] I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
[12] But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
[13] The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
[14] I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
[15] As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
[16] And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
[17] Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
[18] No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (KJV)

I mean, I know that the BoM is a fiction story and that therefore this can’t be true.
BUT what then does Jesus mean with the other sheep? The Gentiles? As far as I know the NT, Jesus never went to the Gentiles (although later on His Apostles did).
For He says in Mt 15:24, “But he answered and said, ***I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ***” (KJV)

Thanks for your answers in advance,

Just a side note…the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) are moving very quickly away from any belief in the “prophesy” or historical basis of the Book of Mormon…this is more of a “Salt Lake” view.

 

[Esdra]

Just a side note…the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) are moving very quickly away from any belief in the “prophesy” or historical basis of the Book of Mormon…this is more of a “Salt Lake” view.

They start abandoning the BoM? Why, there are many good things in… It’s a “Baptist” book as we have already discussed here some months ago…?

 

[Publisher]

They start abandoning the BoM? Why, there are many good things in… It’s a “Baptist” book as we have already discussed here some months ago…?

No, they are not abandoning the Book of Mormon…it still…and as far as I know will continue to be considered scripture…but they are not giving credence to it’s “historical” basis any longer…nor have they published books as far as I know in the last 30+ years about it’s historicity…many…if not most of their apostles beleive it’s origins are from the 19th century…not 600BCE to 400CE.

 

[Esdra]

No, they are not abandoning the Book of Mormon…it still…and as far as I know will continue to be considered scripture…but they are not giving credence to it’s “historical” basis any longer…nor have they published books as far as I know in the last 30+ years about it’s historicity…many…if not most of their apostles beleive it’s origins are from the 19th century…not 600BCE to 400CE.

Yes, I knew that. But I think it still can be useful for teaching purposes - You could also describe it as a sort of Catechism, maybe.
I am quite sure, they use it that way.
At least I would, if I were in the presidency of the CofC!

 

[Esdra]

Just a side note…the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) are moving very quickly away from any belief in the “prophesy” or historical basis of the Book of Mormon…this is more of a “Salt Lake” view.

So, to stay on topic - a Christian being a member in the Community of Christ would also rather say the “other sheep” are the Gentiles, instead of quoting III Nephi 7:20?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Why, if you are not converting, are you studying the LDS faith to this degree? It is NOT a Christian church by any definition (except their own). There is no Christian Church in the world that will accept the Mormons as being Christians…

 

[Esdra]

Why, if you are not converting, are you studying the LDS faith to this degree? It is NOT a Christian church by any definition (except their own). There is no Christian Church in the world that will accept the Mormons as being Christians…

I said I STUDIED the LDS faith - and then moved on to studying the RLDS faith.
I know that the LDS is most definitely not Christian, don’t worry.
This was all on my way to where I am know - a Baptist. And actually, my search for Jesus has come to an end here.
And my big advantage is that I have a very good memory - so I still know pretty much about the LDS Church (and even more about the RLDS Church, or better said the Communtiy of Christ) (what one can get to know about it without being a member or studying with one. - Meaning by studying their scriptures alone, also with their Study Helps printed at the End of the BoM and the Triple Combination. Btw, their Study Helps were really useful partly for understanding the Baptist faith also.)

 

[Publisher]

So, to stay on topic - a Christian being a member in the Community of Christ would also rather say the “other sheep” are the Gentiles, instead of quoting III Nephi 7:20?

I have RLDS friends…I don’t remember then even discussing the “other sheep”…but from what I’ve read in the Herald…that is correct.

 

[Esdra]

I have RLDS friends…I don’t remember them even discussing the “other sheep”…but from what I’ve read in the Herald…that is correct.

Interesting. Mhm, I like somehow the CofC. They are sympathic to me.

But that bears the question why they don’t abandon the BoM, if they don’t stick to its teachings anyway… Only a piece of historic document? Same goes for the D&C where they only use the newer sections (section 150 onward approximately), as a CofC minister told me per email I have written with once.

 

[Publisher]

Interesting. Mhm, I like somehow the CofC. They are sympathic to me.

But that bears the question why they don’t abandon the BoM, if they don’t stick to its teachings anyway… Only a piece of historic document? Same goes for the D&C where they only use the newer sections (section 150 onward approximately), as a CofC minister told me per email I have written with once.

As I understand…it still is “inspired writings”…so why abandon it? Just as most Christians pay very little attention to the OT…so now many of the Community of Christ base no longer base their teachings and preaching on the Book of Mormon…and to be honest the Book of Mormon, except for a few very beautifully worded passages, really says nothing that the Bible doesn’t say better.

I don’t see the Community of Christ elevating the BoM again like their LDS cousins do…there are still many members that enjoy and use the BoM…it IS a book of scripture to them…with roots in the 19th century for sure…but scripture just the same.

The D&C has many sections rarely cited…especially beginning in the RLDS edition where many sections are High Council appointments…I believe McMurray or Veasey changed that situation…now only revalatory documents are included in the D&C…not High Council appointments…much of the D&C is of historical interest. I don’t think the “appendix” is even published in the newer editions of the D&C.

 

[Esdra]

As I understand…it still is “inspired writings”…so why abandon it? Just as most Christians pay very little attention to the OT…so now many of the Community of Christ base no longer base their teachings and preaching on the Book of Mormon…and to be honest the Book of Mormon, except for a few very beautifully worded passages, really says nothing that the Bible doesn’t say better.

I don’t see the Community of Christ elevating the BoM again like their LDS cousins do…there are still many members that enjoy and use the BoM…it IS a book of scripture to them…with roots in the 19th century for sure…but scripture just the same.

I see.

The D&C has many sections rarely cited…especially beginning in the RLDS edition where many sections are High Council appointments…I believe McMurray or Veasey changed that situation…now only revalatory documents are included in the D&C…not High Council appointments…much of the D&C is of historical interest. I don’t think the “appendix” is even published in the newer editions of the D&C.

Yes, you are right, I have the newest edition of the D&C (up to section 163 of 164) and there is no appendix anymore.