Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[MEgus]

You know, this is a very goo point. A badly translated Bible is definitely NOT the Word of God that we all expect from the Holy bible.
And this brings up another good point re: the Catholic Church.
It was the Catholic Church which first assembled the Books into the bible, from Books written by Catholic Christians, during the 300 years of the Church. Thus is it that we, as Catholics, look for an imprimatur in the front of a Bible. It means that the Translation has been reviewed by the very church which assembled the Bible in the first place. It gives us great assurance as to the accuracy of the translation.
In addition, we are able to call upon the Early Church Fathers and nearly 2000
years of Church teaching as to actual and correct interpretation.

As for the Book of Mormon, there was a comment made on this thread or another that the BOM was first published with errors in it and that is because it was translated by Humans, who are of course fallible.
A thought occurred to me in that regard.
JS was sent to find the plates by an angel correct?
He was told to translate them, also by an angel correct?
This was done so as to restore, through JS, the True and Correct gospel of Jesus Christ, correct?
So thenm how is it that the very first time the plates are translated into English, God’s chosen prophet, through whom the gospel is to be restored, got it wrong.

I’m not trying to be confrontational here. These are logical questions I must ask. We are not talking about some committee of human translators trying to discern the exact nuance of ancient greek and hebrew texts so they can issue a new version of the Bible. Here we are talking about God’s Hand Picked Prophet - Charged with the Restoration of Christ’s Church on Earth.
It seems strange that Christ would permit his hand chosen prophet to get it wrong the first time.

Peace
James

James, they didn’t.

But, after it was originally translated. They produced a “printers” copy. This was hand copied from the original. Then this printers copy was taken to the printer and he type set by hand the words.

In both of these processes human err could creep in and did.

The original was correct and done with the power of God.

Same could be said for Bible books. The originals were perfect, but copies could have been corrupted because of the errors of man.

MEgus

 

[PaulDupre]

zerinus:

Bishops were not Apostles and never have been. Bishops are bishops and Apstles are Apostles. Two different things.

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

• Acts 1:16-20

 

[MEgus]

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

• Acts 1:16-20

Paul, since this is suppose to be a quote from a scripture in Psalms, can you show me that scripture?

MEgus

 

[wilsonpd]

First- Polygamy

There will be some who will practice this who lived when it was ordained of God. Just like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and several other old testament prophets. And those of the early Church when God commanded it
But for the most part, it will be one man and one women as it has been for the most part of the Lords kingdom on earth. Just as it says in the Book of Mormon in Jacob.

Only those who lived when the Lord commanded it will live that law.

Thank you for that clear answer.

]Apostasy: Two aspects. One, the loss of Priesthood Authority
Other, plain and precious truths, the main one being the Nature of God

I think that I am beginning to understand that we misunderstand each other because of terminology. On the other had we do believe that the authority was passed down through Bishops. JRKH explained why we believe this and why it is true and since this is a forum for asking LDS to clear up their beliefs I won’t try to turn it into a debate. Having said that I would like to ask the LDS members to suspend what they believe for a moment and just ask themselves if this COULD be true. I feel like, from reading some of your posts, that you are good, intelligent people. God obviously wanted his church to succeed and flourish and Catholics have explained how it did and how it does today. Just consider it.

Third, ask those nice young missionaries to ask their mission President if God had sex with Mary. I’m sure they will come back with a different answer.

MEgus

I will do that. I am meeting with them today. We should have no shortage of things to talk about

 

[zerinus]

Yes - this is what is stated in the Pamphlet. It would be good if we could have a common understanding of words. It seems to be a real stumbling block.

It is not a “different understanding of words”. It is a difference in theology. Our theological understanding of “angel” is differnet from yours.

 

[zerinus]

Thanks for the clarification and correction.

Of course the problem is that the LDS confuses the term “Apostle” or “One who is sent” with an Office, being the 12 closest disciples who were named the Apostles.

Being an Apostle was an office. They were ordained to that office, and their number was always keept at 12, and even after the death of the Jesus that number was always kept at 12. The Bilshops were not Apostles.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Being an Apostle was an office. They were ordained to that office, and their number was always keept at 12, and even after the death of the Jesus that number was always kept at 12. The Bilshops were not Apostles.

zerinus

this is simply not true. the LDS have 15 apostles currently and have done that a number of times. JS went quite some time with NO apostles while presuming to act authoritatively. the BoM has 24 apostles, with 12 amongst the nephites at the same time that 12 were in israel. LDs doctrine then has 4 during the “great apostasy”, the 3 nephites and John. (which actually means they have 19 now).
the bible has 13 at one point. the bishops are the successors of the apostles since the apostles called them to preside over the church and the definition of apostles that they (the apostles) give appears to show it was a one time only calling just as there can no longer be a “high priest” because Jesus is now the high priest forever.

 

[JRKH]

James, I would just not that these are present day terms for Apostles. Not the terms at the time the Lord made them.

MEgus

Hmmmm-
I would need to see a source for this. Preferably a Scholarly Greek source indicating that the term “Apostle” in ancient times is different than that applied today.

If anything I would say that the application today is more restrictive in that we equate Apostle with the 12 Chosen by Jesus as His main missionaries.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Correct!

We believe the keys to Priesthood Authority rested with the Apostles. That only through them could the office of Bishop be bestowed on those who God chose by revelation.

I think I can explain this in a way that might make sense. For instance, suppose the Pope ordained a Bishop who went to a tropical Island and established a Church. On this Island there were many called as Deacons and a few priests. One day, a tropical storm comes along and the Bishop and all the priests are killed. Only the Deacons remain. These deacons decide to get together and choose a new Bishop. They choose one of the Deacons and ordain him to be their Bishop. He then calls others and ordains them priests and the church continues. Now, several hundred years go by and again the head of the Church comes to this Island. Here are the questions.

Would they still have Priesthood keys?

Would the Bishop be considered a Bishop by the Catholic Church?

MEgus

This presumes a lot that is unlikely but I will try to answer.
First of all, Since a Bishop was sent to this Island in the first place it presumes that there is communication between the Island and the outside world. Thus it is unlikely that the Deacons would be unable to seek help from Holy Mother Church.
Also I certainly don’t know how a Church Scholar might answer this.
However, for the sake of discussion -

If the Above scenerio occurred and all fully ordianed priests were killed, and the Deacons knew they were cut off they MIGHT choose after much prayer and deliberation to follow the course you suggest. All the while continuing to try and reestablish communciation with The Church in Rome.
Since you are refering to a time of several hundred years, it is obvious that by the time communication is reestablished, there would have been several gernerations of Bishops appointed and naturally there might have been some changes in Canon Law etc over teh centuries. However, so long as the Episcopate continued to minister within the rules of the Church there would not be a break in the guidance of the Holy Spirit nor a break in the Apostolic line. After all the Deacons themselves were commissioned by the Bishop.

As for whether the Church would choose to leave the Bishop or replace him would depend upon a number of factors. There certainly would be an investigation into the state of the Church on the island; the practices used might be bit out of date and that sort of thing.
My guess is that as long as the interem Bishop and Priests had acted and taught in ways consistant with the Church as they knew it, and they are willing to be re-educated to be brought up to date, that they would be accepted byt the Church. The most I could think that the Church might do is send a New Bishop and ask the “interem Bishop” to step down or to act as a “co-adjutor” during the time of re-intigration of the Church into full communion.

Now let me ask you a question.
What would happen if, during a meeting of the 12 Mormon Apostles there was a fire and they were all killed? Clear Break in Apostolic Succession.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

this is simply not true. the LDS have 15 apostles currently and have done that a number of times. JS went quite some time with NO apostles while presuming to act authoritatively. the BoM has 24 apostles, with 12 amongst the nephites at the same time that 12 were in israel. LDs doctrine then has 4 during the “great apostasy”, the 3 nephites and John. (which actually means they have 19 now).
the bible has 13 at one point. the bishops are the successors of the apostles since the apostles called them to preside over the church and the definition of apostles that they (the apostles) give appears to show it was a one time only calling just as there can no longer be a “high priest” because Jesus is now the high priest forever.

Actually this brings up an interesting point.
The Apostles Called men who were named “Bishops” to preside over the Church after them. The Apostles Layed hands upon them and invoked the same Holy Spirit as Jesus had sent to the original disciples on Pentacost.
In other words, the Apostles, “Bound on Eearth” that these Bishops be their successors. Therefore, Because they "Bound it upon Earth’, it is “Bound in Heaven”.

By using the very Authority that Jesus gave to them, to bind and loose, the apostles assured that Christ’s FULL authority would continue after they died. We can discuss names and terms all day, but this one fact pretty much trumps all others.
Christ, in two places affirms this authority to the Apostles; first to Peter himself and then later to all the Apostles. And what may they bind and loose? “Whatever”.

Add to this the fact that not only the Roman see, but several of the Orthodox sees can trace their roots back to a specific Apostle and it is clear that Apostolic Succession has remained intact.

Peace
James

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

this is simply not true. the LDS have 15 apostles currently and have done that a number of times. JS went quite some time with NO apostles while presuming to act authoritatively. the BoM has 24 apostles, with 12 amongst the nephites at the same time that 12 were in israel. LDs doctrine then has 4 during the “great apostasy”, the 3 nephites and John. (which actually means they have 19 now).
the bible has 13 at one point. the bishops are the successors of the apostles since the apostles called them to preside over the church and the definition of apostles that they (the apostles) give appears to show it was a one time only calling just as there can no longer be a “high priest” because Jesus is now the high priest forever.

What do you think this means?
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[majick275]

What do you think this means?
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

me personally? i think it means St. Peter was the first pope and that the catholic church was established personally by Jesus Christ.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

me personally? i think it means St. Peter was the first pope and that the catholic church was established personally by Jesus Christ.

Really?? That’s all that means to you? Don’t let your pride stand in the way of the truth. You know what that passage means!

 

[zerinus]

this is simply not true. the LDS have 15 apostles currently and have done that a number of times. JS went quite some time with NO apostles while presuming to act authoritatively. the BoM has 24 apostles, with 12 amongst the nephites at the same time that 12 were in israel. LDs doctrine then has 4 during the “great apostasy”, the 3 nephites and John. (which actually means they have 19 now).
the bible has 13 at one point. the bishops are the successors of the apostles since the apostles called them to preside over the church and the definition of apostles that they (the apostles) give appears to show it was a one time only calling just as there can no longer be a “high priest” because Jesus is now the high priest forever.

Not true.

zerinus

 

[jblake]

JRKH;:

This presumes a lot that is unlikely

Intentional or not, it does parallel a historical situation.

most I could think that the Church might do is send a New Bishop

In the historical instance, the Catholic Bishop forced everybody to convert, claiming that they were not Christians, and executing those Christians who refused to convert to Christianity.(Said Christians didn’t understand why they were not considered to be Christians.

jonathon

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you for that clear answer.

I think that I am beginning to understand that we misunderstand each other because of terminology. On the other had we do believe that the authority was passed down through Bishops. JRKH explained why we believe this and why it is true and since this is a forum for asking LDS to clear up their beliefs I won’t try to turn it into a debate. Having said that I would like to ask the LDS members to suspend what they believe for a moment and just ask themselves if this COULD be true. I feel like, from reading some of your posts, that you are good, intelligent people. God obviously wanted his church to succeed and flourish and Catholics have explained how it did and how it does today. Just consider it.

I will do that. I am meeting with them today. We should have no shortage of things to talk about

Your question…about asking us to suspend belief and ask ourselves if it ‘could’ be true?

That is a question…THE question…that is in play. Mormons are all very well aware that everything hinges on that idea of continuation of priesthood authority–it was either lost, or it was not. If it was, then it would need to be restored and restored in a divinely miraculous manner. That…would be us.

If it was not lost, then you have it.

It’s not such a stretch for us, y’see, to consider whether you might be right–but the thing is, we don’t think you are.

Just as you don’t think we are.

 

[dianaiad]

this is simply not true. the LDS have 15 apostles currently and have done that a number of times. JS went quite some time with NO apostles while presuming to act authoritatively. the BoM has 24 apostles, with 12 amongst the nephites at the same time that 12 were in israel. LDs doctrine then has 4 during the “great apostasy”, the 3 nephites and John. (which actually means they have 19 now).
the bible has 13 at one point. the bishops are the successors of the apostles since the apostles called them to preside over the church and the definition of apostles that they (the apostles) give appears to show it was a one time only calling just as there can no longer be a “high priest” because Jesus is now the high priest forever.

You were doing fine until you got to “the bishops are the successors…” because THAT is where the hitch lies for us. As well, you seem to have forgotten that for a ‘one time only’ calling, there were quite a few who were given it.

Paul, Mattias…you know, those guys? Paul is the classic prophet/apostle; never having met Christ in life, he received revelation and was sent to be taught–and was called to be an apostle.

Rather like the guys we have doing that now.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul, since this is suppose to be a quote from a scripture in Psalms, can you show me that scripture?

MEgus

21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.

24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

26 For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded.

27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.

28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

• Psalm 69

Psalm 69 is a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. Simon Peter saw Judas as one these wicked men who persecuted him who was smitten. His citation of thos prophecy was Peter’s pronouncement that Judas would be blotted out of the book of the living.

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

• Simon Peter speaking in Acts 1:20

The bishoprik part of Acts 1:20 was original with Peter, who understood the primary ecclesial role of the Twelve as bishops (apostolic bishops, not Mormon bishops). Note the colon in Acts 20, indicating the translators’ understanding of the two parts of the verse - the fulfilment of the prophecy of David and the resulting pronouncement by Peter.

 

[The_Smiter]

As the “Can the Mormon Church be the True Church” thread has gotten a bit crazy since I was last on, I am starting a new one to ask a couple of questions.

NOTE – To anyone who wishes to Post Here, Please Keep this thread on the topic of What Mormon’s Actually Believe and is Documented. We, as Catholics, get rightfully frustrated when others “tell us” what we “believe”. Let us use the same courtesy to others. Mormon Beliefs can be found readily on line. One Place is HERE.

I was discussing the idea of the Keys being withdrawn from earth because there were no more “Apostles”. That is, there was no longer a valid “Priesthood”.
This is taken from the Mormon Publication “The Restoration” on page 8 where it says, “With the death of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, the truth was lost once again.”

Now suffice it to say that I find this to be an extraordinary statement. But let’s look at it a bit. The Mormon position is that, the Apostles failed, or did not, call additional Apostles and this resulted in the loss of the “Valid Priesthood”. But why should it?

First of all, what does the term “Apostle”, mean. Does it mean “One who receives revelation? No it does not. It means one who is sent forth. Did Jesus only send the twelve? Again, no He did not. On the great mission during Jesus lifetime he sent out 70, including the twelve, in pairs… So obviously His power was not restricted to the twelve.
Again, if we look at Pentecost, does the Holy Spirit come only to the twelve? No. For it says in Acts 2:1 that, “When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Does “all” mean just the twelve Apostles? Not according to a previous Statement in Acts 1: 13-15 we get a number at around 120 of faithful disciples gathered in the upper room.

So Now if we look at Acts2:1-4 we see
“1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the R55 whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

This seems to fly in the face of the Mormon belief that Revelation through the Holy Spirit of God was limited only to those called Apostles.

Add to this the fact that, when the Apostles layed hands on anyone, they invoked the Holy Spirit in Christ’s name. It is inconceivable that The Apostolic power and mission died with the original Apostles.

I will add one more thing from the pamphlet “The Restoration”. It can be found almost verbatim HERE. IT says:

“This apostasy led to the formation of many churches with conflicting teachings. Without the full gospel or the priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures? and the principles and ordinances? of the gospel of Jesus Christ. False ideas were taught as truth, and much of the knowledge of the true character and nature of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. The doctrines of faith? in Jesus Christ, repentance?, baptism?, and the gift of the Holy Ghost? became distorted or forgotten. Each generation inherited a state of apostasy, as people were influenced by what previous generations passed on, including changes to Christ’s gospel. Some inspired people, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, recognized that practices and doctrines had been changed or lost and tried to reform the churches to which they belonged. Without the priesthood authority, however, Christ’s gospel could not be returned to its original form.

You’ll note that this skips completely over nearly 1500 years of Church History and goes refers directly to Luther and Calvin. It then states that these people were not successful so the Restoration waited until the 1830’s. That’s nearly 1700 years of Apostasy, which is longer than the time from the Exodus until the time of Christ’s birth.

Did God ever abandon Israel for such a time in the OT?
The answer is no. Did He chastise His people – Yes He did, but He never abandoned them.

So by Mormon belief, Christ abandoned His Church for 1700 years.

To me, this makes no logical sense when compared to the Old covenants an the Promises of Christ to the Apostles to Build a Church and to be with Her until the end of the Age.

Peace
James

It is my understanding that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is A son of God, but not THE son of God.

I guess my question is - without playing semantic games - do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is God made Man, that He is one person in the Trinity that includes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ lived as fully human and fully divine and that He suffered and died on the cross to pay for our sins? I do not want to get oo Catholic in terminoligy - but I think I hit the high points.

If this is what Mormons believe, then I have been mistaken.

In a note of charity - I love to see Mormon me3n and women out on their missions and wish it were something that Christian faiths would adopt in a more prevalent manner for people at such an age.

 

[dianaiad]

It is my understanding that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is A son of God, but not THE son of God.

I guess my question is - without playing semantic games - do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is God made Man, that He is one person in the Trinity that includes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ lived as fully human and fully divine and that He suffered and died on the cross to pay for our sins? I do not want to get oo Catholic in terminoligy - but I think I hit the high points.

If this is what Mormons believe, then I have been mistaken.

In a note of charity - I love to see Mormon me3n and women out on their missions and wish it were something that Christian faiths would adopt in a more prevalent manner for people at such an age.

“Without playing semantic games?”

That’s not possible. You are playing them right now, with your claim that Mormons believe that Jesus is only A son of God, not
THE son of God.

There really isn’t any way to get around our belief that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, although I do prefer your way of making the point that we also believe that we are all children of God in a spiritual sense–it certainly addresses the issue with more grace than “Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.”

The difference between 'Only Begotten Son of God" and the rest of us, however, is NOT a semantic game. It is a very real difference. Huge.

Then you change the subject…linking your idea of the Trinity to this claim about our beliefs regarding the Paternity of Christ…as if they were synonymous. They are not.

As to 'semantic gaming"…well, one man’s semantic games are another woman’s attempt to clearly communicate.