Mormon Church Trying to Keep the Wheels On

[GKMotley]

Well, yes. Hence, Apocryphal.

Did you read the link?

 

[Horton]

I did read it.

 

[GKMotley]

And thus you know that the judgement on the document is that it is spurious, and dates from around the 4th century.

 

[lilypadrees]

There’s no “Gospel of Nicodemus” in the Holy Bible. If the book you’re reading has it listed in the contents, it’s time for you to get a new Bible.

 

[lilypadrees]

LDS

LDS claim that the BOM is a book of scripture, but we do in fact read the Bible. Biblical literacy is higher among LDS than it is among Catholics.

I haven’t seen any posts by anyone here on CAF claiming that Mormons don’t read the Bible. Many here, myself included, have however, noted that Mormons misinterpret the contents of the Bible. The way Mormons interpret it doesn’t agree with Christianity at all.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

LDS claim that the BOM is a book of scripture, but we do in fact read the Bible. Biblical literacy is higher among LDS than it is among Catholics.

I haven’t seen any posts by anyone here on CAF claiming that Mormons don’t read the Bible.

In the post to which I was responding you said:

Mormons claim to need the BOM to explain the Bible to them. Why not just read the Bible itself?

I said that LDS do read the Bible and are more familiar with its content than are Catholics.
This is the genesis for my comment.

You said:

Anyone who wants to understand the Bible needs only to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance as they read the Bible.

This is a common statement made by Protestants. I would suggest this is another example of you advocating Protestant Biblical ideas rather than Catholic Biblical ideas.
The Bible is not “formally sufficient” in the Catholic faith. This means that if Catholicism is true, the intelligibility of revelation/theology derives from elsewhere than the Bible. If you think this is not true you are at odds with Catholic scholars and IMO you are wrong.
The CoJCoLDS in my understanding views scripture very similarly to how Catholic scholars view scripture. Only, we have more scripture, a different authority, and much less emphasis upon orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodox are less orthodoxic and more orthopraxic than Catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is even more tilted towards orthopraxy).

Now concerning whose understanding aligns better to the Biblical record, I think there are many areas where LDS understanding is more Biblical than Catholic understanding. Simple things like Christ’s siblings and more complex things like the understanding of the Trinity are LDS strengths IMO. The continuation of marriage after death, assuming you (cradle Catholic I think) unlike some former LDS Catholics with whom I have dialogues do not believe the marriage relationship survives death, is a place where Catholics align better with the Bible.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“hint, hint”-- since JS couldn’t have done it, it must be from God. As I explained in another post, this is a fallacious argument. Those are not the only two options as Mormons would have you believe.

Chris,
I am interested in what non-Joseph Smith, non-divine theory you find to be more likely than “God was involved.”
I agree there are more than two options, I just think the idea that God was involved is far and away the most likely explanation for the Book of Mormon.
I think there are a great deal of problems with Catholic truth claims, but I am a LDS because I believe that the Book of Mormon came from God. If I ceased to believe the Book of Mormon came from God I would put down a pile of LDS problems and pick up a pile of Catholic problems.
Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

Once again, TOm, you are twisting what I said to get the meaning you want out of it. Please note in your quote of my words that did not say that Mormons don’t read the Bible. I said they claim to need the BOM to explain the Bible to them.

The Bible supports itself, TOm. It’s consistent. It doesn’t need books like the BOM to explain the meaning. All you have to do is read other books in the Bible with the same situation being related as the one you have questions about. Ask the Holy Spirit instead of your church’s leaders for guidance.

How nice of you to point out one area in which Catholics and Protestants are in agreement. (Seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit before and during the reading of Scripture after which we thank Him for increasing our understanding.)

As much as you’d like me to be, I’m not wrong about the Bible, TOm. Please note that we don’t claim that everything is written in the Bible. Nor are those things that aren’t written in the Bible to be found in your BOM.

Sadly for you, the Mormon (mis) understanding of Scripture is in no way similar to the understanding of Scripture by Catholic scholars whose Authority is Jesus Himself who gave us the Holy Spirit to be with us until He comes again.

Of course, you would view Mormon understanding as being more Biblical than Catholics. Yet, we have consistently proven your understanding of the things you listed and so many others to be wrong.

And no, marriage does not continue after death. It ends with the death of one or both if they die together.

 

[BrentS]

en.wikipedia.org

Gospel of Nicodemus​

The Gospel of Nicodemus, also known as the Acts of Pilate (Latin: Acta Pilati; Greek: Πράξεις Πιλάτου), is an apocryphal gospel claimed to have been derived from an original Hebrew work written by Nicodemus, who appears in the Gospel of John as an associate of Jesus. The title “Gospel of Nicodemus” is medieval in origin. The dates of its accreted sections are uncertain, but according to the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia scholars agree in assigning the resulting work to the midd The s…

Also listed in James’ APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT, which is where I always look first for such things.

It is not medieval in origin, it is as ancient as the other Gospels, but it was copied and copied down through the ages and the oldest copy we have is probably from the middle ages if higher criticism is to be believed at all.

 

[BrentS]

And thus you know that the judgment on the document is that it is spurious, and dates from around the 4th century.

How do you know their judgement of it was accurate? Just because they said so?

 

[BrentS]

I read it, it did not come from the 4’th century.

“hint, hint”-- since JS couldn’t have done it, it must be from God. As I explained in another post, this is a fallacious argument. Those are not the only two options as Mormons would have you believe.

Chris,

If the devil wrote the Book of Mormon, he would be tearing down his own kingdom, and it would not stand, for the Book of Mormon is against the kingdom of the devil in every place and magnifies Jesus Christ in every other place.

 

[RuthAnne]

And no, marriage does not continue after death. It ends with the death of one or both if they die together.

I just have an honest question. What did Father Cantalamessa mean here:

According to this vision, marriage does not come to a complete end at death but is transfigured, spiritualized, freed from the limits that mark life on earth, as also the ties between parents and children or between friends will not be forgotten. In a preface for the dead the liturgy proclaims: “Life is transformed, not taken away.” Even marriage, which is part of life, will be transfigured, not nullified.

Father Cantalamessa on Marriage in Heaven - Featured Today - Catholic Online

 

[GKMotley]

On this, I defer to both the Wiki article and M. R. James’ APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT, which is where I first learned of the Apocryphal NT works, in the sense of pseudepigrahia, many years ago. 4th century, as a whole, ideas in the second section that can also be found in 2nd century writings.

You go find some authorities you like and take comfort from them. It won’t bother me.

 

[Horton]

Quite a stretch there Tom. One priest’s commentary on a gospel reading. I’m sure you will be adding that to your list of “Catholic Scholars Who Don’t Agree with CAF Posters” file. It is the opinion of one priest and does not say what you think it says. He, in no way, supports the LDS theory of eternal marriage.

We believe the teachings of Christ, especially those teachings pertaining to eternal life which does not include eternal marriage.

 

[TOmNossor]

Quite a stretch there Tom. One priest’s commentary on a gospel reading. I’m sure you will be adding that to your list of “Catholic Scholars Who Don’t Agree with CAF Posters” file. It is the opinion of one priest and does not say what you think it says. He, in no way, supports the LDS theory of eternal marriage.

We believe the teachings of Christ, especially those teachings pertaining to eternal life which does not include eternal marriage.

I made no claims about Eternal Marriage and Catholics not knowing the Catholic teaching on this.
Also it was RuthAnne who took umbrage at Lily’s suggestion and found a Catholic priest who claims that the marriage relationship survives death.
I think I am correct ones non-LDS reaction to Eternal marriage is a Rorschach test.
Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

Since you claim that Mormons read the KJV Bible, TOm, here are several verses (of many on the subject of marriage) from that version for you to ponder.

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” - Matthew 22:30.

Mark 12:25 concurs.
“For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." Romans 7:2-3

The only marriage mentioned as being in Heaven is that between the Lamb of God and His bride, the Church.

Revelation 19:6-7 King James Version (KJV)

6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

Whether these verses are speaking of a literal marriage or speaking symbolically has often been debated. I leave it to the reader to decide.

 

[lilypadrees]

I’m unfamiliar with this priest, RuthAnne. Therefore, I am unable to answer your question.

 

[gazelam]

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” - Matthew 22:30.

Mark 12:25 concurs.
“For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

A non-Latter-day Saint scholar observed the following regarding these passages…

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?..Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state .” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328, italics added)

I hope this helps…

 

[lilypadrees]

It seems the post you’re responding to of TOm’s has been removed, Horton. And you’re right. Father’s commentary in no way supports eternal marriage. Note that Father C says this:

“…the death of a husband or wife, which brings about the legal end of a marriage…”

There is nothing in his commentary to even suggest that the marriage each couple had on earth ends on earth but continues in Heaven.

 

[lilypadrees]

(Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328

I’m unfamiliar with this person as well. But he has the right to his opinion.