Mormon Church Trying to Keep the Wheels On

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-Wa1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So by what authority did anyone practice any translation of the Christian New Testament before it was written? How did the New Testament actually become written?

I mean no offense. I’m open minded but I find it necessary to test your worldview to understand my own.
 
Last edited:
catholicray said:
So by what authority did anyone practice any translation of the Christian New Testament before it was written?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. I just don’t know what is meant by “practice any translation of the Christian New Testament before it was written”.
catholicray said:
How did the New Testament actually become written?
Click to expand...
Well. early apostles provided guidance to individuals and communities, and some of those letters are contained in the New Testament. Also, four separate accounts of the ministry of Jesus were recorded and everything was grouped together as The New Testament. (But, I think you already know this.)
catholicray said:
I mean no offense. I’m open minded but I find it necessary to test your worldview to understand my own.
Click to expand...
No offense taken and I’m not sure what your worldview is.

For more info on the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Bible, please refer to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entries for the Bible and The New Testament.
 
I’ll take a crack at this since the other answer you received seemed to dodge the issue. The authority was not in the New Testament because it was not yet written down or compiled. The authority was (and is) in the office of bishop through apostolic succession. The Church came before the New Testament. The Church decided in councils hundreds of years later what books were to be included in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church used its authority to compile the New Testament, accepting some books as divinely inspired and rejecting others as not divinely inspired. These were actual decisions the Church had to make, decisions which were debated in the councils. No matter what you may believe about the Catholic Church, it is indisputable that the Catholic Church was the organization that put the New Testament together. So when you acknowledge the truth of the New Testament, you also unwittingly acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church who compiled it. Otherwise, how do you know the books contained in the New Testament are the correct ones, and how do you know the books rejected from the New Testament are not? Chance? They got lucky? Or maybe they didn’t get it right?

And this all happened AFTER the alleged Great Apostacy that Mormons claimed removed all authority from the Church. So in their view (whether they realize it or not) the Church had no authority to do anything so important as putting the New Testament together–the same New Testament they regard as divinely inspired. If that is true, then the bible must be suspect.
 
Last edited:
My worldview is Roman Catholic. So much so that if you ask me who, what, why, or how I am, my first response would be Roman Catholic as the official summary.
 
catholicray said:
My worldview is Roman Catholic. So much so that if you ask me who, what, why, or how I am, my first response would be Roman Catholic as the official summary.
Click to expand...
OK. Please fire a question at me regarding the New Testament. (I’m not going to guess what the Roman Catholic worldview is for you and then start responding to questions I think one might have who is of the Roman Catholic worldview.)
 
No worries and I understand and find that respectful so thank you.

First I think the Catholic Church is fully responsible for the acceptance and rejection of different books concerning the canon of the New Testament. The New Testament is a culmination of Catholic Sacred Tradition.

Do you agree with that?
Also why do you reject the Catholic Church (in your own summary please)?
 
gazelam said:
I’ve had a witness from the Holy Spirit that it is God’s word.
Click to expand...
And that witness is? Definitely not the Holy Spirit since many of us have already shown that your founder, Joseph Smith, plagarized the true written Word of God and other books in order to come up with the BOM.
 
And I’m sure LDS are able to do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to make both statements true simultaneously. That is the logic of Mormonism.
 
Last edited:
catholicray said:
No worries and I understand and find that respectful so thank you.

First I think the Catholic Church is fully responsible for the acceptance and rejection of different books concerning the canon of the New Testament. The New Testament is a culmination of Catholic Sacred Tradition.

Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...
Regarding the first question, I do not believe that the Catholic Church today has authority to act in the name of God, that would include selecting the canon of the New Testament. (As an aside, I’m certainly grateful for all those who made the effort anciently to preserve those sacred writings that bless us today.)

Regarding the second question, I’m not Catholic so I don’t know if the New Testament is a culmination of Catholic Sacred Tradition. However, this CAF tract describes Scripture and sacred tradition as companions in the “true rule of faith”, as opposed to one being the culmination of the other.
catholicray said:
Also why do you reject the Catholic Church (in your own summary please)?
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, the New Testament prophesies of a falling away of the church that Christ established per verses, such as, these:

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed…

The New Testament also prophesies of a “restoration of all things”.

Acts 3:20, 21 and that the Lord may grant you times of refreshment and send you the Messiah already appointed for you, Jesus,

21 whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.

So, in a nutshell I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fulfillment of the restoration spoken of in these verses.

I hope this helps…
 
I appreciate your response.
How do you interpret the term universal as it relates to “universal restoration”? How does that relate to JCLDS
 
catholicray said:
I appreciate your response.
How do you interpret the term universal as it relates to “universal restoration”? How does that relate to JCLDS
Click to expand...
From the aspect of what are synonym phrases, biblehub shows that other Bible versions use phrases, such as, “restoration of all things”, “restore everything”, “restoring of all things”, “restitution of all things”, etc. (I often copy the text from the USCCB website since we’re on a Catholic forum. Hence the phrase “universal restoration”.)

The practical implication is that Priesthood authority is restored, the ancient organization is restored, i.e., a living Prophet and living 12 Apostles (and other officials), ongoing public revelation as the Lord sees fit to give, missing doctrine restored (i.e. creation ex-materia) , correct practices are restored, such as, baptism solely by immersion, and a prohibition against infant baptism. It does not mean every last teaching was lost (10 commandments, etc.)

And there’s also the possibility of something new being revealed that God had withheld earlier per D&C 128:18: And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

I hope this helps… (Much to digest.)
 
So I’d simply like to offer my Roman Catholic perspective on the verses you shared, as well as share a few of my own. Enjoy or dislike at your leisure.

First you have to understand that I am very careful to ever isolate any one verse though I do from time to time.

Acts 20:29 in context with the rest of the letter indicates to me that, before Paul makes that statement, context reveals he is speaking to a specific congregation rather than the Church as a whole. I think you would have a better argument if, for example, Paul was speaking to the Apostles instead.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 runs into this same issue as the letter was written and give to the congregation in Thessaloniki. Further context reveals that this isolated passage is written in the context of false teachers who would come teaching that Christ had returned. There is a certain sense in which Paul is saying to retain his teaching in the face of false claims of Christ’s return.

Acts 3:20-21 There is a little issue here in word difference. Mine says, “whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke”. We’d need to have a conversation as to why universal restoration is the accurate translation. From my translation universal completion would be the idea being conveyed. Even so universal restoration speaks to this in a sense anyways. What part of the book of Acts would suggest that universal restoration is specifically speaking about the Church rather than all of God’s creation?

I think for me the evidence is not convincing. Matthew 16:18 says Jesus founded a Church which the gates of Hell (alternatively, death) would not prevail against. Furthermore from my perspective The covenant God established in the Old Testament was not deestablished nor did God reject His people rather he calls the into continuity and restoration in the New covenant through his only begotten Son.

Anyways just some (name removed by moderator)ut to chew on. God bless.
 
catholicray said:
The covenant God established in the Old Testament was not deestablished nor did God reject His people rather he calls the into continuity and restoration in the New covenant through his only begotten Son.
Click to expand...
It is important to understand that Mormons are dispensationalists and we are not. They see the bible as a series of failed dispensations, where God re-establishes the church over and over again, each time a failure because of the wickedness of the people. And of course they see their church as the final dispensation which will be successful.

We on the other hand see the bible as ONE story of the gradual building of God’s family through a series of connected covenants, culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of His worldwide family, the Church. Jesus fulfills and surpasses the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, which is everlasting.
 
Last edited:
catholicray said:
Also why do you reject the Catholic Church (in your own summary please)?
Click to expand...
The official reason why Mormons reject the Catholic Church is because they believe that we are an abomination, that our leaders are corrupt, that our hearts are far from Christ, that we teach the teachings of man, not of God, and that we deny the power of God.

Of course, they don’t tell you that.

Don’t be seduced by fake Mormon kindness.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Mormons one meets in person won’t say it. But the ones we engaged in dialogue with on the now defunct Amazon Discussion Boards were very expressive, to put it mildly, about how they were “the better Christians” because (insert whatever reason) and because both God and Jesus have visited all but one of their Temples.

To which I always responded, “Those who have to say they’re better than others aren’t. Try some humility instead of bragging about what you think you are and you might actually fool people into believing you.”

Needless to say, the truth didn’t sit too well with them.😇😇😇
 
Last edited:
To anger a Mormon, tell them the truth about their religion.
To anger a Catholic, tell them a lie about their religion.
 
In the Restoration Branches there is no marrying of men with men women with women or men with more than one woman or visa versa.
 
Are you saying the LDS never had a teaching that allowed men to marry more than one woman?
 
This was the official doctrine of the Church until at least 1876:

“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top