Mormon shift toward more traditional Christianity?

[Catholic_Dude]

Tom:

Within the Catholic Church it is not always obvious if the Pope is or is not exercising the charism of infallibility. Here is a quote. Was this an exercise of Papal Infallibility?

Im not sure if it was, but at the same time there was “nothing new” to say in it. It was only 10 years ago that that quote was said, and long before that that same position has been held. I found the page at the vatican www and looked it over in a few minutes (it was a short document). From the title it is an important letter, but in the first paragraph he states this is nothing new. Im not an expert by any means on this subject, but I dont see anything groundbreaking with what it has to say.

Here is my breakdown, this is my opinion of what I see in that last paragraph of the letter:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)
From the timing of it, it came shortly after the Anglicans set a new low. And like many of the “standards” the British set, others tend to jump on their bandwagon of bad influence. This letter seems to me to be a “friendly reminder” to those “Catholics” who feel the need to “modernize” and he beats them to the punch.

I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Here is the “tough” part. The reason why Im not sure is because this statment has been infallibly made in history, so I dont see why it would need to be here. There is nothing complicated about the situation. If this topic had never come up, then I would say yes he was speaking infallibly. From what I see in the overall context is that this letter is an modern re-affirmation of a position that always been held.

I look to Peter’s change when he extended the gospel to the gentiles. Previously Jesus Christ had said that the Apostles were not to go to the gentiles, but after Christ was gone Peter received supernatural public revelation. This came through a vision and an interpretation of that vision, and Peter declared that the church would change so that the gospel would go to the gentiles. This was accepted by the leadership and the church at the first council.
St. Peter never “extended” the Gospel to the gentiles the way your making it sound. Jesus already talked about spreading the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Jesus extended his reach to Gentiles here and there, and never commanded anyone to be circumcised. St Paul goes on and on about how faith in Jesus makes the Christian and not circumcision, here is one example:
Col2-11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

LDS claim that Peter’s charism is identical to Gordon B. Hinckley’s charism when it comes to receiving revelation and leading the worldwide church. This is a very big part of the restoration.
They cant be identical for many reasons. For one when Peter spoke that was that, when a LDS speaks it still has to be confirmed by a vote. And its not the same situation at the first council vs. OD2 in terms of what was at stake, in OD2 they were already accepted as members, this only extended them privileges.

Also, Peter personally, and the Bible account generally sure suggest that supernatural public revelation was the pathway to this truth and that it was in fact a change from what existed before.
Yes there was revelation involved, but that doesnt mean it was pulled out of thin air, Jesus did come also for the Gentiles and there are many passages that say so.
And about the way things were before, as you know there was a time when there was no such thing as Jew and Gentile, only God and man.

One truth associated with this whole event is that gentiles could become Jews through accepting the gospel and being circumcised. … So “all the nations” does not require that non-Jews are being targeted. And it is certainly true that the apostles (Peter included) did not think “all the nations” included gentiles before his vision.
In the first part Im guessing you mean they could become Christians by first being cirucumcised and then accepting the Gospel? That was a tough question that had to have some authoritative answer.
About the “all nations” stuff, it was clear that that included all people, if one was jew or not was irrelevant to the fact that anyone could become a Jew and then accept the Gospel if they had to. And as I said before this was a tought question but Paul stated over and over how circumcision was not what counts and how that phase in salvation history is completed through Jesus.

 

[Jerusha]

Until the Mormon church gives up the BOM, and repudiates the racism and anti-Catholic bigotry that are so deeply ingrained into their culture, it cannot be a part of mainstream Christianity. Those things are foundational, so it just isn’t going to happen.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560851813/qid=1097501459/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-1582045-4277461?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

exmormon.org/blacks1.htm

thetruthaboutmormons.info/racist-past.html

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon327.htm

Any technical discussion of the changes to the BOM is not going to change the fact that it was a confabulation by a group of con-artists and false prophets, and is fundamentally flawed.

 

[wademann]

There are many black people who know all of this information and still are active in the church!!! Some famous ones are Gladys Knight and Thurl Baily. They have studied the Gospel and through the Spirit have come to know the truth. They became members even though they came up against many obstacles, mostly from there own families and other blacks. What a testamony they must have!!! They both have chapters in a book called “Why I Believe”. I can’t remember the author. What do you think of that?

 

[mormon_fool]

mormon fool:

A very interesting question. I am going to have to deviate from your scenario a bit to ones that are more realistic to illustrate some dynamics.

I just wanted to mention the last post of mine was me going out on a limb. I don’t know that many other of my fellow Latter-day Saints would recognize an “informal common consent” dynamic as I have described. They would probably prefer me to not to stray too far from the formal process that I used the EOM to describe on another thread. Furthermore, when I tried to make observations from historical events I engaged in interpretting them in a way to fit my pre-conceived conclusions.

So the real answer to tdknick’s hypothetical question is “I don’t know”. If such an event were to occur (i.e., members not accepting a prophetic revelation presented for canonization), it would be a disaster. I would hope things work out differently before they get to that point.

 

[ex-mormon]

Jerusha:

Until the Mormon church gives up the BOM, and repudiates the racism and anti-Catholic bigotry that are so deeply ingrained into their culture, it cannot be a part of mainstream Christianity. Those things are foundational, so it just isn’t going to happen.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560851813/qid=1097501459/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-1582045-4277461?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

exmormon.org/blacks1.htm

thetruthaboutmormons.info/racist-past.html

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon327.htm

Any technical discussion of the changes to the BOM is not going to change the fact that it was a confabulation by a group of con-artists and false prophets, and is fundamentally flawed.

Jerusha,

I see that you are new here. Links to Anti-Mormon sites will buy no credence in your posts. If you go to those sights you will find that the bulk of them are also Anti-Catholic as well. Most of the people are so angry at the LDS Church that they will go to any length to destroy it. Is that a Christian motivated way to explain to our Mormon Brethren what we believe vs. what they believe, I don’t think so. I would say that these individuals are motivated by hate for a Religion that they felt deceived them. My screen name may be ex-mormon, but in no way does that make me Anti-Mormon, with that said what are the good things you can say about the Mormon Church or it’s members. I could go on and on about the wonderful aspects of the Mormon people, but I won’t so I can get to my point. If you want to debate about difference in beliefs or ask a question about Mormonism go ahead, but if you want to make statements about them from a hateful Anti-Mormon view point I would tell you to do it on the websites that you listed.

God Bless,

ex-mo

 

[Jerusha]

I understand where you are coming from, and I do believe that most Mormons do not take the whole package. I only present those links to enlighten people about how sick it can get, and how sick it has been. I also understand that the way people practice the LDS religion varies in different parts of this country.

I also am very aware of the abuses and imperfections, and negative history within the Catholic Church. However, there is much greater hope for the Catholic Church than there is for the LDS Church.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

Dear Tdnick,
Either way KJV or Catholic it says pretty much the same thing.
I quoted the Catholic Bible, the verse you quoted which uses the word"receive",is from KJV "take"is from the Catholic bible. I believe you are quoting out of context when you say that it means priests should not marry. The whole chapter is on marriage and it says if marriage does not work then it is better to be celibate, rather than to engage in sex without marriage, which would be adultery. Do the priests try marriage first and then if it doesn’t work out try celibacy?
I am totally confused on where in this or any chapter it says that God says it is a gift from Him for Catholic priests to be celibate.
I’m sorry, but I do not see it at all anywhere in the whole chapter.
In my viewpoint, celibacy is a lot different than being a eunuch. To me a eunuch is a man who has had his sex organs removed. Do you think all priests have had that surgery by choice? If they did then the part about making themselves eunuchs would make some sense. Celibacy is choosing not to have sexual relations. It has nothing to do with being a eunuch.

Webster’s dictionary defines Eunuch as:" 1.a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace 2. a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals."
Maybe in the early days the church had priests castrated, and it came from that(I’m just guessing). Then they would have chosen to be castrated and “made eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven”. If that were the case then I could accept your version. It would make sense then that all Priests are considered eunuchs, even if they are not castrated. Maybe they are castrated symbolically. As usual I am majorly confused about yours and Tamaque’s interpretation of this scripture to mean that priests are eunuchs.

BJ

You’re right. Nowhere in that chapter does it say anything about priests. And I made no claims about priests. However, you said “To me this says that there are men who for no fault of their own ca n not marry or produce children.” And yet, one verse says “and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” This verse means that there are those who have made the decision not to marry and have children (they chose it). That means it can’t be through “no fault of their own”. And they did so for “the kingdom of heaven’s sake”. That means, what they did was a good thing. They sacrificed marriage and children for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Using an English-Greek Biblical lexicon, here are some definitions of “eunuch”: one naturally incapacitated 1) for marriage 2) begetting children; one who voluntarily abstains from marriage. Most versions specifically say eunuchs, however, here are some other translations:

KJV Version: “and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”
NIV Version: “and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”
NLT Version: “and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.”
NAB Version: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”

 

[tkdnick]

Hey fool (gosh that sounds bad),

Thanks for the conversation about whether the BoM was translated perfectly or not. I have an LDS friend who just emailed me with this statement “We also recognize the Book of Mormon as being the word of God because it was translated through a prophet of God without error in translation.” Our conversation made me more informed to respond.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Hey fool (gosh that sounds bad),

Thanks for the conversation about whether the BoM was translated perfectly or not. I have an LDS friend who just emailed me with this statement “We also recognize the Book of Mormon as being the word of God because it was translated through a prophet of God without error in translation.” Our conversation made me more informed to respond.

Hey, I am happy to help out. I would rather my fellow LDS hear the news from mormon sources first, but sometimes it takes a good discussion with an outsider to get motivated to check out the facts. However, I am going to have to take a pass on aiding and abetting on your Ezekiel discussion .

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

However, I am going to have to take a pass on aiding and abetting on your Ezekiel discussion .

Aiding and abetting? You make it sound like I’m committing a crime.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Aiding and abetting? You make it sound like I’m committing a crime.

It’s not that, that was a bad choice of words on my part. The ideas I have brought to this board are bound to give some mormons fits.

You’re good. I wish more people would take the time to correspond with us mormons and straighten us out on some issues.

 

[Jo_s_Dad]

Okay, I think we’re seriously getting away from the original question here.

Searcher >> Yes, there is definately a shift in the LDS church, but it seems to be a “tightening up” of the doctrine. It’s just getting more strict.

 

[Tmaque]

BJ Colbert:

I did not have time to read all of the scripture you quoted, but Matt. 19:v 11 and 12 do not say that God says celebacy is a gift from Him at all.
11. All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
12. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kindom of heven. He that can take let him take it.

To me this says that there are men who for no fault of their own can not marry or produce children. These men God is forgiving and saying the laws of marriage and childbearing do not apply to them.
Just as they would not apply to a mentally, or physically handicapped man, or person. No where does it say that God is praising celibacy.
BJ

BJ,
Let’s put this in context. I’ll go verse by verse.

9
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.
I only include this verse because it gives context to the rest
10
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
They’re suggesting that it’s better to not marry at all
11
He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted.
Jesus is saying yes, but not all can accept this teaching(to not marry) but, only those to whom that is granted. Granted by who?? God is the only logical explanation…so…celibacy is a gift from God
12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
Jesus is saying that whoever can accept celibacy…the gift…should accept it
BJ Colbert:

Matthew 22v 30 For in the ressurection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

This means that whomever has not married before the ressurection comes, it is too late for them to marry,and if they are good people but never had the opportunity to marry, they will still be as the angels of God in heaven, but without the blessings of marriage.
BJ

Again, let’s put it in context.
24
saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies 16 without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
25
Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26
The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27
Finally the woman died.
28
Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
29
17 Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30
At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.

The question is asked about a woman who was married to seven different men. The Sadducees asked which man would claim this woman at the resurrection. Jesus replies that there will be no marriage at the resurrection. If earthly marriages carried over into heaven he would have certainly said so. Instead he repudiates the whole notion of marriage in heaven, even going so far as to say that the resurrected are “like the angels”…not married.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

It’s not that, that was a bad choice of words on my part. The ideas I have brought to this board are bound to give some mormons fits.

You’re good. I wish more people would take the time to correspond with us mormons and straighten us out on some issues.

Thanks. I don’t know that I straighten anyone out here. Seems I’m usually the one getting straightened.

Catholics are generally in the same boat. It would be nice if people would actually correspond with us instead of just accusing.

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:

I think there is quite a few discrepancies. The handwriting had to be type-set. I thing the type-setters occasionally ran into difficulty reading the handwriting. Sometimes the handwriting didn’t make any sense (i.e., left out words, etc.) so the printer would do some creative fixing.

That seems odd given the claim that the BOM was translated one letter at a time. It would seem to me that the writing should have been very clear. If I was being dictated a book one…letter…at…a…time you can be sure there would be no errors, or confusing handwriting, and I’m just a dumb electrician.

 

[flameburns623]

Tmaque:

That seems odd given the claim that the BOM was translated one letter at a time. It would seem to me that the writing should have been very clear. If I was being dictated a book one…letter…at…a…time you can be sure there would be no errors, or confusing handwriting, and I’m just a dumb electrician.

I think you’re confusing matters a tad. The BOM was translated one CHARACTER at at time, purportedly–if we accept the claim that there were ever really any gold plates. The ‘characters’ were enscribed on the plates, and if we can judge by the way Joseph Smith translated the Egyptian papyri for the Book of Abraham, we can assume that each character on the plate corresponded not to a letter of our alphabet but to a word, a sentence, perhaps so much as a paragraph. Indeed it would needs be that this were so or the bundle of plates would have been so heavy they could not have been lifted. Smith sometimes spelled-out unique words such as place-names and the names of individuals but for the most part, so far as we can discern from the accounts of his scribes, he simply dictated what he professed to be ‘reading’.

Literacy varied widely on the frontiers in those days, and so it is plausible that handwriting, spelling, etcetera would have been a problem. Moreover–when the BOM was presented to the printer’s, he came under considerable pressure from those who had advance notice of the Book of Mormon and opposed it’s publication. The printer was not overly favorable to the project and was in a hurry to finish the job. Errors are therefore not inconceivable in the transcribing or in the printing of the first BOM.

 

[Jerusha]

Personally, I think that if they want to re-write the BOM and claim errors in translation justify it, then they have the right to do it. At present, it is way out of line with reality. The alternative is massive splintering in all directions ( which may not be evil in itself), dogmatic authoritarianism, and other evils, including Apocalyptic thinking, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and can, and has negatively affected the US as a whole.

.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

That seems odd given the claim that the BOM was translated one letter at a time. It would seem to me that the writing should have been very clear. If I was being dictated a book one…letter…at…a…time you can be sure there would be no errors, or confusing handwriting, and I’m just a dumb electrician.

The method of translation is hotly contested. Textual analysis shows that Joseph Smith dictated in 20-30 (english) word spurts. How many reformed Egyptian symbols that amounts to, I don’t think anyone can say. The Kirtland papers may or may not be relevant to the Book or Mormon (another dispute among scholars).

We do know that Joseph Smith had some (name removed by moderator)ut on the final product. Oliver Cowdery attempted to translate and failed. A revelation to him D&C 9 indicates that human effort was required to translate:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
Scriptures
But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right

To rephrase this, Joseph Smith was not directly given what the English text should be. It took some mental effort to put it together. When his construction was sufficiently right he was allowed to move on.

 

[Malachi4U]

Semper Fi:

…Mormons think of the trinity as 1+1+1=3 while Christians think of the Trinity as 1x1x1=1…

Catholic math:

1+1+1=1

It’s true and it’s a mystery. It’s the Catholic Trinity.

I never saw the Jesus x Holy Spirit x Father equals one God math till now.

Mormon Math is:

1+1+1=3 gods

1 man x 76 woman = Celestial heavan with lots of new gods for other planets. I guess woman are just baby factories and can never be a god?