Mormons 17 Points of True Church

[taylorf]

As I repeatedly explained, the BoM doesn’t fix errors in the Bible but fills GAPS. I doubt you can find any Catholic scholar who opines that we’ve found all the documents that we could ever want from the early church.

[snip condescending tone towards fellow forum member].

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The following quotes were taken from the article YOU you gave me. Call me crazy, but I think I see the word error in there.

rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-w…n-and-precious…

“This automatically guaranteed inaccuracy in the biblical text, because human error is a likely companion of any human endeavor.”

“Textual errors were then easily perpetuated, they continue, when additional copies were made from an already erroneous manuscript.”

“…errors easily occurred through momentary inattention…”

“Errors of the mind, hand, eye, and hearing all contributed to the degeneration of textual accuracy.”

“…would also have made errors more likely.”

“…most changes were not motivated by theology but were instead the result of human error”

“…error in the transmission of a text”

 

[zaffiroborant]

I said what I believed in good faith. Now I’ve been informed that your baptisms don’t have that phrase about being commissioned by Jesus Christ. I was misinformed by a Catholic friend, but then perhaps she misunderstood my question. I’ve thanked LW for correcting my error. But if you think that means I’m required to convert to Catholicism, I beg to differ.

Where the heck is this bit coming from. I ask you to back up your assertions and point out that you are making false statements about Catholicism and you say I’m telling you to convert. How does that follow at all?

About the phrase “being commissioned by Jesus Christ” I can find no evidence at all that it is used by anyone other than LDS.

 

[Sabacthani]

Where the heck is this bit coming from. I ask you to back up your assertions and point out that you are making false statements about Catholicism and you say I’m telling you to convert. How does that follow at all?.

Because when I’ve already admitted that I was mistaken, and thanked those that corrected me, you continue to harp on the errors, so I respectfully ask, what do you want from me? If not conversion, then what?

I erroneously thought the Catholics used that phrase. I was mistaken. Mea Culpa. Are you just used to not arguing with people that ever admit that they are wrong? What will it take to register?

 

[Telstar]

No; I’d rather have intelligent discussions with persons like Telstar here than people who hurl things at me and then blame me for “dodging” when they miss.

Please, don’t put me in the middle of your disputes. I’m not a referee, and I’m certainly no different than anyone else, here. But, seeing the way you respond to ex-mormons on this board, it would seem that you have your own prejudices against them that you also claim they have against you. I think we all need to stop looking at whatever religion someone might believe in now, or believed at some previous point in time, and start treating each other with a little more respect, no matter what church they go to. We’re here to discuss religious differences, intelligently, not by figuratively beating each other over the head to make a point (or* not* make a point).

 

[Sabacthani]

Please, don’t put me in the middle of your disputes. I’m not a referee, and I’m certainly no different than anyone else, here. But, seeing the way you respond to ex-mormons on this board, it would seem that you have your own prejudices against them that you also claim they have against you.

My pardon. I thought you had said you were ex-LDS too, and distinguished you simply because you talk to me about the topic without making misrepresentations or personal attacks.

I think we all need to stop looking at whatever religion someone might believe in now, or believed at some previous point in time, and start treating each other with a little more respect, no matter what church they go to. We’re here to discuss religious differences, intelligently, not by figuratively beat each other over the head to make a point (or* not* make a point).

Amen. I’ll endeavor to do that, and if someone else doesn’t act that way, I’ll just ignore them. Feel free to restate anything someone asks that you’d like to see an answer to.

 

[Sabacthani]

"Sabacthani:

As I repeatedly explained, the BoM doesn’t fix errors in the Bible but fills GAPS. I doubt you can find any Catholic scholar who opines that we’ve found all the documents that we could ever want from the early church.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The following quotes were taken from the article YOU you gave me. Call me crazy, but I think I see the word error in there.

rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-w…n-and-precious…

“This automatically guaranteed inaccuracy in the biblical text, because human error is a likely companion of any human endeavor.”

“Textual errors were then easily perpetuated, they continue, when additional copies were made from an already erroneous manuscript.”

“…errors easily occurred through momentary inattention…”

“Errors of the mind, hand, eye, and hearing all contributed to the degeneration of textual accuracy.”

“…would also have made errors more likely.”

“…most changes were not motivated by theology but were instead the result of human error”

“…error in the transmission of a text”

Taylor, not a single one of those quotes states that*** the Book of Mormon fixes*** any specific “error” in the Bible. Yes, some LDS texts talk about purported errors in the Bible but I don’t remember anyone actually pointing anything specific out in the Bible and saying that it was an error.

And my assertion which you have still not addressed is that the BoM does not purport to fix any errors in the Bible.

 

[Telstar]

My pardon. I thought you had said you were ex-LDS too, and distinguished you simply because you talk to me about the topic without making misrepresentations or personal attacks.

Amen. I’ll endeavor to do that, and if someone else doesn’t act that way, I’ll just ignore them. Feel free to restate anything someone asks that you’d like to see an answer to.

I’m not ex-LDS, but I’ve been studying Mormonism for a long time. I had made friends (on another message board) with some people that were LDS, so I wanted to find out what they actually believed. They were hesitant to discuss it on that board because it usually lead to some nastiness, even among good friends. I find the subject interesting, because there is such a huge gap between my Catholic Faith and LDS beliefs. That’s why I tend to respond in threads about Mormonism. Because, I like to debate theology and spirituality (not to be confused with ‘spiritism’), particularly regarding LDS.

 

[taylorf]

Taylor, not a single one of those quotes states that*** the Book of Mormon fixes*** any specific “error” in the Bible. Yes, some LDS texts talk about purported errors in the Bible but I don’t remember anyone actually pointing anything specific out in the Bible and saying that it was an error.

And my assertion which you have still not addressed is that the BoM does not purport to fix any errors in the Bible.

I don’t know, it’s the article you provided that claims the BoM is fixing error by restoring lost truths. Real simple…

1. Original manuscripts were pure
2. Apostasy makes way for introduction of error in the manuscripts
3. Errors cause the loss of plain and precious truths
4. The early church canonizes scripture based on manuscripts missing plain precious truths resulting from errors
5. Nephi sees this all happening in a vision

Therefore…Nephi includes plain and precious truths in the BoM to correct the errors that cause the loss of those truths.

The author attempts to identify the lost truths that the BoM restores (i.e., correcting the errors in the Bible) but does a poor job. Nonsensical apologetics in my opinion.

From the article…

“The Lord in his wisdom knew that plain and precious truths would be lost from the Bible through translation, transmission, and deliberate alteration of the text *, and he had already prepared a means to restore the truths” *

“Through the Lord’s wisdom, foreknowledge, and power, the fact that plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible* is now largely inconsequential for sincere seekers of truth (see Moroni 10:3–5). Why? Because the Lord has once again** provided us with those plain and precious truths through Nephi, and through the entire Book of Mormon**”*

 

[Sabacthani]

I’m not ex-LDS, but I’ve been studying Mormonism for a long time. I had made friends (on another message board) with some people that were LDS, so I wanted to find out what they actually believed. They were hesitant to discuss it on that board because it usually lead to some nastiness, even among good friends. I find the subject interesting, because there is such a huge gap between my Catholic Faith and LDS beliefs. That’s why I tend to respond in threads about Mormonism. Because, I like to debate theology and spirituality (not to be confused with ‘spiritism’), particularly regarding LDS.

Well that’s why I prefer to deal with you. Not because you’re not ex-LDS. I have ex-LDS friends that I discuss theology and spirituality with in all respect. It’s harder to deal respectfully with people that treat religion as some prideful game.

 

[TexanKnight]

My pardon. I thought you had said you were ex-LDS too, and distinguished you simply because you talk to me about the topic without making misrepresentations or personal attacks.

Amen. I’ll endeavor to do that, and if someone else doesn’t act that way, I’ll just ignore them. Feel free to restate anything someone asks that you’d like to see an answer to.

So you will address the points I have made that you have ignored? For example, as to Baptism for the dead and the need for it seeming to make God weak because he cannot find a way to Baptize up in the Spirit Kingdom. Also, Jesus did not tell the thief “Today you will be with me in Paradise if someone down here will get baptized for you…”

 

[TexanKnight]

Well that’s why I prefer to deal with you. Not because you’re not ex-LDS. I have ex-LDS friends that I discuss theology and spirituality with in all respect. It’s harder to deal respectfully with people that treat religion as some prideful game.

No one here treats it as a prideful game. We treat it as a false religion with false prophets. Most of us Ex-Mormons felt very deceived when we discovered the truth. But, as far as I know, we do not hold grudges. We are here to correct what Mormons try to tell us when they misrepresent the doctrine. We do not want folks to be as deceived as we were.

 

[twopekinguys]

My pardon. I thought you had said you were ex-LDS too, and distinguished you simply because you talk to me about the topic without making misrepresentations or personal attacks.

Can you show were there were “personal attacks”? I must have missed them.

 

[TexanKnight]

Can you show were there were “personal attacks”? I must have missed them.

I can.

Sab called me a racist and said I reject Catholic teaching for starters.

Is that what you are referring to?

 

[twopekinguys]

I can.

Sab called me a racist and said I reject Catholic teaching for starters.

Is that what you are referring to?

Doesn’t matter now I guess.

 

[PaulDupre1]

To finish off my reply to Taylor,

The Book of Mormon also clarifies two of what the Apostle Peter called “damnable heresies” and what the BoM calls “abominations” which have arisen from ambiguities in the New Testament text:

1. The heresy that an unbaptized child goes to hell. (This was commonly taught in most of the churches in the NY area when Joseph Smith first went to the Lord to ask which church was true). Moroni 8 speaks emphatically against this doctrine.
2. The heresy that God’s plans for us preclude any kind of free will of our own, i.e. that most people are predestined to go to hell while an elect are predestined to heaven. Alma 31 addresses this doctrine. This too was a common, almost universal doctrine among Christians at the time of Joseph Smith. Many Catholics even believed it back then. Today, fortunately this doctrine is all but extinct, clung to by a few Calvinists and the Westboro Baptist Church.

All of which is further evidence that the BOM is a 19th century invention, intended to address the religious issues current at the time.

Thank you for you corroborating witness!

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[PaulDupre1]

Thanks for sharing this.

My pleasure.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.**

In Catholicism, the normative ministers of baptism are bishops, priests, and deacons. However, we also recognize that God wants all to come unto Him through baptism, and that God ultimately is the one with authority, who baptizes and causes the remission of sins and new life. Therefore, we believe that those that baptize using the Trinitarian formula and hold to a belief in the Trinity can validly baptize. Generally, those that come to the Catholic Church after having a valid baptism will need to receive Confirmation, as well as make a profession of Faith (those posters that participate in RCIA, the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, could better articulate that).

An interesting side note: My wife is an RN. She related to me an experience she had in nursing school: A Catholic chaplain was brought into the class that dealt with End of Life issues. One of the things the chaplain instructed them about was how to baptize a dying person who asked to be baptized in the rare case that death is imminent and there is no time to summon the chaplain.

The chaplain explained what baptism is believed by various Christian sects to accomplish and stressed that although different people have different understandings of what baptism is and what it does, that it is a thoroughly biblical belief held by most Christians, and sometimes desired at end of life even by former non-Christians.

The chaplain also explained that the RN need not be a believing Christian to baptize, but does need to have the intent to do what the Church would do - that is, to compassionately confer upon the dying person the requested rite of baptism ,which the dying person has requested, as the chaplain would do if he were present.

He explained that this was his purpose in instructing the class this day - to teach them the method of baptism (the trinitarian formula) and the intent that they should have in mind if they decide to baptize when this request is presented to them by a dying patient. Of course, the health care professional also has the right to follow his/her own conscience on the matter and not baptize, but the chaplain encouraged the students to ponder the significance of such a request at end of life in the context of the health care professional’s profound role in that person’s end of life experience.

Paul

BTW, LW7, I very much enjoy your posts.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I note that in tens of thousands of pages of LDS general conference talks the word “heresy” also only arises once.

Of course, because Mormons do not use the word “heresy” - they use (incorrectly btw) the word “apostasy” instead.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[TexanKnight]

All of which is further evidence that the BOM is a 19th century invention, intended to address the religious issues current at the time.

Thank you for you corroborating witness!

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

THIS

 

[RebeccaJ]

As I repeatedly explained, the BoM doesn’t fix errors in the Bible but fills GAPS. I doubt you can find any Catholic scholar who opines that we’ve found all the documents that we could ever want from the early church.

Pride is a sin, Sister Rebecca. in both our churches.

Mormon scriptures, as I said, are comprised of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The link I posted is a teaching manual for the D&C. It clearly reaches the D&C and the PoGP fix errors of the Bible. If clearly states Smith was rewriting the Bible, in an effort to correct the errors in it. All you need to do is compare the JST translations in the PoGP to a KJV and you’ll have your examples of what has been “fixed”.

Filling in the gaps is a form of fixing errors as well.

When I said be proud of who you are, I was alluding to a scene in a movie. I figured no one would get the allusion which is why I edited it out.