Mormons and the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
why_me said:
The difference comes in the form of revelation. I don’t think that the pope claims revelatory powers. The lds prophet does. The holy ghost is involved in creating much good in this world. And he is responsible for creating much good in the catholic faith as he is in the mormon faith. But a mormon would claim that the lds church is God’s true church. And this would make all the difference for the lds.
Click to expand...
No, the Pope doesn’t. But that’s because Christ’s Word was definitive and final. And this is why prophets are no longer necessary.

RAR
 
Oh, please, not that again.:tsktsk:

What if—

the BOM was plagirized from multiple sources, the Bible, Spalding, and Ethan Smith, and one unknown, legitimate source-- I have my theory— and embroidered upon by Joseph and friends.

I will present my evidence later. 🍿 🍿
 
Chronological Markers in the Book of Mormon

Voyage of St. Brendan ca. 600 AD

Landing on Greenland I Nephi 980 AD

Bishop for Iceland and lands to the West – Sacraments
Jesus Chronology begins 1052 AD

Spread of Christianity in North America 1136 AD

4 Nephi V. 45-46 (300 JC ) "Gadianton"1352 AD
Alma 1:1 Beginning of Judges Chronology 1384 AD

Mormon 2:28-29 (350 JC) “Treaty”
1401 AD
Left GreenlandAlma 63:5-9 (37 Judges) “Hagoth” 1421 AD
Mormon 4:18 (375 JC)“Dew…Sun”
1427 AD
Helamon 3:3-6 (46 Judges) Migration from Zarahemla to Desolation 1430 AD
Mormon 6:15 (384 JC), Alma16:10-11 (11 Judges?), Ether 14:21 “Cumorah” 1436 AD

Hiawatha? Helaman 13:2 (86 Judges) “Samuel the Lamanite” 1469 AD
Moroni 9 (420 JC) “Chaos” 1472 AD
Columbus lands 1492 AD

Red indicates events occurring within the Book of Mormon
Green indicates events documented elsewhere

The “Nephites” becames apostates, and the Mormon Church imitates that apostasy.
#2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, Satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.” Many martyrs died for not adoring “the Beast” refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God. (CCC, 1994)
Click to expand...
And Hitler carried that same apostasy to its extreme end.

With Moroni 9, it becomes clear that the BOM, re-interpreted for today’s world, only has some good as an allegory on the consequences of that apostasy, which is racism.
 
Snow said:
Today a Catholic priest and a nun with 2 Masters in theology told me that the idea that salvation is only to be found within the Catholic Church is false but they also said that such has been widely believed by Catholics. They also said that salvation could be found outside Christianity.
Click to expand...
I believe Catholics call this doctrine “invincible ignorance”. In other words, God judges people on what they WOULD have done if they had a chance to learn the gospel.

I think this doctrine is something recently emphasized to get around the problem with Limbo, which I was taught when I was a catholic school child 50 years ago. If a child is not baptized, and dies, where does it go? Can’t go to heaven, and it’s not just to send it to hell, so it goes to an in-between happy place which is not heaven.

That’s what I was taught

But when you look at it “invincible ignorance” presents other problems.

Sounds exactly like predestination to me.

If God already knows what you would have done, AND IS WILLING TO JUDGE YOU for what you would have done, why bother going through this whole thing called “life” where we have the illusion of making choices?

Why don’t we all just go to heaven or hell based on what he knows we would have done? Why go thorugh this whole choice thing, which is really an illusion anyway?

Typically my answer for predestination is that there is a difference between knowing some thing and making it so. But in this instance, God would use his knowledge to render judgement for things you did NOT actually do, but what you WOULD HAVE DONE.

That whole doctrine makes no sense to me.
 
If God already knows what you would have done, AND IS WILLING TO JUDGE YOU for what you would have done, why bother going through this whole thing called “life” where we have the illusion of making choices?
Click to expand...
The answer is in Lesson one from the Baltimore Catechism. I am sure you made it that far.
1. Q. Who made the world?
**A. God made the world. **

2. Q. Who is God?
**A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things. **

3. Q. What is man?
A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

6. Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

9. Q. What must we do to save our souls?
A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in
Him, and love Him with all our heart.

10. Q. How shall we know the things which we are to believe?
A. We shall know the things which we are to believe from the Catholic Church, through which God speaks to us.

11. Q. Where shall we find the chief truths which the Church teaches?
A. We shall find the chief truths which the Church teaches in the Apostles’ Creed.
Click to expand...
 
mfbukowski said:
I believe Catholics call this doctrine “invincible ignorance”. In other words, God judges people on what they WOULD have done if they had a chance to learn the gospel.

I think this doctrine is something recently emphasized to get around the problem with Limbo, which I was taught when I was a catholic school child 50 years ago. If a child is not baptized, and dies, where does it go? Can’t go to heaven, and it’s not just to send it to hell, so it goes to an in-between happy place which is not heaven.

That’s what I was taught

But when you look at it “invincible ignorance” presents other problems.

Sounds exactly like predestination to me.

If God already knows what you would have done, AND IS WILLING TO JUDGE YOU for what you would have done, why bother going through this whole thing called “life” where we have the illusion of making choices?

Why don’t we all just go to heaven or hell based on what he knows we would have done? Why go thorugh this whole choice thing, which is really an illusion anyway?

Typically my answer for predestination is that there is a difference between knowing some thing and making it so. But in this instance, God would use his knowledge to render judgement for things you did NOT actually do, but what you WOULD HAVE DONE.

That whole doctrine makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
If I understood the doctrine the way you describe it here, it wouldn’t make sense to me either.

But this is not the correct understanding of the doctrine. I suggest you carefully study this doctrine, which is discuss in the CCC beginning at article [846](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/The answer is to discuss such issues rationally, and share our stories in order to pursuade the other side of our point of view.) before declaring it nonsensical. “This” doctrine makes sense to me and it prevents me from declaring that formal membership is required.
 
RAR said:
The same could be asked of you to support your “Godhead.”

The reality of the Trinity was unknown at that time. Christ had only just left them.

But the answer lies again with the authority Christ left to the Church he founded and the descent of the Holy Spirit which would guide the church (and still does) “into all truth.”

RAR
Click to expand...
I can’t believe you said this!

So Jesus did not preach the trinity, but it was invented later. Is that what you said?
 
why_me said:
The difference comes in the form of revelation. I don’t think that the pope claims revelatory powers. The lds prophet does. The holy ghost is involved in creating much good in this world. And he is responsible for creating much good in the catholic faith as he is in the mormon faith. But a mormon would claim that the lds church is God’s true church. And this would make all the difference for the lds.
Click to expand...
The pope better claim revelatory powers if he ever speaks “ex cathedra” with infallibility. What- he makes it up and it’s infallible? It better be someone else talking!
 
mfbukowski said:
The pope better claim revelatory powers if he ever speaks “ex cathedra” with infallibility. What- he makes it up and it’s infallible? It better be someone else talking!
Click to expand...
Please look into what ex cathedra and infallibility are about before you throw things out there like this. The pope does not “make things up” and speak ex cathedra about them.

History the pope has only spoken ex cathedra…2 maybe 3 times? And each one was to authoritatively define a belief the church already HAD, to defend it from heresy.
 
davidv said:
If I understood the doctrine the way you describe it here, it wouldn’t make sense to me either.

But this is not the correct understanding of the doctrine. I suggest you carefully study this doctrine, which is discuss in the CCC beginning at article [846](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/The answer is to discuss such issues rationally, and share our stories in order to pursuade the other side of our point of view.) before declaring it nonsensical. “This” doctrine makes sense to me and it prevents me from declaring that formal membership is required.
Click to expand...
That appears to be a bad link
 
mfbukowski said:
The pope better claim revelatory powers if he ever speaks “ex cathedra” with infallibility. What- he makes it up and it’s infallible? It better be someone else talking!
Click to expand...
whyme is confused, as usual. The Catholic church most definitely teaches that the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit. If this is not revelation,then I don’t know what is.

It is you, whyme and other Mormons that refuse to accept this, and keep on bringing up that the Catholic church does not believe in revelation. And when I explained that we do, you told me it was my opinion. :rolleyes: The charism of infallibility is in fact a gift of the Holy Spirit. Whatever the pope speaks ex cathedra is based on divine assistance.
 
mfbukowski said:
The pope better claim revelatory powers if he ever speaks “ex cathedra” with infallibility. What- he makes it up and it’s infallible? It better be someone else talking!
Click to expand...
Infalibility does not extend to everything. Its only been used a few times. Id look them up for you but im lazy
 
RAR said:
That is true, those outside the Catholic Church and Christianity can be saved. It is possible because of Christ’s sacrifice. Any who believe in Christ (truly) may be saved. I say “may” because the position of the Catholic Church is that, by virtue of its being the church Christ founded and the faithful entrusted to, those who follow Her have the fullness of the Gospel. Those outside the Church may be saved through their belief in Christ, but it would be despite their chosen faith. It is up to God.

RAR
Click to expand...
Can, according to your understanding of RCC doctrine, someone, not Christian, be saved?
 
RAR said:
The same could be asked of you to support your “Godhead.”

The reality of the Trinity was unknown at that time. Christ had only just left them.

But the answer lies again with the authority Christ left to the Church he founded and the descent of the Holy Spirit which would guide the church (and still does) “into all truth.”

RAR
Click to expand...
First, I never claimed that Peter, James or John believed in the Godhead so I have no burden of proof. That being said, I think that all components of the LDS doctrine of God can find support in the Bible. That’s worth a thread sometime perhaps.

What I think I hear (read) you saying is that you agree that the modern doctrine of the Trinity, as promulgated in the 4th and 5th centuries, is not found in the Bible. That raises a couple questions for me:
  1. If the modern doctrine of the Trinity were important, why didn’t Christ of any of the prophets mention it?
  2. I understand that Roman Catholicism has or believes in a form of on-going revelation. Is it possible to say who, specifically, received the revelations pertaining to said Trinity?
 
why_me said:
In my catholic prayer book (published in 1956) which I received when I made my holy communion (1964), it claimed that the holy ghost was god. No different from Mormon theology.
Click to expand...
No, there’s a big difference. Catholic theology holds that there are three persons comprised of one ontological substance. LDS theology holds that there are three separate ontological entities who together comprise one God. The difference is not that there is ONE God, but rather HOW God is one.
You have put up a good fight in support of the lds faith.
Click to expand...
Actually I haven’t defended or supported the LDS faith at all. I mostly like to explore historical issues. I am more about facts and reason and less about who (which denomination) is valid or best.
It is good that you are here. You treat people with respect and perserve their dignity. You also represent the lds well. 👍
Click to expand...
I respond pretty well to honesty, reason, fairness; not so well to the opposite. Thank you for your comments.
 
Snow said:
First, I never claimed that Peter, James or John believed in the Godhead so I have no burden of proof. That being said, I think that all components of the LDS doctrine of God can find support in the Bible. That’s worth a thread sometime perhaps.

What I think I hear (read) you saying is that you agree that the modern doctrine of the Trinity, as promulgated in the 4th and 5th centuries, is not found in the Bible. That raises a couple questions for me:
  1. If the modern doctrine of the Trinity were important, why didn’t Christ of any of the prophets mention it?
    **
  2. I understand that Roman Catholicism has or believes in a form of on-going revelation. Is it possible to say who, specifically, received the revelations pertaining to said Trinity?**
Click to expand...
We don’t believe that revelation is on-going…or continuing. All that Christ came to reveal, He revealed through the apostles. We may have “personal revelation” but it is not “needed” and it’s not an extension of revelation or something that we must believe… It is something that God sometimes grants as a gift…Examples would be apparations of Mary, Fatima, Lourdes… Revelations that some saints have experienced… stigmata, visions etc… It’s a gift to help strengthen the faithful…it is never “new” information.
The concept of the trinitty was never a new "revelation" to anybody..it was something Christ revealed from the beginning, and was just further explained with the technical term, "trinity" to combat the heresies of the time.
 
RebeccaJ said:
whyme is confused, as usual. The Catholic church most definitely teaches that the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit. If this is not revelation,then I don’t know what is.

It is you, whyme and other Mormons that refuse to accept this, and keep on bringing up that the Catholic church does not believe in revelation. And when I explained that we do, you told me it was my opinion. :rolleyes: The charism of infallibility is in fact a gift of the Holy Spirit. Whatever the pope speaks ex cathedra is based on divine assistance.
Click to expand...
OK I believe you. But other catholics will debate the point. It makes no sense for them to do so – so I am assuming you are right.

But I mean read above post 138. See why I am confused?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top