Mormons and the Bible

[BDawg]

Since snow avoids this question could another mormon answer it please?

It teaches that adultery is wrong.

 

[mfbukowski]

Switcher-oo. The intro to the BoM used to claim that all of the Native Americans of this continent were descendants of the lamanites. After DNA evidence came to light, all of the sudden the new mormon line is what you have going here.

Running around putting fires out is what mormon apologetics amounts to.

(also, kevangreen is suspended so he won’t be posting here any longer)

Nah, the BOM has not changed. But I thought Catholics believed in “developing doctrine”.

I guess Vatican II was a “switcheroo” too then hey?

My opinions about this stuff are strictly my own – so don’t think that everything I post is Mormon doctrine.

It is Bukowski doctrine, so who knows?

I just calls em as I sees em

I have to start talking like that because I miss kevan

 

[rinnie]

It teaches that adultery is wrong.

Then what happend? And if it is to be wrong why does you religion teach the polygamy to be a god sanctioned practice. How can you say that you believe in Jesus Christ and disobey his commandments?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Nah, the BOM has not changed. But I thought Catholics believed in “developing doctrine”.

I guess Vatican II was a “switcheroo” too then hey?

My opinions about this stuff are strictly my own – so don’t think that everything I post is Mormon doctrine.

It is Bukowski doctrine, so who knows?

I just calls em as I sees em

I have to start talking like that because I miss kevan

Yeah, this is a Mormon thing. Lots of **** taught to me by people just making stuff up. You can have it.

And of course the BoM has changed.

Our understanding of doctrine increases. The doctrines themselves do not change. And we certainly don’t rewrite our canon to match an ever changing doctrine. Which has been done with the BoM.

 

[Snow]

Since snow avoids this question could another mormon answer it please?

I’ve avoided nothing. I answer all questions I see. I only look at the board in the evening and if something gets buried in a day or two or three of the 5 or 6 threads I follow, I may not see it.

I’ll answer your question but I’ll also say this passive aggressive tripe is childish. You know perfectly well what The Church of Jesus Christ teaches about adultery. You are asking a rhetorical question - you just want an invitation to whine about Mormons or Mormon history.

If you had a little courage or intellectual honesty, you’d simply make your point without begging me to be your setup man. This is what happens when people can’t think of legitimate responses to what’s posted. In this case we are talking about Mormons and the Bible and you just want to attack Joseph Smith’s character.

Read Exodus 20:14

as you know that we believe the Bible and Exodus 20:14 is clear on the matter.

You’re passive aggressive because you

 

[Snow]

Then what happend? And if it is to be wrong why does you religion teach the polygamy to be a god sanctioned practice. How can you say that you believe in Jesus Christ and disobey his commandments?

Well BDawg,

You’ve just been accused of committing adultery.

Oh the shame of it all.

Repent.

 

[Snow]

Let’s start with the Book of Abraham and go from there.

Oh a thread about the Bible you want to attack The Church of Jesus Christ about The Book of Abraham?

Alright.

Here’s why I don’t care:

You know very little both about what Mormons believe, about Mormon history, about Christian history and even about Catholic beliefs.

Time and time again I challenge you to support you accusations and zip, zilch, you provide nothing. If you were able to post any substantiation, I’d bet it would be the anti-Mormon fluff on the internet When I post sources, you ignore them.

As it so happens, though I am no expert, I am far more knowledgeable than you on the Book of Abraham. I don’t have to rely just on the internet, I’ve got 6 or more scholarly works on it behind me on the bookcase as well as some stuff written for the layperson. I even have some of Klaus Baer’s stuff. I’ve got answers for questions you haven’t even googled yet.

Fire away. I’ll expect responses to all my posts on the matter and scholarly sources will be required.

 

[ronald_g_w]

What are you talking about. You show me where it say’s that the CC damned babies to hell. Thats is an outward lie. .

I do not know the right answer BUT this is something I remember as a child growing up C, that if you were not baptized as a baby you would not go to heaven therefore there was only one other place and that was hell, I even remember when we did not baptise our children as babies the Catholic members of our family were very disturbed ? What is the correct Catholic thinking where does an unbaptized child go should they die without B ?

 

[Snow]

Switcher-oo. The intro to the BoM used to claim that all of the Native Americans of this continent were descendants of the lamanites. After DNA evidence came to light, all of the sudden the new mormon line is what you have going here.

Running around putting fires out is what mormon apologetics amounts to.

(also, kevangreen is suspended so he won’t be posting here any longer)

Uh-huh.

I know that you aren’t really much acquainted with things LDS but that’s not what it said. Please check and then correct yourself.

Then tell us where that clause came from. Was it part of the Book of Mormon (as “translated” from it’s claimed originals texts) or was it commentary added after the fact? When was it inserted?

 

[Snow]

Originally Posted by rinnie: What are you talking about. You show me where it say’s that the CC damned babies to hell. Thats is an outward lie.

Ronald: I do not know the right answer BUT this is something I remember as a child growing up C, that if you were not baptized as a baby you would not go to heaven therefore there was only one other place and that was hell, I even remember when we did not baptise our children as babies the Catholic members of our family were very disturbed ? What is the correct Catholic thinking where does an unbaptized child go should they die without B ?

Actually here’s the deal.

The Catholic belief was that unbaptized babies would go to “limbo” which was, either a temporary place for those who were purified from sin but excluded from Christ’s beatific vision until Christ triumphantly ascended to heaven, OR a permanent place for those, like infants who had committed no sin but were excluded from Chris’s beatific vision. Some Catholics refer to limbo as purgatory.

Then in April of 2007 the Catholic Church changed it’s mind and said that babies get to go to heaven.

The deal was that for centuries catechisms held that if one wasn’t splashed with holy water, then they bore the stain of original sin and so couldn’t go to heaven, if if the were pure and innocent infants. In the 4th Century Augustine, the originator of a weighty portion of Catholic doctrine concluded that such babies must be punished in the fires of hell. 800 years later Aquinas postulated that such unlucky souls may not go to heaven but also wouldn’t have to suffer in the great beyond… so, theologian settled on a compromise - limbo.

Now, the Catholic Church changes yet again but won’t go so far as to state that limbo never existed in the first place and says that it is still a “possible theological hypothesis.”

We’ve heard over and over again that Catholic beliefs never changes but this is only one of many examples.

 

[mfbukowski]

Actually here’s the deal.

The Catholic belief was that unbaptized babies would go to “limbo” which was, either a temporary place for those who were purified from sin but excluded from Christ’s beatific vision until Christ triumphantly ascended to heaven, OR a permanent place for those, like infants who had committed no sin but were excluded from Chris’s beatific vision. Some Catholics refer to limbo as purgatory.

Then in April of 2007 the Catholic Church changed it’s mind and said that babies get to go to heaven.

The deal was that for centuries catechisms held that if one wasn’t splashed with holy water, then they bore the stain of original sin and so couldn’t go to heaven, if if the were pure and innocent infants. In the 4th Century Augustine, the originator of a weighty portion of Catholic doctrine concluded that such babies must be punished in the fires of hell. 800 years later Aquinas postulated that such unlucky souls may not go to heaven but also wouldn’t have to suffer in the great beyond… so, theologian settled on a compromise - limbo.

Now, the Catholic Church changes yet again but won’t go so far as to state that limbo never existed in the first place and says that it is still a “possible theological hypothesis.”

We’ve heard over and over again that Catholic beliefs never changes but this is only one of many examples.

Thanks for this – I was wondering what the deal was. I was taught Limbo as a kid, and now everyone denies it, and I couldn’t figure out how they did the switcheroo on that.

Where do I find out more about the April 2007 thing?

 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for this – I was wondering what the deal was. I was taught Limbo as a kid, and now everyone denies it, and I couldn’t figure out how they did the switcheroo on that.

Where do I find out more about the April 2007 thing?

Hey don’t bother - I found it.

This is hilarious-- no wonder no one would talk about it.

abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1905809.htm

Yep, that doctrine sure “developed” didn’t it? I’m glad they didn’t “change” it though. That might mean that their church changes doctrine and of course they don’t do THAT–

This one is even better

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm

 

[ronald_g_w]

Yeah, this is a Mormon thing. Lots of **** taught to me by people just making stuff up. You can have it.

And of course the BoM has changed.

Our understanding of doctrine increases. The doctrines themselves do not change. And we certainly don’t rewrite our canon to match an ever changing doctrine. Which has been done with the BoM.

Why do Catholics have so many versions of the bible surely this must lead to more cofusion to what is already a complex subject. In answer to a number of my questions I have been given very different answers by C on the same subject so this tells me that even among C you do not all believe the same thing I do not see this confussion among LDS for the most part the only real gap is between those who are young in the Gospel and those who have been around a while.
In the RSV edition it states in

Prov.8: 22- that “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago i was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth…”

To me this backs up

Rom 8:29
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

that Jesus is not God in the Catholic way of thinking but that he is literally the firstborn among many brethren.???

 

[Snow]

Thanks for this – I was wondering what the deal was. I was taught Limbo as a kid, and now everyone denies it, and I couldn’t figure out how they did the switcheroo on that.

Where do I find out more about the April 2007 thing?

WHAT!!!

You don’t subscribe to the Catholic News Service?

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

 

[mfbukowski]

WHAT!!!

You don’t subscribe to the Catholic News Service?

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

:lol: Now I do!

But I think my quotes were much juicier!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for this – I was wondering what the deal was. I was taught Limbo as a kid, and now everyone denies it, and I couldn’t figure out how they did the switcheroo on that.

Where do I find out more about the April 2007 thing?

Limbo is not doctrine. And it has been discussed back and forth for a very, very, long time. Hundreds of years.

Limbo though, was not described as the hell of the damned in your Catholic days bukowski. You can read the entry at the old Catholic Encylopedia…it is clear on this point.

I don’t deny limbo, but I do deny the definition that some people put to it. ie, infants condemned to damnation, hell fires, etc. This is clearly not the dogmatic viewpoint of limbo.

 

[Snow]

Limbo is not doctrine. And it has been discussed back and forth for a very, very, long time. Hundreds of years.

Limbo though, was not described as the hell of the damned in your Catholic days bukowski. You can read the entry at the old Catholic Encylopedia…it is clear on this point.

I don’t deny limbo, but I do deny the definition that some people put to it. ie, infants condemned to damnation, hell fires, etc. This is clearly not the dogmatic viewpoint of limbo.

Guess it all depends on who you trust… RebeccaJ or St. Augustine.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Guess it all depends on who you trust… RebeccaJ or St. Augustine.

St. Augustine was not speaking infallibly for the Church, now, was he. Some more reading for you snow…the old Encylcopedia entry on limbo.

“we must not confound St. Augustine’s private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church;”

And you can read what is in the CCC…as that is our doctrine. And I am in agreement with it.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Actually here’s the deal.

The Catholic belief was that unbaptized babies would go to “limbo” which was, either a temporary place for those who were purified from sin but excluded from Christ’s beatific vision until Christ triumphantly ascended to heaven, OR a permanent place for those, like infants who had committed no sin but were excluded from Chris’s beatific vision. Some Catholics refer to limbo as purgatory.

Then in April of 2007 the Catholic Church changed it’s mind and said that babies get to go to heaven.

The deal was that for centuries catechisms held that if one wasn’t splashed with holy water, then they bore the stain of original sin and so couldn’t go to heaven, if if the were pure and innocent infants. In the 4th Century Augustine, the originator of a weighty portion of Catholic doctrine concluded that such babies must be punished in the fires of hell. 800 years later Aquinas postulated that such unlucky souls may not go to heaven but also wouldn’t have to suffer in the great beyond… so, theologian settled on a compromise - limbo.

Now, the Catholic Church changes yet again but won’t go so far as to state that limbo never existed in the first place and says that it is still a “possible theological hypothesis.”

We’ve heard over and over again that Catholic beliefs never changes but this is only one of many examples

Snow
As I was reading your answer I was going to ask why do C say their beliefs do not change, that they are just expanded upon when if what you say is not a change then I give up

 

[BDawg]

Then what happend? And if it is to be wrong why does you religion teach the polygamy to be a god sanctioned practice. How can you say that you believe in Jesus Christ and disobey his commandments?

Polygamy was god-sanctioned in the Old Testament. Catholics claim to believe in the Old Testament, I thought. Has that changed?