Mormons and the Bible

[BDawg]

I somewhat agree with Rebecca on this one. Limbo did show up in catechisms, and such, but it was never “infallibly defined.” But to say it wasn’t “doctrine” is a bit absurd, if you ask me. Doctrine is just what is believed and officially taught. If it was in the Catechism, it was officially taught. To be fair, though, I don’t want to be held responsible for everything that has been said in every official publication of the LDS Church.

On the other hand, trying to figure out exactly WHAT has been “infallibly defined” is very difficult, sometimes. You need a canon lawyer to figure it out. For instance, I was interested in the 12th or 13th century Papal Bull, Ad Extirpanda, in which the Pope commanded the rulers of cities to torture confessions out of accused heretics. Now, the Pope was obviously speaking in his official capacity (“Ex Cathedra”), and it was obviously an issue of “Faith and Morals.” Morals, specifically. So I asked one of the Catholic experts on the EWTN Experts Forum about the status of this teaching, and he said that this was not an infallible teaching, because infallible teachings must be about generalities, not specific instances. So if the Pope commands people to go torture accused heretics, that’s not an infallible pronouncement. It would only be infallible if the Pope were to say Ex Cathedra that torture of accused heretics is, in general, morally acceptable. We can’t just assume that if the Pope officially commands people to do something that it is morally acceptable.

Anyway, I find that baffling. What good is having an infallible teacher around to tell you what is morally right and wrong, if you can’t trust him to give you any specific examples? He could be absolutely backwards on those!

 

[zaffiroborant]

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

So was slavery. Nothing wrong with coming to a higher understanding of that is there?

 

[rinnie]

Ha ha I guess I won. You clearly are running away and avoiding the truth. You can’t even be respectful enough to answer a simple question. This is what I always find you Catholics doing, avoiding the question with your circular resoning. This of course is because of your lack of knowledge of the scriptures and of course the fact that you believe in a false religion. Let me open your eye a little more from a vs. in 1timothy ch. 4:1-3 which striaght up proves the chatholic church a false church. It say’s some share depart from the faith… and then describing who departs it say’s they will forbid to marry and to abstain from meats. Now when I was growing up I remember every friday I wasn’t allowed to eat meat or any ham ever. Next they forbid to marry which I’m sure you have some great response to why Catholic Priest and Deacons and the Pope can not be married, but it plainly say’s it and it plainly proves the falsehood of your religion.

Just for fun why was the first pope of the Catholic church pernounced when the apostle John was still living. Don’t you thing they would of made him the pope being he was one of the twelve apostle of Jesus Christ. Don’t worry I know you won’t respond to my questions, your going go dig up some stuff on mormons to throw in my face. Its ok if that makes you fill better.

 

[rinnie]

First of all how can you win? You never win when you make lies about the word of God.

The reason Priest do not marry in the Latin Church permanent decons are normally chosen from men who choose to remain celebrate for the sake of the kingdom. (gotta problem with that, talk to God for he was the one who choose these men0.

The eastern order decons and priests can be married but not all choose to.

I will be back to answer your other questions. actually can’t wait to.

So guess you didn’t win on that one did you. I do you win when you make up lies about the Church of our Lord and Savoir.

Gotta go to work for now but will be back

 

[rinnie]

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

Never the ten commandments never changed. The ten commandments were in the OT. Show me in the OT where it states that you can commit adultery!

 

[rinnie]

Continued:

next answer about fasting:

The Precepts of the church are set in the context of moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life.

The fourth precept you shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the church ensures the times if ascesis and penance which prepares us for the liturical feasts and helps us acquire master oner our instincts and freedom of heart.

What you don’t remember Jesus fasting in the bible, and tell us all we should fast.

 

[BDawg]

So was slavery. Nothing wrong with coming to a higher understanding of that is there?

Hi zaff,

True enough, but the Bible never really addresses that issue later on, either, except that Paul discourages a Christian to keep a fellow Christian as a slave. In the case of slavery, you and I can both agree that people have “come to a higher understanding,” and move on. In the case of polygamy, I don’t agree with rinnie that people have “come to a higher understanding.” Rinnie seems to think that polygamy is equated with adultery. By what standard? The Bible actually sanctions polygamy, and at the same time condemns adultery, so obviously the biblical writers didn’t equate the two.

 

[rinnie]

continued:

1 tim 1-3. This one is priceless. Of all religions you are going to tell me that we are going against the bible and abstinence of certain foods.

You show me one thing that is forbidden in the Catholic Faith. One food, one drink. You cannot. There is no such thing.

We fast during lent and we do give up fish on Fridays during lent as a penance for our sins, to remind us of Christ’s suffering. You show me where we are forbidden to eat fish. Do you not recall Jesus fasting. Actually according to the bible we should fast on our own quite often, to receive extra Grace from God. It brings us closer to him.

Besides it was the Jews the would not eat pork, and Jesus who explained to them that they could. But they did not want to listen to him and accept him as God.

Also remember what Jesus Christ said:

IT IS NOT GOES INTO YOUR MOUTH THAT WILL SEND YOU TO HELL IT IS WHAT COMES OUT!

 

[BDawg]

Never the ten commandments never changed. The ten commandments were in the OT. Show me in the OT where it states that you can commit adultery!

Why would I want to do that? My point is that the OT says one can have more than one wife. Therefore, they must not have thought of polygamy as adultery.

Can you point to anything in the Bible that says polygamy is adultery?

 

[majick275]

Why would I want to do that? My point is that the OT says one can have more than one wife. Therefore, they must not have thought of polygamy as adultery.

Can you point to anything in the Bible that says polygamy is adultery?

where in the OT does God say it’s okay to have more than one wife?

while i agree that polygamy was not considered adultery i don’t think the OT promotes as a good thing.

I also believe there is HUGE difference in polygyny with single women (as described in D&C 132) and the marrying of other men’s wives as practiced by Joseph smith. by any interpretation of the OT I am aware of that is ALWAYS adultery.

 

[cazayoux]

My point is that the OT says one can have more than one wife.

Help me out. Where can I find this?

michel

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi zaff,

True enough, but the Bible never really addresses that issue later on, either, except that Paul discourages a Christian to keep a fellow Christian as a slave. In the case of slavery, you and I can both agree that people have “come to a higher understanding,” and move on. In the case of polygamy, I don’t agree with rinnie that people have “come to a higher understanding.” Rinnie seems to think that polygamy is equated with adultery. By what standard? The Bible actually sanctions polygamy, and at the same time condemns adultery, so obviously the biblical writers didn’t equate the two.

Polygamy was never sanctioned.

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

Gee, maybe like some goofy things Brigham Young or someone else said?

 

[mfbukowski]

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

Exactly!

 

[BDawg]

Help me out. Where can I find this?

michel

Hi Michel,

Are you French? I have a French buddy named Michel.

Anyway, here’s one passage. David already had two wives before he was king, and then when Saul was killed, he was given Saul’s wives, as well. But then he went a little crazy with the new wives (he ended up with something like 600,) and even that wasn’t enough! He saw Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, bathing on her rooftop, and just had to have her. Therefore, he basically had Uriah killed, and took Bathsheba as his wife. The prophet Nathan confronted David about this, and gave him the following raking in 2 Samuel 12:7-9.

“And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.”

Notice how God said that HE “gave” Saul’s wives to David.

So while David clearly went overboard with polygamy, and ended up murdering someone, polygamy itself seems to have been ok with God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Gee, maybe like some goofy things Brigham Young or someone else said?

St. Augustine NEVER claimed to be a prophet who was speaking for God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I somewhat agree with Rebecca on this one. Limbo did show up in catechisms, and such, but it was never “infallibly defined.” But to say it wasn’t “doctrine” is a bit absurd, if you ask me. Doctrine is just what is believed and officially taught. If it was in the Catechism, it was officially taught. To be fair, though, I don’t want to be held responsible for everything that has been said in every official publication of the LDS Church.

Individual Catholics can and have taught things that are not doctrine. It continues today, especially in more liberal Catcholic circles. There is clearly defined orthodox belief and teaching, and then there is everything else.

There is no comparison to anything in Mormonism as Mormonism has no orthodoxy.

On the other hand, trying to figure out exactly WHAT has been “infallibly defined” is very difficult, sometimes. You need a canon lawyer to figure it out. For instance, I was interested in the 12th or 13th century Papal Bull, Ad Extirpanda, in which the Pope commanded the rulers of cities to torture confessions out of accused heretics. Now, the Pope was obviously speaking in his official capacity (“Ex Cathedra”), and it was obviously an issue of “Faith and Morals.” Morals, specifically. So I asked one of the Catholic experts on the EWTN Experts Forum about the status of this teaching, and he said that this was not an infallible teaching, because infallible teachings must be about generalities, not specific instances. So if the Pope commands people to go torture accused heretics, that’s not an infallible pronouncement. It would only be infallible if the Pope were to say Ex Cathedra that torture of accused heretics is, in general, morally acceptable. We can’t just assume that if the Pope officially commands people to do something that it is morally acceptable.

I agree with this.

Anyway, I find that baffling. What good is having an infallible teacher around to tell you what is morally right and wrong, if you can’t trust him to give you any specific examples? He could be absolutely backwards on those!

You use your brain. Catholics are not mindless robots. We trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christ’s Church. We do not believe the Pope is infallible, we believe that God is infallible and gives guidance to the Pope and our bishops.

Certainly people are blinded by their own ambitions. This is a weakness of humans, not God.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Help me out. Where can I find this?

michel

In Luke 16:19-31 we see that Abraham is in heaven, and lazarus in his bosom. Now he had three wives. Some one in one of the posts made the comment about JS being something of an over eager stud (some thing along that line) JS had nothing on King Solomon – read in 1 Kings 11:1-3

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women,… 2 …the Lord said …, Ye shall not go in to them, 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

but look at 2 Samuel 12:7-8

7 “And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

Then look at V 9-12

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

interesting ?

 

[rinnie]

Continued:

Now for your last question, I have no idea what you are asking, but if you are asking why the first Pope was named with the Apostle John being alive? What does Jesus picking Peter to be the Leader of the Sheep (first Pope) have to do with the Apostle John being alive. For goodness sakes when Jesus picked the first Pope Peter all of the Apostles were alive. This makes no sense to me. Now lets see how you respond back to me.

 

[rinnie]

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 ?

No that is not what you said, you said it was in our history book to look. Now you said you had proof please show me.