so one of us is right but we can’t know who is right?That many Christians (not all) understand Him differently than I do…or than you do for that matter, does not make God ‘not-God.’ It makes one of us incorrect about Him, but He is Who and What He is no matter what WE claim Him to be.
I’ve seen the Joseph Smith Translation. No this said Mormon Edition. My wife reads the KJ and it was different.Are you sure you weren’t confusing the Joseph Smith Translation for the KJV LDS Edition? The LDS Edition of the Bible has the complete, unadulterated KJV, less the Deuterocanon. The only additions to it are footnotes, chapter prologues (which are in italics and cannot be confused as part of the body of the text), an index, a topical guide, and various maps in the back. I don’t know of a single example of text being removed.
Could you provide some verses as examples? I find it very strange that the LDS Church would actually call it the “Mormon Edition” in print, and given that I actually own and use the LDS Edition of the KJV, I’d bet my house that you’re wrong about whole sentences being added or retracted. The LDS Edition of the KJV is nothing more than the same KJV any other KJV-user uses with prologues and indices.I’ve seen the Joseph Smith Translation. No this said Mormon Edition. My wife reads the KJ and it was different.
It is called the Mormon Edition. That’s why I was curious about it. I cant remember exact sentences but I know what I seen when I had the 2 bibles layed out next to each other on the same pages. The students that owned the book where as surprised as I was. They may still have it and when I see them i’ll ask them for it so that way I will know if im wrong or right. I don’t find it strange at all because don’t the Mormons say that the believe in the bible as long as its translated correctly? Hence the Mormon Edition & the JST. And I’ve seen the JST one and its not it.Could you provide some verses as examples? I find it very strange that the LDS Church would actually call it the “Mormon Edition” in print, and given that I actually own and use the LDS Edition of the KJV, I’d bet my house that you’re wrong about whole sentences being added or retracted. The LDS Edition of the KJV is nothing more than the same KJV any other KJV-user uses with prologues and indices.
This is a fair point. However, I could see a Catholic theologian claiming that most of these other churches authority derived from the Catholic and I could also see him discounting some of the other churches you mentioned. The only surprising thing here is that he didn’t discount the LDS church.I’m always amused when LDS make this claim (usually citing some unnamed Catholic minister that said it’s either Catholics or Mormons). No, it isn’t either Catholics, Mormons, or nobody. There are various other churches that claim apostolic authority, and/or being the “one true church”. The Orthodox Church claims apostolic authority (and the Catholic Church recognizes said authority as valid), as well as the Oriental Orthodox Churches, other ancient churches (I don’t believe the Church of the East is Oriental Orthodox, could be wrong). Then you have the various restorationist churches, not just the LDS (and the various Joseph Smith derived churches), but then you have the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh-day Adventists (claiming to be the “remnant church”), etc.
My point is just that this simplistic look at apostolic authority is illogical, ignores the reality of the situation, and it never made sense to me.
A Catholic Opinion.–Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic
succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”
I have never seen such a Bible and I seriously doubt that the church would call it the “Mormon Edition” unless it was very old. The LDS church has tried to clarify the name of our church which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and avoids putting words like “Mormon” on published materials. Further, the Joseph Smith translation was not accepted by the church until the 1970’s when Robert J. Mathews had a chance to review the original manuscript which was held by the RLDS (now Community of Christ) church.I’ve seen the Joseph Smith Translation. No this said Mormon Edition. My wife reads the KJ and it was different.
We would say that matter has always existed and will always exist. It cannot be created or destroyed, only organized. Thus God did not create the world from nothing. Further, we are eternal and have always existed as intelligences in one form or another and will continue to do so through all eternity.so one of us is right but we can’t know who is right?
God can not be made of matter and be God. Creatures are made of matter. God is being itself. God is not a creature because creatures require a creator. God has no creator, he has always existed and will always exist, he has no beginning and no end.
I know it sounds crazy but believe me, that’s what it said.I have never seen such a Bible and I seriously doubt that the church would call it the “Mormon Edition” unless it was very old. The LDS church has tried to clarify the name of our church which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and avoids putting words like “Mormon” on published materials. Further, the Joseph Smith translation was not accepted by the church until the 1970’s when Robert J. Mathews had a chance to review the original manuscript which was held by the RLDS (now Community of Christ) church.
There is nothing to suggest that he discounted the other churches claiming to be a restoration and did not discount the LDS church (as well, I see no reason to arbitrarily disregard those other churches in favor of Mormonism). Regardless of the actual statement, I have shown why it really doesn’t make sense from a Catholic perspective, and even from an objective perspective, there are clearly more options available than either the Catholic Church or the LDS as far as who would have apostolic authority if it exists (since obviously the Orthodox and other ancient Churches would not claim that their authority derives from the Catholic authority, and that isn’t even how Catholicism really views the matter anyway, in our acceptance of Orthodox authority).This is a fair point. However, I could see a Catholic theologian claiming that most of these other churches authority derived from the Catholic and I could also see him discounting some of the other churches you mentioned. The only surprising thing here is that he didn’t discount the LDS church.
I first heard this comment about apostolic authority between Catholic and LDS in a book entitled, “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards. From quick research it appears he was quoting an earlier work by Orson F. Whitney. The Catholic theologians name was John M. Reiner. Here is the quote:
Orson F. Whitney claimed John M. Reiner was the “learned Doctor of Divinity.” John M. Reiner was a lay languages (not divinity) professor at Villanova. He was a convert from Judaism and a famous biblical scholar at the time. He escorted Grover Cleveland from New York to Philadelphia when Cleveland gave the commencement address there in 1902. The ‘Improvement Era’ claims he visited Utah in January 1898 on personal business and addressed some Mormons in the Tabernacle on a Sunday afternoon. The ‘Improvement Era’ was a publication of B.H. Roberts, and in it he responded to at least one of Reiner’s letters before Reiner asked him to stop publishing his letters. There is no record that Reiner and Whitney (Salt Lake City Treasure) ever met during Reiner’s visit. Reiner was still alive when Whitney first published it; so maybe he didn’t give the name of the ‘learned man’ because the ‘learned man’ could deny saying it.This is a fair point. However, I could see a Catholic theologian claiming that most of these other churches authority derived from the Catholic and I could also see him discounting some of the other churches you mentioned. The only surprising thing here is that he didn’t discount the LDS church.
I first heard this comment about apostolic authority between Catholic and LDS in a book entitled, “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards. From quick research it appears he was quoting an earlier work by Orson F. Whitney. The Catholic theologians name was John M. Reiner. Here is the quote:
If apostolic succession was important, the Catholic ‘learned’ man would believe it was apostolic succession or nothing. He would also know that the Catholic Church is a Church with apostolic succession. He would also know the Mormon Church was less than 70 years old; therefore it did not have apostolic succession any more than any other 19th century Protestant denomination. A ‘learned’ man would not see an either-or with Mormonism. He would see it with Orthodoxy, but never with a new upstart religion. As irrational as this quote is; it makes sense to Mormons and makes them feel good. So I guess Whitney did his job.A Catholic Opinion.–Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days. My reply to this clear and concise statement was as follows: “I agree with you, Doctor, in nearly all that you have said, but don’t deceive yourself with the notion that we “Mormons” are not aware of the strength of our position. We are better aware of it than anyone else. We have not all been to college; we cannot all speak the dead languages; we may be ‘ignoramuses,’ as you say; but we know we are right, and we know you are wrong.” I was just as frank with him as he had been with me.
Sure there is, he said, “The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it.” That doesn’t leave room for a host of other churches.There is nothing to suggest that he discounted the other churches claiming to be a restoration and did not discount the LDS church (as well, I see no reason to arbitrarily disregard those other churches in favor of Mormonism).
Regardless of the actual statement, I have shown why it really doesn’t make sense from a Catholic perspective, and even from an objective perspective, there are clearly more options available than either the Catholic Church or the LDS as far as who would have apostolic authority if it exists (since obviously the Orthodox and other ancient Churches would not claim that their authority derives from the Catholic authority, and that isn’t even how Catholicism really views the matter anyway, in our acceptance of Orthodox authority).
My point was to show you where the thinking derived and the source of the statement (you said the person could not be found). That’s fine if you believe there are many sources of apostolic authority and that many churches can claim it. I of course disagree.So the reality is, no, it isn’t either the Catholics or the Mormons. If Catholicism does not have apostolic authority, it is safe to say that a Catholic would sooner look at Orthodoxy (whether Eastern or Oriental) long before looking at Mormonism, since they make the same claim of 2000 year old authority deriving from Jesus Christ and His Apostles (independent of any relationship with Catholicism). Further, if a restoration was needed, there are plenty of options available, in addition to the Utah-based Mormonism, to look into for that.
It’s hard to discount the facts 120 years after the quote. I also would be careful putting words into someones mouth, or trying to state what they “really” believed. Regardless, I’m not trying to support the quote, just provide information on where the thinking came from when LDS say, “It’s either the Catholic or the LDS church that has the authority”.Orson F. Whitney claimed John M. Reiner was the “learned Doctor of Divinity.” John M. Reiner was a lay languages (not divinity) professor at Villanova. He was a convert from Judaism and a famous biblical scholar at the time. He escorted Grover Cleveland from New York to Philadelphia when Cleveland gave the commencement address there in 1902. The ‘Improvement Era’ claims he visited Utah in January 1898 on personal business and addressed some Mormons in the Tabernacle on a Sunday afternoon. The ‘Improvement Era’ was a publication of B.H. Roberts, and in it he responded to at least one of Reiner’s letters before Reiner asked him to stop publishing his letters. There is no record that Reiner and Whitney (Salt Lake City Treasure) ever met during Reiner’s visit. Reiner was still alive when Whitney first published it; so maybe he didnt give the name of the ‘learned man’ because the ‘learned man’ could deny saying it.
This quote is a small part of a complete writing of Whitney. In it, Whitney wants to show how others believe Mormonism is ignorant and uncharitable. The way he refutes the others argument is the same way he does it here: We know we are right/smart/wise or even a ‘so what.’ No real argument just a ‘we know it is true,’ statement.
If apostolic succession was important, the Catholic ‘learned’ man would believe it was apostolic succession or nothing. He would also know that the Catholic Church is a Church with apostolic succession. He would also know the Mormon Church was less than 70 years old; therefore it did not have apostolic succession any more than any other 19th century Protestant denomination. A ‘learned’ man would not see an either-or with Mormonism. He would see it with Orthodoxy, but never with a new upstart religion. As irrational as this quote is; it makes sense to Mormons and makes them feel good. So I guess Whitney did his job.
Yes, I understand where Mormons get the thinking from. ButIt’s hard to discount the facts 120 years after the quote. I also would be careful putting words into someones mouth, or trying to state what they “really” believed. Regardless, I’m not trying to support the quote, just provide information on where the thinking came from when LDS say, “It’s either the Catholic or the LDS church that has the authority”.
My LDS friend owns the Joseph Smith Translation, and some of the verses are very different.I have never seen such a Bible and I seriously doubt that the church would call it the “Mormon Edition” unless it was very old. The LDS church has tried to clarify the name of our church which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and avoids putting words like “Mormon” on published materials. Further, the Joseph Smith translation was not accepted by the church until the 1970’s when Robert J. Mathews had a chance to review the original manuscript which was held by the RLDS (now Community of Christ) church.
Your friend was confused then. The KJV that the LDS use is no different than the KJV anyone else uses:My LDS friend owns the Joseph Smith Translation, and some of the verses are very different.
Let’s take John 1:1, for example
KJV (Protestant Bible) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
NAB (Catholic Bible used in Liturgies) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
RSV (same in both the Protestant and Catholic Version) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Douay-Rheims (Catholic Bible in Archaic English) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
JST (Joseph Smith Translation–The edition my LDS friend uses, the edition the other use on here mentioned): “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.”
As you can see, there is a different translation here, and it results in a very different meaning of the Scripture. She called it the King James Version, but it did not match my Protestant friend’s King James Version. It does indeed exist! I’m not sure if it is the version you use or not, but this was the version attached to her Book of Mormon.
Either your friend confused the JST for the LDS KJV, or she is a non-LDS Mormon. The quad-scripture bound together that LDS use (KJV Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, & Pearl of Great Price) does not contain the entirety of the JST. Only Chapters 23 & 24 from Matthew, and a “translation” of Genesis, called the Book of Moses, both of which are found in the Pearl of Great Price.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
When we read the entirety of the statement, as quoted by Stephen168, we see why the above does not refute what I said. He specifically states that the Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on, because they were breakaways off of the Catholic Church, so if the Catholic Church is wrong, then they are wrong. Such an argument doesn’t address so-called “restorationist” churches, such as the ones I mentioned, and therefore, no, there is nothing to suggest that he considered those churches claiming a restoration besides Mormonism. Indeed, he says, "It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days." As I stated, there are various churches that claim that claim a restoration, and there are also various churches claiming perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times.Sure there is, he said, “The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it.” That doesn’t leave room for a host of other churches.
No, I did not say the person could not be found. I said-"'I’m always amused when LDS make this claim (usually citing some unnamed Catholic minister that said it’s either Catholics or Mormons)". Whenever I’ve seen this story mentioned (and yes, I have read A Marvelous Work and a Wonder), the Catholic mentioned is unnamed.My point was to show you where the thinking derived and the source of the statement (you said the person could not be found).
I never said that I believe there are many sources of apostolic authority. However, yes, it is an actual fact that many churches besides the SLC-based LDS church and the Catholic Church claim apostolic authority. My point is merely that the “either Mormonism or Catholicism” line of thinking is flawed, based on objective facts of what various churches claim about themselves in reference to apostolic authority, and that for a Catholic, especially a claimed “learned” one, such an argument still doesn’t make sense, since if for some reason it ended up being that the Catholic Church does not have the apostolic authority it claims, there are other ancient Churches that claim such an authority independent of Catholicism, such as the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church and other Oriental Orthodox Churches (all of which make the claim that they have had authority given them by Jesus Christ through the Apostles anciently, just like the Catholic Church claims), etc. As well, if we accept that a restoration was needed, there are various churches with a claim of restored authority besides Mormonism (and even then, perhaps the alleged restoration hasn’t even occurred yet).That’s fine if you believe there are many sources of apostolic authority and that many churches can claim it. I of course disagree.
ah I see, we do not have the same understanding of who God is. I would say that the Mormon understanding is not the same as the Christian understanding. In Christian theology only God is eternal and God created matter out of nothing.We would say that matter has always existed and will always exist. It cannot be created or destroyed, only organized. Thus God did not create the world from nothing. Further, we are eternal and have always existed as intelligences in one form or another and will continue to do so through all eternity.
I don’t agree with the quote either. However, I do believe it happened and there is a valid source for the statement. I think you are doing a lot of back peddling to hedge your original comment. But no matter it is not a major concern.When we read the entirety of the statement, as quoted by Stephen168, we see why the above does not refute what I said. He specifically states that the Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on, because they were breakaways off of the Catholic Church, so if the Catholic Church is wrong, then they are wrong. Such an argument doesn’t address so-called “restorationist” churches, such as the ones I mentioned, and therefore, no, there is nothing to suggest that he considered those churches claiming a restoration besides Mormonism. Indeed, he says, "It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days." As I stated, there are various churches that claim that claim a restoration, and there are also various churches claiming perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times.
But even if he did really think that it’s only Catholicism or Mormonism, he is still wrong in the reality of the issue, as demonstrated before, and below, and confirms my previous statement that such a view is simplistic and ignorant of the objective fact of the matter.
No, I did not say the person could not be found. I said-"'I’m always amused when LDS make this claim (usually citing some unnamed Catholic minister that said it’s either Catholics or Mormons)". Whenever I’ve seen this story mentioned (and yes, I have read A Marvelous Work and a Wonder), the Catholic mentioned is unnamed.
I never said that I believe there are many sources of apostolic authority. However, yes, it is an actual fact that many churches besides the SLC-based LDS church and the Catholic Church claim apostolic authority. My point is merely that the “either Mormonism or Catholicism” line of thinking is flawed, based on objective facts of what various churches claim about themselves in reference to apostolic authority, and that for a Catholic, especially a claimed “learned” one, such an argument still doesn’t make sense, since if for some reason it ended up being that the Catholic Church does not have the apostolic authority it claims, there are other ancient Churches that claim such an authority independent of Catholicism, such as the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church and other Oriental Orthodox Churches (all of which make the claim that they have had authority given them by Jesus Christ through the Apostles anciently, just like the Catholic Church claims), etc. As well, if we accept that a restoration was needed, there are various churches with a claim of restored authority besides Mormonism (and even then, perhaps the alleged restoration hasn’t even occurred yet).
From this, I see no compelling reason to find the Mormonism vs Catholicism apostolic authority argument valid. While I understand why many LDS like to bring this story up (I’ve seen it many times), when we actually think about that claim, it doesn’t make any sense.