Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[TheosisM]

I will say this about the book of mormon. (as with the koran). It is specifically mentioned in the Bible.

**Revelation 22:17-19

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away in the tree of life and the holy city described in this book.

**That is why we know the book of mormon is on the same deceitful ground as the koran.

Without bringing in the Koran or the Book of Mormon, I think that this verse is talking about adding to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole. “This book” refers to the Book of Revelation. I believe that other books in the Bible make similar claims as well.

I’ve also seen Fundamentalists use this sort of argument against Catholics (in support of their sola scriptura).

 

[spn82756]

(sigh)

I understand that you believe this. I GET that. this is another one of those nutty conversations I have with you guys where the dialogue goes:

Me: the sky is blue.
the Catholic (well, not all of you are quite this insulting about it, but enough of you are…) : NO, you ignorant Mormon you, how could you say such a thing in your bigoted misunderstanding! We have FAITH, I tell you! WE know what we believe…don’t you DARE tell us what we think! THE SKY IS BLUE!

Here’s the deal: The sky is blue. Catholics believe in the concept of Papal infallibility. MORMONS believe that God will ‘remove’ a prophet ‘from his place’ if he tries to lead the church astray. Both concepts require faith in God’s ability to handle apostasy at the highest level.

Papal infallibility…only on faith and morals. Read my previous post. You join many new false religions of the last 100 to 200 years that have sprung up. All know better than the Church (Orthodox included) that has been in existance for 2000 years.

It’s called heresy…that’s what mormonism is. Right there with JW. It’s not recognized as being a Protestant demonination (notice my use of starting certain words with “caps”…it’s a sign of respect and acceptance) Mornonism and JW’s are cults.

mormoncult.org/

 

[aspirant]

Without bringing in the Koran or the Book of Mormon, I think that this verse is talking about adding to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole. “This book” refers to the Book of Revelation.

On a literal level, I agree. Morally speaking it might be extended to the whole canon, but that’s spiritual interpretation.

 

[spn82756]

Without bringing in the Koran or the Book of Mormon, I think that this verse is talking about adding to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole. “This book” refers to the Book of Revelation. I believe that other books in the Bible make similar claims as well.

I’ve also seen Fundamentalists use this sort of argument against Catholics (in support of their sola scriptura).

I understand where you are coming from on this. I was expecting this challenge…and it is a worthy challenge. But I think Christianity sees it as both adding to the Book of Revelation and the Bible.

Now…Sacred Tradition of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not additions to the Bible. And have never claimed to be by either Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(sigh)

I understand that you believe this. I GET that. this is another one of those nutty conversations I have with you guys where the dialogue goes:

Me: the sky is blue.
the Catholic (well, not all of you are quite this insulting about it, but enough of you are…) : NO, you ignorant Mormon you, how could you say such a thing in your bigoted misunderstanding! We have FAITH, I tell you! WE know what we believe…don’t you DARE tell us what we think! THE SKY IS BLUE!

Here’s the deal: The sky is blue. Catholics believe in the concept of Papal infallibility. MORMONS believe that God will ‘remove’ a prophet ‘from his place’ if he tries to lead the church astray. Both concepts require faith in God’s ability to handle apostasy at the highest level.

I am simply stating that it is hypocritical of certain Catholics to dismiss OUR faith in such a thing, and then claim a similar faith for their own belief system—especially when they couch that dismissal in terms of disdain and 'how could anybody believe something a stupid as that?" attitudes.

Especially when the mechanics of the thing are a little different. WE at least conceded that it is possible for a prophet to consider going nutso–we simply believe that if one tries it, he’ll be ‘removed.’

Y’all don’t believe that a Pope can even try it. Won’t even enter into his head, so that no matter what he says, it’s ‘truth’ simply because you have faith that God would not allow an untrue thought to escape from his mouth.

which, frankly, is no skin off of my nose…it’s your faith. I only get annoyed about it when a Catholic starts criticizing us for being blind followers of the leader of our church. when you think about it for a moment, I think you can see why that might be.

See the condescending tone of your post. I say, it’s our faith in God, His promises and His power. You say another nutty conversation. To be fair you to, you added wording to include an ‘ignorant Mormon’. That was added by you, I did not use it. But I guess you decided to judge me according to the actions of others?

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but you believe St. John was ‘translated’, was he removed? No, you don’t believe that, you believe that immediately upon his translation the hierarchy in the Church lost it’s valid priesthood, or it was removed, but you cannot state the actions specifically why it was removed.

We follow Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He is the founder of our Church.

Tell us about the founder of your Church.

 

[spn82756]

On a literal level, I agree. Morally speaking it might be extended to the whole canon, but that’s spiritual interpretation.

I believe it is the spiritual interpretation of the whole Christian Church.

 

[aspirant]

I believe it is the spiritual interpretation of the whole Christian Church.

I’m not saying otherwise, just acknowledging that it’s not the literal level.

 

[dianaiad]

Please explain this remark?

Go read the Papal Bull “Dum Diversas” by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452. That’s one…but there was an earlier one that literally offered to remit the sins of anybody who would go battle the ‘Saracens’ and enslave them. While that term has later become associated with Muslims, at the time it refered to Africans who were NOT Arabs–that is, all who were not Caucasian. It was a euphamism for all African natives who were not white. (Since I do not want to, YET AGAIN, be gasped at for using the perfectly acceptable and usual term to describe African natives who are not white, I’ll go with the politically correct version.)

Prodigal Son, the Catholic church has had a long history of being a part of history. You know, if everybody ELSE accepted slavery, so did the church. Along with everybody else, getting your act together took time, and racism was, and remains, a problem.

Whether you want to think about it or not.

 

[spn82756]

See the condescending tone of your post. I say, it’s our faith in God, His promises and His power. You say another nutty conversation. To be fair you to, you added wording to include an ‘ignorant Mormon’. That was added by you, I did not use it. But I guess you decided to judge me according to the actions of others?

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but you believe St. John was ‘translated’, was he removed? No, you don’t believe that, you believe that immediately upon his translation the hierarchy in the Church lost it’s valid priesthood, or it was removed, but you cannot state the actions specifically why it was removed.

We follow Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He is the founder of our Church.

Tell us about the founder of your Church.

:extrahappy:

 

[spn82756]

I’m not saying otherwise, just acknowledging that it’s not the literal level.

 

[TheosisM]

I understand where you are coming from on this. I was expecting this challenge…and it is a worthy challenge. But I think Christianity sees it as both adding to the Book of Revelation and the Bible.

Now…Sacred Tradition of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not additions to the Bible. And have never claimed to be by either Church.

What do you mean by “Christianity” sees it as referring to “both” the Book of Revelation and the Bible as a whole? Where can I read that this is how “Christianity” sees it?

Mormons do not believe that the Book of Mormon is an addition to the Bible. It is used in addition to the Bible, but it is not added to the Bible.

There are earlier scriptural verses that make similar claims about not to “add to or take away” from “this book”. If we are consistent in interpreting this as referring to the Bible, then this would make all later scriptural texts invalid, as they are “additions” to what was already written.

Here is an excerpt from “Catholic Library Quick Questions (1992)”, a response to the question of whether Rev 22:18 invalidates Sacred Tradition:

"That conclusion might be possible if John’s phrase “this book” meant “the Bible,” but it doesn’t. It’s a common mistake of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to assume that John was speaking here of the Bible as we know it–all 73 books (seven less in Protestant versions), from Genesis to Revelation, bound between two covers.

John wrote Revelation before the year 100, so he could not have had the Bible in mind when he penned this warning, because the Bible as we know it (and as many Protestants think he meant it) would not exist in its present form for three centuries.

The Catholic Church defined the canons of the Old and New Testaments at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). Before that time Christians weren’t certain exactly which books belonged in the canon because the Church hadn’t yet made a definitive decision on the issue.

…

There’s another reason Revelation 22:18-19 doesn’t disprove the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Virtually the same warning is given in Deuteronomy 4:2. If we apply there the same principle that you want to apply in Revelation 22, we have a dilemma, because God would have prohibited the adding of anything to his statutes and decrees as found up to and including the book of Deuteronomy. If that were the case, all subsequent books of the Bible, including the book of Revelation itself, would be proscribed because they were added to the Pentateuch. That means Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Paul and John and all the writers of later books would have the aforementioned dreaded plagues “added unto them” because they added to what was already there.

So what was John really warning us about in Revelation 22? Simple. He had written the book of Revelation as a prophetic document for the edification and guidance of the Church, and he didn’t want it tampered with–nothing added, nothing subtracted. He knew that some knucklehead in a later generation might decide he could improve on the message, or, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, twist it to better suit his personal theology. Revelation 22:18-19 is essentially a first-century copyright, designed to discourage people from altering the work. "

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm

 

[dianaiad]

Again, please explain this statement.

I did, in part. As well, in an earlier thread a few months ago we all had quite a conversation about the history of the Catholic church and slavery that resulted from some rather nasty insults BY Catholics against Mormons for being 'racists." The the idea was that SINCE there was a history of racism in the CoJCoLDS, THEN the church is, necessarily, wrong.

Well, I figured, hey…if a history of racism proves US to be ‘untrue,’ and ‘wrong,’ then what would it mean if Catholics had any problems in this area?

So I went looking. I was rather shocked and saddened by what I found, though very encouraged at the progress the church has made in this area over the last hundred years. I do feel, however, that when it comes to this sort of thing, it really WOULD be a good idea to pay attention to the proverb about men in glass houses throwing stones.

 

[TheosisM]

On a literal level, I agree. Morally speaking it might be extended to the whole canon, but that’s spiritual interpretation.

See my above response. I guess it’s okay if that’s how you personally interpret it, however there is no reason to believe that John is referring to the Bible as a whole, since there is no reason to assume that he is suddenly now talking about the Bible as a whole (and not the book that he is writing).

 

[spn82756]

What do you mean by “Christianity” sees it as referring to “both” the Book of Revelation and the Bible as a whole? Where can I read that this is how “Christianity” sees it?

Mormons do not believe that the Book of Mormon is an addition to the Bible. It is used in addition to the Bible, but it is not added to the Bible.

There are earlier scriptural verses that make similar claims about not to “add to or take away” from “this book”. If we are consistent in interpreting this as referring to the Bible, then this would make all later scriptural texts invalid, as they are “additions” to what was already written.

Here is an excerpt from “Catholic Library Quick Questions (1992)”, a response to the question of whether Rev 22:18 invalidates Sacred Tradition:

"That conclusion might be possible if John’s phrase “this book” meant “the Bible,” but it doesn’t. It’s a common mistake of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to assume that John was speaking here of the Bible as we know it–all 73 books (seven less in Protestant versions), from Genesis to Revelation, bound between two covers.

John wrote Revelation before the year 100, so he could not have had the Bible in mind when he penned this warning, because the Bible as we know it (and as many Protestants think he meant it) would not exist in its present form for three centuries.

The Catholic Church defined the canons of the Old and New Testaments at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). Before that time Christians weren’t certain exactly which books belonged in the canon because the Church hadn’t yet made a definitive decision on the issue.

…

There’s another reason Revelation 22:18-19 doesn’t disprove the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Virtually the same warning is given in Deuteronomy 4:2. If we apply there the same principle that you want to apply in Revelation 22, we have a dilemma, because God would have prohibited the adding of anything to his statutes and decrees as found up to and including the book of Deuteronomy. If that were the case, all subsequent books of the Bible, including the book of Revelation itself, would be proscribed because they were added to the Pentateuch. That means Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Paul and John and all the writers of later books would have the aforementioned dreaded plagues “added unto them” because they added to what was already there.

So what was John really warning us about in Revelation 22? Simple. He had written the book of Revelation as a prophetic document for the edification and guidance of the Church, and he didn’t want it tampered with–nothing added, nothing subtracted. He knew that some knucklehead in a later generation might decide he could improve on the message, or, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, twist it to better suit his personal theology. Revelation 22:18-19 is essentially a first-century copyright, designed to discourage people from altering the work. "

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm

I stand corrected my frieind!

Now…the JW’s and mormons use their “addition to scripture” to change what the Bible says about Christ. He was never created…“Begotten not made…one in union with the Father” Now 1900 years later Joey Smith comes along and changes that. That’s certainly what Christianity DOES NOT accept. Both belief systems are inspired by less than God. Much as islam.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, really.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the very scripture to which you are trying to refer, and trying to insert an idea that is not present.

Luke 24:32 (King James Version)

32And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

(same scripture, Douay Rheims)

32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in the way and opened to us the scriptures?

Before you go about telling me that I’m not ‘familiar with the scripture,’ perhaps you should actualy become familiar with the scripture?

 

[dianaiad]

Doesn’t change the problem with your premise.

It resolves ‘the problem’ with my premise. It destroys your objection.

 

[TheosisM]

I believe it is the spiritual interpretation of the whole Christian Church.

See above. Where is the evidence of this “spiritual interpretation”, accepted by the “whole Christian Church” (I assume you are referring to Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants as a whole)? I have never heard of this, and would appreciate references to this interpretation.

 

[TheosisM]

I stand corrected!

okay

 

[spn82756]

okay

But now you must read my edited version.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Go read the Papal Bull “Dum Diversas” by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452. That’s one…but there was an earlier one that literally offered to remit the sins of anybody who would go battle the ‘Saracens’ and enslave them. While that term has later become associated with Muslims, at the time it refered to Africans who were NOT Arabs–that is, all who were not Caucasian. It was a euphamism for all African natives who were not white. (Since I do not want to, YET AGAIN, be gasped at for using the perfectly acceptable and usual term to describe African natives who are not white, I’ll go with the politically correct version.)

Prodigal Son, the Catholic church has had a long history of being a part of history. You know, if everybody ELSE accepted slavery, so did the church. Along with everybody else, getting your act together took time, and racism was, and remains, a problem.

Whether you want to think about it or not.

I had hoped that wasn’t where you were going. I have read your posts about the evils of Catholicism and the goodness of Mormonism and was shocked to see you wanted to go this route.

Would you care to explain the ‘mark of cain’ as was the Mormon understanding, by your Church’s founders? It won’t be hard, as these type things are discussed, it appears new explanation arise from them.

The Mormon Church is not without stain. We can certainly discuss them if you wish.