Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[aspirant]

Creatio ex nihilo refers to the belief that creation occurred from nothing. Now, we need to understand that “nothing” is not a “something”.

X was not, now X is. Yes.

It does not mean that God used nothing as a kind of material which He proceeded to shape into a universe. It means that God used no material whatever in the making of the universe. We see that creatio ex nihilo is specifically talking about the how of creation, in that God did not use anything to create, He simply willed it into existence.

Agreed. God gave being, i.e. existence, to X, which previously was not. God “calls into existence the things that do not exist,” God is “for whom and by whom all things exist.” “You created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

It is clear that bringing something from non-being to being (or from non-existence to existence), meaning that something now exists that did not before, does not necessitate creation from nothing.

It does necessitate creation from nothing, however, when that “something” is everything other than God. And this is what the scriptures say, in many passages expressing it in numerous ways.

A house is built from wood, for example. The house did not exist, but the wood was used to make it.

Composing a house from wood does not necessarily involve giving existence to anything from which the house is composed. But the scriptures teach that all things are given existence by God, that they exist by his will.

And you say that Papal infallibility means that the Pope cannot be incorrect when he speaks of matters of faith and morals…

The Pope cannot teach error, in matters of faith and morals, in particular and therefore limited circumstances.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t think you understand the theory of relativity.

Maybe I should have been more clear. I was thinking of simultaneity.

You are going to have to be far more clear than that. I’m an English major and am discalculaic.

 

[ParkerD]

I actually used the passage, starting with where Jesus told Peter, flesh and blood had not revealed the answer to him, but the Father who was in heaven revealed the correct answer to him. Then I showed, or attempted to show, the continuous statement from the Lord, referencing the keys and the binding and loosing. But, I don’t see that as being up for discussion, since you don’t respond to the points made. I even made reference to Isaiah 22:22 and 1 Chronicles 9, that gives the specifics of the keys. Only one was assigned to hold the keys for the king, on the throne of David. We know that Christ, according to scriptures, received the throne of David and there was no new assignment of keys to a dozen.

Would that ‘incredible assumption’ be similar to the assumption you make, that the keys were given to all the Apostles? The backup system is scriptural.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Christ chose 12 and appointed them, knowing these men were Jewish and knew the scriptures and understood them according to their time, much better than a modern mind can understand them simply by doing a read through. They understood the cultural differences that we do not realize. If one bishopric was vacated and needed to be replaced, then all bishopric positions have to be replaced once is vacated.

So, you’re saying Christ gave the keys and said He’d be with His Church until the consummation of time, without a backup. Then you say Christ translated John, further preventing a backup. Here is a wonderful gift of my Church, but I have not provided it a way to last for all men, of all generations.

ProdigalSon1,
Christ is the one who has the “key of the house of David” in Isaiah 22:22. *(See also Revelation 3:7 where John sees the same in vision). But you do have an idea in your head that is partly truthful, in that the original twelve apostles do hold the “keys” that allow them to participate in judging who is worthy of entrance into heaven, under the authority given to them by Jesus Christ, as noted in Matthew 19:28. The ultimate judge is Christ, but He will use the twelve apostles in a judging role also (the original twelve minus Judas replaced by Matthias). Peter is still the leader of those original twelve apostles, so he does have an important role. Matthias, by the way, was the one being referred to in the verse you quoted from Acts 1:20. That was indeed an important role–that of being a judge of the house of Israel.

As for the “backup” plan you think Christ had by referencing Acts 1:20 as meaning that the keys devolved on the “bishop of Rome”, that is not scriptural at all but it does give a lot of people a wonderful feeling of being right, so go with it–stay with it–keep it. I can see that it’s important for you to feel that you have the right thinking in place.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdigalSon1,
Christ is the one who has the “key of the house of David” in Isaiah 22:22. *(See also Revelation 3:7 where John sees the same in vision). But you do have an idea in your head that is partly truthful, in that the original twelve apostles do hold the “keys” that allow them to participate in judging who is worthy of entrance into heaven, under the authority given to them by Jesus Christ, as noted in Matthew 19:28. The ultimate judge is Christ, but He will use the twelve apostles in a judging role also (the original twelve minus Judas replaced by Matthias). Peter is still the leader of those original twelve apostles, so he does have an important role. Matthias, by the way, was the one being referred to in the verse you quoted from Acts 1:20. That was indeed an important role–that of being a judge of the house of Israel.

As for the “backup” plan you think Christ had by referencing Acts 1:20 as meaning that the keys devolved on the “bishop of Rome”, that is not scriptural at all but it does give a lot of people a wonderful feeling of being right, so go with it–stay with it–keep it. I can see that it’s important for you to feel that you have the right thinking in place.

I have the right thinking in place. I have explicitly explained it and shown verses that state, keys to the kingdom of heaven and who they were given too. I believe John died a natural death. I believe in Apostolic succession. I believe Christ knows ALL men and knew exactly what He was leaving His Church in the hands of. I believe Christ did not leave generations of men without a valid priesthood and then turn it over to other sinful men in the 1800s. That’s right, ALL are sinners and there’s no difference in those you accuse and those you follow. There was only one perfect.

 

[Xavierlives]

In April 1844, Joseph Smith led the Mormons out of Christianity and I’m sure in the future someone else could lead them back.

Now that is a powerful statement. We can only pray.

 

[Xavierlives]

Well now, Xavier, that question should be included in the definition of ‘disengenuous,’ especially given your own views regarding LDS missionary work and proxy work for the dead. We DO believe that you will be given one last chance to say yea or nay, remember?

The choice remains entirely yours, of course, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t going to offer it!

Diana

I just wasn’t sure what you were referencing, as in, another opportunity down the road to present it again, or baptizing me while I am dead, or a second chance in judgment (which again requires my baptism in death).

 

[Answersplease]

Mormons believe that this pre-existing matter is eternal right? I think Mormons would say (not using the same words) that the pre-existent matter is co-eternal with God. At least, that’s what they also say about “intelligences”.

Organizer

That definition of God does not work for me, Go is the Alpha and the Omega, God is the Beginning and the End.

This prexisting matter is something that is not of God something that is “other”, that nullifies the definition of God being the Alpha and the Omega.

 

[Answersplease]

Perhaps I should be clear on how I understand the terminology, since I think that I understand it correctly (don’t we always ):

-Creatio ex nihilo refers to the belief that creation occurred from nothing. Now, we need to understand that “nothing” is not a “something”. As Frank Sheed states in “Theology and Sanity”-“We must not misunderstand the statement that God made the universe of nothing. It does not mean that God used nothing as a kind of material which He proceeded to shape into a universe. It means that God used no material whatever in the making of the universe.”. We see that creatio ex nihilo is specifically talking about the how of creation, in that God did not use anything to create, He simply willed it into existence.

It is clear that bringing something from non-being to being (or from non-existence to existence), meaning that something now exists that did not before, does not necessitate creation from nothing. Again, creation from nothing is talking about how that thing came into existence. There are many examples of this “non-existence to existence” that do not necessitate that thing being created from nothing. A sperm and egg come together to form a zygote, which grows, etc. This is a clear example of something going from non-existence to existence, yet coming from pre-existent material. A house is built from wood, for example. The house did not exist, but the wood was used to make it. These are examples of things coming into existence from non-existence, yet they were not created from nothing.

Now, I personally believe that creatio ex nihilo places a greater emphasis on God, and that everything is ultimately existing because of Him, and that, in the words of Sheed, “because we are made by God of nothing, then we cannot continue in existence unless God continuously holds us in existence…Take God away and the universe ceases”. However, my point here is that something going from non-existence to existence does not necessitate that it occurred from nothing, since a baby comes from non-existence to existence, yet it came from a sperm and egg, not nothing. Creation from nothing and creation from pre-existing matter are explanations as to how something went from non-existence to existence.

Human’s do not come from nothing, human’s come from their building blocks.

The fact that the building blocks were arranged into a human is not that same as coming from absolutely nothing.

Example 1 (creation from absolutely nothing)
There is an empty room with absolutely no sand on the floor. Then, instantly out of nowhere a sandcastle appears.

Example 2 (creation from building blocks)
There is an empty room with some sand already on the floor. Then, somebody comes in and builds a sandcastle out of the pre-existing sand.

Example 2, is not the same as, Example 1.

 

[Answersplease]

And you say that Papal infallibility means that the Pope cannot be incorrect when he speaks of matters of faith and morals…

I already answered this, and you ignored it.

Does that add to your definition of disingenuous?

Well now, Xavier, that question should be included in the definition of ‘disengenuous,’…

 

[ParkerD]

I have the right thinking in place. I have explicitly explained it and shown verses that state, keys to the kingdom of heaven and who they were given too. I believe John died a natural death. I believe in Apostolic succession. I believe Christ knows ALL men and knew exactly what He was leaving His Church in the hands of. I believe Christ did not leave generations of men without a valid priesthood and then turn it over to other sinful men in the 1800s. That’s right, ALL are sinners and there’s no difference in those you accuse and those you follow. There was only one perfect.

ProdigalSon1,
I have appreciated your reminding me to look up Isaiah 22:22 and enjoy reading that passage again, and retain it better in my memory. The surrounding verses are very important also. Thanks.

To the general reader,

I have felt impressed to add the following comment:

One might think that John the Beloved Apostle might be a bit “miffed” that he was not included in the supposed “line of authority” when here he is going to be one of the judges of the house of Israel as declared and appointed by Christ. But he is beyond the emotion of being “miffed”, and he understood what was going to happen and will have compassion, generosity, love, and kindness as he sits on the judgment bar and judges the hearts of men.

Peter will also be beyond the emotion of being “miffed” even with those who have placed him in the uncomfortable position of being looked at as the “rock” when he clearly taught that Christ is the “rock”, the chief corner stone, the head of the corner whom the builders rejected. So, it’s OK–they will be generous in their judgment, as will Christ, to those acting out of misunderstanding, particularly based on having been taught those things by those they trusted to teach them correct doctrines.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdigalSon1,
I have appreciated your reminding me to look up Isaiah 22:22 and enjoy reading that passage again, and retain it better in my memory. The surrounding verses are very important also. Thanks.

To the general reader,

I have felt impressed to add the following comment:

One might think that John the Beloved Apostle might be a bit “miffed” that he was not included in the supposed “line of authority” when here he is going to be one of the judges of the house of Israel as declared and appointed by Christ. But he is beyond the emotion of being “miffed”, and he understood what was going to happen and will have compassion, generosity, love, and kindness as he sits on the judgment bar and judges the hearts of men.

Peter will also be beyond the emotion of being “miffed” even with those who have placed him in the uncomfortable position of being looked at as the “rock” when he clearly taught that Christ is the “rock”, the chief corner stone, the head of the corner whom the builders rejected. So, it’s OK–they will be generous in their judgment, as will Christ, to those acting out of misunderstanding, particularly based on having been taught those things by those they trusted to teach them correct doctrines.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

Could be a long wait if Joseph Smith is in line ahead of me…

 

[Annie_B]

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

NO church is without stain ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…
Annie

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

NO church is without stain ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…
Annie

Actually, if you read back, you’ll see I said the same thing. I apologize if the confusion is on the way I stated it. My point was, why would Christ take away a valid priesthood because of sinful men and then give it to other sinful men later as Mormons claim?

 

[ParkerD]

Could be a long wait if Joseph Smith is in line ahead of me…

No, I would expect that Catholics will be in a long line waiting to talk to Peter about their case, and he’ll be explaining about Christ being the rock. Joseph Smith will be helping judge the LDS people in line for their own day of judgment (under the direction of Peter, but in a separate line.)

But Peter will be a good person to talk to–very respectful of everyone’s reasons for having justified their beliefs using the very same or a similar Bible.

 

[why_me]

Why Me, Im guessing you may not be familiar with ancient forms of Jewish worship. The Mass is far more closer to Paul’s style of Jewish worship then a LDS sacrament meeting.

You may want to research Jewish worship in the times of Christ and Paul.
Just a thought

I don’t think that the early christians were saying the trindentine mass during the early church. And most likely, it was not all said in latin but in the language of the people involved. I can not say that the early christian service resembled the Mass as catholic knew it before vatican II. I also have this understanding that the early service was also a communal event of love and fellowship where members could fellowship and experience the joy of each others company,especially during the time of persecution. Also, since many of the members were poor, I can not see the early christians going through a lot of pomp in priestly clothing.

The trindentine mass evolved and it evolved for a reason.

 

[why_me]

Answersplease:
Answersplease:

You are misrepresenting what I said.

I NEVER said that Paul died last. In fact I think the original Apostle John died last.
Public revelation stopped at the death of the last of the original Apostles who was John

My statement still stands. I can not say that god is now on a coffee break after the death of John when it came to public revelation. Of course, in mormon apostacy interpretation god did perhaps remain silent until the restored church was formed. So, you do have a point with the stoppage of public revelation. But mormons would now claim that god speaks through his prophets as they did in ancient times.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t think that the early christians were saying the trindentine mass during the early church. And most likely, it was not all said in latin but in the language of the people involved. I can not say that the early christian service resembled the Mass as catholic knew it before vatican II. I also have this understanding that the early service was also a communal event of love and fellowship where members could fellowship and experience the joy of each others company,especially during the time of persecution. Also, since many of the members were poor, I can not see the early christians going through a lot of pomp in priestly clothing.

The trindentine mass evolved and it evolved for a reason.

And I am supposed to take you as some sort of authority because…? Because you have an opinion? What?

 

[why_me]

Yes Marie, the inconsistencies in mormonism are numerous.

a)Christ’s Church failed because men were not righteous enough to hold the priesthood.

b)Mormonism stands in spite of this fact.

To blindly accept the contradiction is what it means to be mormon. OH, and to actually point out that “the brethren” are exhibiting any sort of sin…this is apostasy.

baaaaaaa

To understand non-catholics, you would need to use your sociological imagination and take a step outside your own perceived ideas. Most non-catholics see abuse inside the early catholic church. And they see this abuse and corruption for a reason. It existed as it would exist in any institution that was all-powerful. Power can corrupt the most humblest soul.

It is not a question of perfection or even unrighteousness. It goes much more deeper than that. It goes with power, abuse of power and corruption. For non-catholics, this is what they see in the early catholic church. Many religious abused their power during the dark and middle ages such is what non-catholics see in catholic history. .

I remember when I was in a luthern country, I saw a documentary about christian history before the event of luther. My gosh, they made chopped meat out of catholic history thereby supporting the need to for luther and reformation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think that the early christians were saying the trindentine mass during the early church. And most likely, it was not all said in latin but in the language of the people involved. I can not say that the early christian service resembled the Mass as catholic knew it before vatican II. I also have this understanding that the early service was also a communal event of love and fellowship where members could fellowship and experience the joy of each others company,especially during the time of persecution. Also, since many of the members were poor, I can not see the early christians going through a lot of pomp in priestly clothing.

The trindentine mass evolved and it evolved for a reason.

Please give an example of the ‘Temple ceremony’ from the early Church? Can you clearly see early Christians going through stripping down and washing each other, or what has evolved into a special ‘clothing’ ceremony with symbolic washing?

You can’t say what they didn’t do and expect us to believe it was ‘restored’ when Mormons have a much more ‘elaborate’ ceremony of sorts.

Are you also trying to tell us that priestly robes are not Biblical?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Mormanism is the easiest religion to prove false. Proven By God in the Bible, by science and by history.