Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[RebeccaJ]

I am aware that Catholics are not sola scriptura, Rebecca. However, you have made many statements that what the Pope does and says is not scripture. Sacred Tradition, though it is respected as much as scripture is, still is NOT scripture; scripture trumps it–and the very fact that scripture ended and something else began–the writings that make up the Sacred Tradition–is a statement that it is DIFFERENT. You have already acknowledged that it does NOT contain public revelation.

In other words, you are trying to have this both ways, and you can’t.

Scripture does not trump Tradition. They are two things that work together. Scripture is not different from Tradition, it came from Tradition.

 

[aspirant]

God’s Perfect Word has been Revealed. Jesus IS THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD.

 

[dianaiad]

It ceased because God’s Perfect Word has been Revealed. Jesus IS THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD. If you can explain to me what must be added to GOD’S PERFECTION, I’m all ears.

You just repeated that same claim; that it ceased because it ceased. It seems to me that if we are talking about the "perfect word of God,’ then that would be encompassed in the literal words of Christ—but the NT has a LOT more than that in it. Other men wrote. They quoted Him, of course–but why did they add anything to what He said, either to explain, expand or explore His words?

The fact is, they DID do all three. They DID continue to recieve revelation, and there is no place in the bible OR in sacred tradition that gives a reason why it stopped when it did…or that it was SUPPOSED to stop when it did. All anyone has done is decide that SINCE it stopped, well then, it was supposed to.

But…was it? Who said? And where?

 

[TheosisM]

From recent conversations I understand that CAtholics believe that the priesthood confers a power to do things that is independent of permission to do them, so that (as Theosis and others have told me) if a bishop ordains a man to the priesthood, that ordination may be valid…but not lawful. That is, he can pass the priesthood on even if he doesn’t have permission to do so. It is this argument, I think, upon which the Catholic claim of the continuation of the priesthood rests. The idea, it seems from where I sit, anyway, is that once a bishop was ordained, then he no longer required permission from an apostle to ordain more bishops.

To be more specific as to the Catholic position: Catholics believe that the “requirements” to be an apostle were laid out when there was a need to fill Judas’ spot. They can be found in Acts 1:21-22:

• 21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.*

Therefore, the field was narrowed to Matthias and Barsabbas, and Matthias was then chosen by lots. So, Catholics (and I assume other episcopal-polity churches) believe that these requirements were necessary to be one of the Twelve. Now, this brings up the question of Paul and others called “apostles” in the Bible. There is therefore a distinction made between apostles of the Twelve, and apostles not part of the Twelve. Paul certainly was an apostle, but he wasn’t one of the Twelve (or at least, no evidence is given that he was). This view is also based on the need for “requirements” to be one of the Twelve, as given above.

Because of these requirements, obviously no one could fulfill them after the 1st century. Therefore, it is believed that the apostles ordained bishops as their successors. It would therefore be unnecessary to require permission from the apostles, since there wouldn’t be any more apostles after they died (again, the requirements). Permission would therefore be given by the “head bishop” of each church, also known as a Patriarch, Metropolitan, etc. The Bishop of Rome is one example.

If a bishop ordains someone without permission (such as from the Bishop of Rome, though I am not sure about the requirements of the Eastern Catholic churches, as in, whether they only need authorization from the patriarch/metropolitan of their church, or from the Bishop of Rome), they would be validly ordained, however because it is unlawful, they would be outside of full communion with the Church, in essence they are not part of the Church (though most of their sacraments, i.e the ones that do not require jurisdiction (confession and matrimony) would be valid, but illicit).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m beginning to think that we believe more of it than you guys do, to be honest, since you are restricting Him to the role of ‘final prophet,’ rather than God Who gives revelation TO prophets.

That does not answer my request for the Mormon view of the divinity of Christ. Why the avoidance?

ooooohhh, trick question…actually, no, we don’t. One man, however, does not a quorum make.

But you said the valid priesthood was lost with the death of the final Apostle. If one were to accept that belief, the last Apostle has not died and the priesthood would not have been lost.

Doesn’t that belief arise from the following passage? Please note that the author, John himself, explains that the saying had went abroad among the brethren and he corrected the misconception.

Joh 21:21 Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?

I think that would be Matthias. After they all died (except perhaps for John…) and there was no longer a quorum to provide that continuing line of authority, then of course there wasn’t anybody…until Christ Himself came personally to handle the restoration. Are you saying that Christ did not have that authority?

Oh, now a quorum is need to provide the line of authority. Excuse me, but didn’t you said that John was leader of the Church and John held the keys. Since when does a leader need a quorum?

Now, let’s see if I can word this to get a straight answer. When the Mormon Church ‘restored’, who was the first Apostle that had authority to continue the line of authority?

It might be a good idea not to be quite so impatient. Most people’s lives are not lived with their butts glued to the computer chair in order to give instant responses to such things, and frankly, sir, while it is absolutely your right to ask any question you wish, and to respond in any way you wish, it is our right to choose the time, manner and content of any response we care to give.

I’m seeing the thread move along rather quickly and wanted to remind them. It seems, when one has to reword questions to get straight answers or a explanation of an answer, it’s necessary to keep prodding…

I’ve heard of being allowed to ask questions I want, and that you don’t have to answer all questions but can answer questions I should’ve asked. I’m sorry, but I don’t work that way. I move slowly to absorb what’s being explained, or not explained to me.

 

[dianaiad]

They offer the Sacrifice of the Mass/Divine Liturgy. Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross is made present (“re-presented”, not redone) on the altar.

From the Catechism:
*
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering. *

Thank you, Theosis. I should have figured that one out when the idea of the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist was introduced to me. This follows quite naturally and logically, and is internally consistent with the idea.

As parker and others have mentioned before me, we look at it as the sacrifice of “a contrite heart…”

 

[RebeccaJ]

You just repeated that same claim; that it ceased because it ceased. It seems to me that if we are talking about the "perfect word of God,’ then that would be encompassed in the literal words of Christ—but the NT has a LOT more than that in it.

Jesus, on the Cross, is God speaking to mankind. Jesus, Resurrected, is God speaking to mankind. Jesus ascending into Heaven, is God speaking to mankind. All without literal words, but certainly, Revealing the Perfect Word of God, who IS Jesus Christ.

Other men wrote. They quoted Him, of course–but why did they add anything to what He said, either to explain, expand or explore His words?

Explain and explore, most certainly, continues today. This is not new, public, Revelation.

The fact is, they DID do all three. They DID continue to recieve revelation, and there is no place in the bible OR in sacred tradition that gives a reason why it stopped when it did…or that it was SUPPOSED to stop when it did. All anyone has done is decide that SINCE it stopped, well then, it was supposed to.

But…was it? Who said? And where?

You are being very confusing. The Word of God, as understood by Christians, is an unceasing Revelation. My conversion to Christianity, most certainly, is this Revelation being made known, by the Holy Spirit, to yet another sinner, in the span of time.

Man’s journey through time, in relationship to this Revelation, is experienced in different ways. God gifts us with insights, clarity, understanding. This does not change the Word of God. This is not new Revelation.

 

[Stephen168]

What new thing did Paul write that was 'necessary for Salvation?" I think that we are going to have to go beyond your evident definition of what is necessary for salvation…which seems to be 'that which is written in the NT."

Paul was Catholic and taught by the Apostles.

 

[sablouwho]

Paul was Catholic and taught by the Apostles.

Curious statement, I have honestly never heard a Catholic say this before.

Personally I was under the impression that he was Jewish.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Curious statement, I have honestly never heard a Catholic say this before.

Personally I was under the impression that he was Jewish.

He converted…

 

[Stephen168]

Curious statement, I have honestly never heard a Catholic say this before.

Personally I was under the impression that he was Jewish.

Crazy Catholics they’ll let anybody in.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, are you going to sit there and tell me that the things I mention did NOT HAPPEN? Really?

That is not what I said. You focus on the sin of individuals. Catholics can see even in the worst of times, when individual Catholics (or groups) were sinful, the Holy Spirit brings the Church through in spite of them.

 

[Stephen168]

Rebecca, are you going to sit there and tell me that the things I mention did NOT HAPPEN?

A military officer is evaluated on a form which has little boxes to describe their performance, over a 6 month period. Even a very good officer could mess up enough times over six months to fill the little box. So if your boss didn’t’ like you for whatever reason, they could fill the box with just the times you’ve done wrong, and completely ignore the 95% of the stuff you did right. Did the bad things happen? Probably, even though I have known boss’ to lie just to fill the box.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is not what I said. You focus on the sin of individuals. Catholics can see even in the worst of times, when individual Catholics (or groups) were sinful, the Holy Spirit brings the Church through in spite of them.

In other words, we understand the continuity of Christ’s Church is dependent on Jesus, not on humans.

 

[SteveVH]

Two points; equivocation is not a really good argument.
However, if you insist upon using your definition of “priest…” (which, by the way, is a definition that is held mostly by, well…you. I can’t find it in the dictionary anywhere. All the definitions I can find refer to the 'authority to administer religious rites.") then would you tell me what Catholic priests (or for that matter, Orthodox priests, who are accepted AS priests by Catholicism) are sacrificing, in the sense you seem to be demanding?

Well, one thing for sure is that it is not my definition. The actions associated with that office are what define it and you never find a priest in scripture that is not associated with sacrifice. I am speaking here of the ministerial priesthood which is a priesthood of service to the Body of Christ, the Church.

There is another “priesthood” to which all Christians belong. Our Church refers to this as the “common priesthood” encompassing all the faithful. Both the ministerial and common priesthoods participate in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet and king. The two priesthoods differ in that the ministerial priesthood (acting in the person of Christ) is at the service of the common priesthood, the Body of Christ.

It seems to me that the LDS Church cannot be referring to the “common priesthood” as you admit that there have been people faithful to God through “the Great Apostasy”. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but it is my understanding that the LDS claim that the “priesthood” was lost. Since those who remained faithful would be considered “priests” in the common sense, if the priesthood was lost you must be referring to the ministerial priestood. The primary function of the ministerial priesthood is the primary purpose of Christ; to offer Himself up in sacrifice for us and for our salvation.
The priest, while having other functions to be sure, must offer this same sacrifice. It is the very nature of the office. Christ is the “high priest in the order of Melchizedek”.
Melchizedek offered a sacrifice of bread and wine.

“Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ” (St. Thomas Aquinas). To act in the person of Christ means to do what He did. There is no Easter without Good Friday.

So, my question remains. If not to offer sacrifice, then what is the function of the Mormon priesthood, the priesthood that was purportedly lost?

Thanks.

 

[sablouwho]

Going back to some concepts brought up in the original post…I think the question of “is it biblical” re: the BoM is somehow not the right question to ask. First, it seems to imply a sola scriptura viewpoint. It also seems to imply that prayer doesn’t work.

As an somewhat related example, I converted from being an disinterested secular Jew with a whole bunch of fear/ignorance of Jesus, to faith in Christ through earnest prayer, which was answered in a very surprising, road to Damascus-like way. I can’t imagine that anyone on this thread who believes in Jesus would worry for a moment whether my conversion was biblically correct.

Clearly, I believe that prayer, in this type of situation, can work. It did for me. However, I don’t consider prayer to be like a math problem where 2 +2 is ALWAYS 4, or like science, which duplicates the same result over and over.

In other words, even though I believe Jesus is the real deal, I happen to believe that a “negative” result is also possible, and that it is possible for a person to pray, in earnest, with sincerity and real intent, just as I did, about Jesus, and NOT have their prayer answered in the affirmative.

Now, why another person could earnestly pray about Jesus’ identity and not get the same answer that I did? Well…I honestly think that people can serve Christ without even knowing his identity. I know some Jews with deep faith in God who obviously don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity, yet I think that they serve Jesus without knowing it. Ditto for earnest people in other non-Jesus-believing religions, as well as some people with no religion at all.

I have more to say on this , but will continue in another post since it deals with the BoM more specifically.

Continued…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And this statement is made by Paul, who was an apostle and the epitome of OT style prophet himself; who went on to make a LOT of other statements that he claimed came as a result of revelation from God…and who indeed did recieve a very direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself.

Am I the only one on the board who sees the incredible irony of this statement, made by this man, if he meant what you claim he did by it?

Actually, you’re the only one in the board who doesn’t seem to fully understand the context of St. Paul’s beliefs, or at the very least refuse to address it from a scriptural standpoint.

You argue that St. Paul received revelation from God…what was the nature of this revelation, and what was it? You speak as if St. Paul received the Book of Mormon or something in addition to the apostles. In fact, that is not at all what he is talking about.

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that mad made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. [Gal 1:11-12; NIV; emphasis mine]

It was the gospel that Paul received by revelation - the teachings of Christ which He bestowed upon His church, a church which He promised “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” (Matt 16:18). This is the Gospel of God, synonymous with the Gospel of the Son (see Rom 1:1 and 1:9), which is the revelation granted to not only Paul but all the apostles. Paul says to the Corinthians that the apostles “speak of God’s secret wisdom” (1 Cor 2:7) revealed to them “by his Spirit” (1 Cor 2:10). What is this secret wisdom? The preaching of Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:23), which is a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.

This preaching is the foundation - there is no longer a need for anything else. It is the ultimatum. As St. Paul later adds to the Corinthians:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. [1 Cor 3:10-11; NIV]

Jesus Christ is that foundation. There is no other. So there is no contradiction between what we interpret from Hebrews 1:1-2 and Paul’s theology, for Paul believed Christ was the foundation of the Church and there was no further need of revelation. You say he had a revelation - well, yes, but it was that which already existed: Christ Jesus and His gospel. Paul would have chosen nothing more. In fact, he warned against adding anything else:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! [Gal 1:8-9; NIV]

 

[sablouwho]

The splinter groups from mormonism were small and insignificant and these groups have more or less a minimal of members, including the community of christ with 250,000 members.

The size of these other groups doesn’t matter. According to the rules of logic:

Argumentum ad Numeram:

• A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support or believe a proposition then the more likely that that proposition is correct; it equates mass support with correctness.*

Therefore, just because the CoJCoLDS is the largest group that views the BoM as scripture doesn’t make it the “right” or “True” one. To be fair, this also applies to the Catholic Church as well, claiming that the CC is it true based on the number of adherents is a logical fallacy.

I don’t pretend to be an expert in logic, but to me, the statement “the BoM is true, therefore the CoJCoLDS is the True Church” appears to be a non sequitur.

Non-Sequitur:
An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. Another way of putting this is: A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection to it.

This is one of the issues I had when I was considering the LDS thing. Because using Moroni’s challenge, I could have concluded that one of these other groups was the True Church. Believing the BoM doesn’t appear, at least not to my mind, to point uniquely to the CoJCoLDS.

I would also add that I can see another possibility here: someone could consider the BoM to be true, yet not think ANY of the faith groups that use it was necessarily the One True Church. One might just think that JS had a very significant religious experience. Now, why God would do is a whole other can of worms , one for which I don’t even pretend to have an answer.

 

[ParkerD]

I guess my question to you Parker is that you don’t believe that Peter, James, John and the other Apostles ordained other men thru the imposition of hands? Did they chose not to pass on those keys?

Or if they did pass them on, do you believe that those ordinations were invalid?

Or if you believe that they were valid then at what point were they taken away? What biblical evidence do you have that Christ removed the keys He gave to Peter?

Is there any biblical suggestion by Christ that He would take those keys away?

If we have scriptures that shows Christ left the keys with Peter and others, then shouldnt there be scripture to show He would take them back?

Marie5890,
I don’t have much time, but here are some short answers to these questions:

The twelve apostles had keys related to whatsoever was bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and those keys were given to each of the twelve (Matthew 18:18). In no case does the New Testament say that those keys were given to any other person than an apostle. When subsequent apostles were not ordained after Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, and others, then there is no official reason to believe that those keys remained on the earth. There is an assumption that can be made by those who want to make it, but only an assumption, and the fact that there were doctrinal shifts demonstrate that such an assumption is not a substantiated assumption, particularly in view of the fact that John was still alive when some people were evidently saying or writing that after Peter had been killed, an apostle was no longer the leader of the church on earth and hence there was not a recognition that apostles held important keys.

I need to run, but another minor point is that the Jews had held priesthood (the Levites) that they thought was valid, and the Sanhedrin held responsibility and authority that they thought was valid. They would have insisted that it was valid. But that did not make it valid. The authority was God’s to give, and God’s to take away.

I’ll answer ProdigalSon1 and this post a bit more later. Peace to all.

 

[sablouwho]

In other words, we understand the continuity of Christ’s Church is dependent on Jesus, not on humans.

When I was converting to “generic” Christianity, it was essential for me to keep my eyes on Jesus and not on people. (You can imagine, being Jewish, that I had some major reservations…)

It was also important for me when I was an LDS investigator.

It’s still important for me to remember this as I get ready to enter the CC.

To me they all these religious organization have flaws that have to do with people, not with God.