Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[aspirant]

Personally I was under the impression that he was Jewish.

For Paul, being Jewish meant becoming Catholic.

 

[sablouwho]

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.

Yes, I realize I’m quoting myself

Going back to my “Hey God, is Jesus the real deal or what?” prayer, which I mentioned upthread… The answer that I got to my prayer, which was “Yeah, he’s the real deal!”

But that answer did NOT point to any specific Church or denomination. All it showed me was that Jesus is “da man”.

Thus far, no subsequent amount of additional prayer on my part has pointed to a specific Church/denom. Scripture study hasn’t done the trick either–I’ve seen good arguments from both Catholic and Protestant apologists re: Matthew 16:18, etc.

(However, I have recently come to appreciate the idea of Mary/Saints intercession, as well as the Real Presence in the Eucharist).

My reasons for becoming Catholic (as opposed to joining the LDS, or remaining a “generic” Christian) have more to do with a deep pull I feel to this particular expression of Christianity than anything else. I realize that this is likely a way more “liberal” viewpoint than the majority of Catholic posters here on CAF…oh well. It’s the best I can do.

Not that anybody actually here asked me why I was becoming Catholic. I guess I felt the need to state this more for my own self…

 

[aspirant]

The size of these other groups doesn’t matter.

Agreed.

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… Believing the BoM doesn’t appear, at least not to my mind, to point uniquely to the CoJCoLDS.

Correct. I don’t believe in the Mormon doctrine of a great apostasy, I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is anything other than a 19th century book. But even if I did, it would not follow from those points that the Utah-based LDS church is legit as opposed to the other Smith-derived “restorationist” sects.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

The keys to the kingdom of heaven was given to one, who also received the authority to bind and loose. The other Apostles received the authority of binding and loosing without the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The first was during the announcement of Christ building His Church and the second was in describing an authority of the Church. With the keys, there is additional authority allowing authority over the others with authority, who had no authority over each other.

The biggest problem I see with the Mormon denial of succession is their own Church. They had no eye witnesses to the life, suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. If the Apostles, chosen by Christ, couldn’t appoint Apostles, how can a Mormon Apostle claim such authority?

To claim that the original Apostles, simply did not appoint others equal to their office is beyond my own comprehension, and common sense, knowing they knew they had the commission to build Christ’s Church, in all nations.

Paul was the thirteenth Apostle, so we know it was not limited to just twelve. Peter wrote of those with a title equal to his. All of the Apostles, chosen by Christ, recognized Peter’s appointment and in his writings of other equals, Peter distinguishes himself as different to those equals by the inclusion of ‘…and a witness of the sufferings of Christ…’, yet the title itself is still the same. Some translations use ‘ancients’, some use ‘elders’, some 'priests’t and other ‘bishops’. Regardless of those translations, Peter considered them equal to him, with the exception of his being a witness, and all the other witnesses has heard the Lord say He would give to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

1Pe 5:1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech who am myself also an ancient and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come:

In the scriptures that were in reference to replacing Judas, there are two important things to note.

Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):

Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren (now the number of persons together was about one hundred and twenty). While not Apostles, we know the Church was growing.

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.

And his bishopric let another take. Titles/offices/appointments required replacements with these men, according to the scriptures. Doctrine was already in place for succession, from David who sat upon the throne of God (Jews considered the Davidic throne to be the throne of God).

Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

There was another that inherited the throne of God and His kingdom would have no end, not even temporarily. Even though it was considered the throne of God, David’s throne was on this earth.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
Luk 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

According to Isaiah 22:22, another received the keys to the house of David. In Matthew 16:19 the new one on the throne of David gave His keys to His second in command. The holder of the keys is second in command, only to the king. He can make decisions in the kings absence. 1 Chronicles 9 details the specifics of the keys.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

He shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

These men chosen by Christ knew these scriptures. They knew all scriptures, since their infancy. They understood the implications and authority and all accepted them without questioning it, or each other’s assignment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If one questions why no others were called ‘Apostles’ in scriptures, here’s a tidbit of information on that subject.

Matthew used the term ‘Aposltes’ once. Mark used the term ‘Apostles’ once. Luke used the term ‘Apostles’ seven times. John never used the term ‘Apostles’ in his Gospels or 1 John, 2 John or 3 John. Nine times is all the term ‘Apostles’ is mentioned by the Gospel authors. If we look at the two authors who, themselves, were Apostles, it was only used once.

It is believed Luke authored the Acts of the Apostles, where we find the term ‘Apostles’ used twenty nine times. Paul used the term ‘Apostles’ seventeen times.

Peter, in his two writings, used the term ‘Apostles’ once. Jude used the term ‘Apostles’ once.

Revelations uses the term ‘Apostles’ three times.

With those few uses of the term ‘Apostles’, is it any wonder we don’t see anyone else termed ‘Aposltes’?

If you want to know how many times ‘Apostle’ was used in a singular form, it was nineteen times, sixteen of which Paul used it to identify himself, once he use it to speak of Christ, Peter used it twice to identify himself.

Now, as I said John never used the term ‘Apostles’ in his Gospel, the Greek shows He used the singular form once and in my ten versions of the Bible, only four show the term used. The Douay-Rheims, the English translation of Aramaic, the Greek, and the Latin versions used it. Another English translation of Aramaic, two King James versions, the New Jerusalem Bible,and the Revised Standard Version did not. The Hebrew version only translates the Old Testament.

Apostles used 60 times in the New Testament.
Matthew - 1
Mark - 1
Luke - 7
John - 0

Acts - 29

Paul - 17

Peter - 1

Jude - 1

Revelations - 3

Apostle used 20 times in New Testament

John - 1 (in four versions of the Bible)
0 (in five versions of the Bible)

Paul - 17

Peter - 2

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Yes, only mormons make human flaws a detriment to what God can, and cannot, do. (Which I find astounding considering the Person of Jesus Christ.)

 

[ParkerD]

Certainly, you can see the ‘vagueness’ of your personal perspective. First though, why is an acknowlegement of the Apostle John required? Specifically, where does it say, John had possession of the keys or that John was the leader of the Church? Where does that belief originate? Secondly, does that include early Church fathers who acknowleged the writings of St. John, or is this required to be specifically acknowledging John, himself?

…
I cannot see your point of one asserting themself, or their authority, as a cause for them to have lost their authority. In the face of heresies and false teachings, and the Bible gives us lots of examples of such things, it seems reasonable for one to have to be in such a position of asserting themself. … Aren’t we all supposed to be ‘Christlike’, according to our positions in His Church and in life?

**Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1Co 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.**

There are many more examples of Paul referring to his preaching/teaching, even to the extent of speaking of heresies, dissensions and divisions, which is an assertion of his authority.

Now returning to your ‘requirement’ of the acknowledgement of John. Peter, James, nor Jude acknowledged John in their writings of the New Testament. Paul only refers to John once and then to seemingly validate his authority, or assert himself.

Gal 2:9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

Now, I’ve asked some specific questions, but I have a couple more that come to mind through your response.

Do Mormons believe John died? If not, please provide where the believe is listed to say he did not.

Do Mormons believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, without error?

ProdigalSon1,
Having also read your other posts, I see that you feel that only Peter had keys, which I guess I’ve read also from other people on this forum from time to time. Yet, you have taken the word “apostle” and said essentially that it is no big deal because it is used only a certain number of times. (John was the most humble of the apostles, so of course he wouldn’t use the word to describe himself or single the apostles out in any way.) The words “keys of the kingdom of heaven” are used only once (Matthew 16:19), so by your analogy that must be far less important than the calling of “apostles”. John held the same authority as Peter as described in Matthew 16, for it is noted in Matthew 18 and is the authority to bind and loose, and all the apostles had it. Paul was ordained an apostle after James had been killed, so that does not make thirteen apostles at one time.

Those who did not acknowledge specifically that John held the leading authority on the earth after Peter and James and Andrew had been killed or died, were not following the leading authority on the earth and hence had lost their way in that regard.

You have read my post to Marie so I will not repeat what I wrote to her. The apostles held keys that no one else held, and although they ordained others to callings and positions they did not give those positions keys to “bind and loose”. Those keys were retained by the apostles.

I noticed one post where you questioned about John being by himself when he was the only apostle left on earth. At that point, the church was going “into the wilderness” as prophesied by John because of his vision, recounted in Revelation 12. John became a translated person meaning he no longer had a mortal body with mortal responsibilities, so his purpose on earth became a different, non-public purpose that would never be known by people whom he visited because they would not be entitled to know who he was as he visited them to testify of Christ. But that change happened after 100 AD. In 70 AD and 80 AD, he was still mortal and was the leader of the church on the earth, which is why he had the significant revelation that he had about the church and the purposes of God up through the end times.

Peter humbly stood up in the situation described in Acts 15, and reminded the Pharisees converts that Peter had had a revelation about the Gentiles being given the gospel and the Holy Spirit–that they were equals in spiritual things–and thus the idea that they needed circumcision was incorrect doctrine. He kept the doctrine pure by doing that.

Paul wrote several times about having baptized few to make sure nobody thought that there was any distinction at all to be made as to who had baptized anyone. What was important was the baptism itself, not who had done the ordinance.

Paul was given the specific assignment among the twelve apostles then living, to be the “missionary apostle” to the Gentile nations around Jerusalem. This shows that the twelve did their work in an organized way.

Mormons do believe the Bible to be the word of God, far more literally than any other religion. They don’t take one verse and build a major doctrinal concept around one verse, however. They look at contexts of scriptural passages, the patterns in the teachings and doctrines, and certainly to be guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding the Bible and the everlasting gospel of salvation.

 

[TheosisM]

ProdigalSon1,
Having also read your other posts, I see that you feel that only Peter had keys, which I guess I’ve read also from other people on this forum from time to time. Yet, you have taken the word “apostle” and said essentially that it is no big deal because it is used only a certain number of times. (John was the most humble of the apostles, so of course he wouldn’t use the word to describe himself or single the apostles out in any way.) The words “keys of the kingdom of heaven” are used only once (Matthew 16:19), so by your analogy that must be far less important than the calling of “apostles”. John held the same authority as Peter as described in Matthew 16, for it is noted in Matthew 18 and is the authority to bind and loose, and all the apostles had it.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox interpret the issue of “keys” in the same way. They believe that all of the apostles received the keys to “bind and loose” (therefore equating the keys with the binding and loosing power). Peter may have received them first, however all of the apostles had the same authority in that regard.

 

[Answersplease]

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox interpret the issue of “keys” in the same way. They believe that all of the apostles received the keys to “bind and loose” (therefore equating the keys with the binding and loosing power). Peter may have received them first, however all of the apostles had the same authority in that regard.

What happens when Apostles or bishops disagree?

 

[why_me]

For Paul, being Jewish meant becoming Catholic.

Maybe not. I just can’t see Paul saying the Trindentine Mass. Nor can I see Paul instructing churches to say the Mass in Latin. I have often wondered just what kind of service Paul had and what kind of service did the christians have at the time of Paul But for some reason, the old catholic mass just doesn’t come to mind. Since most of the christians were poor, I can not see the Mass being too ceremonial with gold trimmed robes etc. But I can see the mass being more of the postvatican II type or the lds service where people take an active role in the service.

 

[Answersplease]

You can understand, I think, that when the question under consideration is WHY such revelation ceased, that ‘it ceased because it ceased’ sort of begs it.

 

[Marie5890]

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

 

[Answersplease]

You can understand, I think, that when the question under consideration is WHY such revelation ceased, that ‘it ceased because it ceased’ sort of begs it.

God bless you again, Dianaiad.

The Catholics make a distinction between “public” and “private” revelation from God.

Public revelation stopped after the death of the last of the original Apostles and Saint Paul. It stopped because everything needed to be saved has been given.

Saint Paul is included even though he was not one of the Twelve, because Saint Paul was called by Jesus The Christ Himself. I believe Saint Paul was chosen because he could do what few others could do, due to his many talents and characteristics. Saint Paul was zealous, a learned Jew, and probably most important a Roman citizen; he had abilities and citizenship rights few others had.

Private revelation still continues to this day, by visions and being led by The Holy Spirit, and possibly other ways such as dreams and direct wisdom from God.

The main distinctions between public and private revelation are:

Public revelation:
1.) Contains everything needed in order to be saved.
2.) Must be believed by all the Catholics.
3.) Has stopped at the death of the last Apostle and Saint Paul.

Private revelation:
1.) Are personal revelations not needed to be generally known in order to be saved.
2.) Are not required to be believed by any Catholic.

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.

The scriptures especially The New Testament come from Sacred Tradition.

Please note that some of the sciptures were written many years after the events, and the early Christians did not have a compiled New Testament, what they had was Sacred Tradition.

Some of the Saced Tradition was written down as scripture, the New Testament itself says that some things were given by direct preaching and not by written letter.

 

[Marie5890]

God bless you again, Dianaiad.

The Catholics make a distinction between “public” and “private” revelation from God.

Public revelation stopped after the death of the last of the original Apostles and Saint Paul. It stopped because everything needed to be saved has been given.

Saint Paul is included even though he was not one of the Twelve, because Saint Paul was called by Jesus The Christ Himself. I believe Saint Paul was chosen because he could do what few others could do, due to his many talents and characteristics. Saint Paul was zealous, a learned Jew, and probably most important a Roman citizen; he had abilities and citizenship rights few others had.

Private revelation still continues to this day, by visions and being led by The Holy Spirit, and possibly other ways such as dreams and direct wisdom from God.

The main distinctions between public and private revelation are:

Public revelation:
1.) Contains everything needed in order to be saved.
2.) Must be believed by all the Catholics.
3.) Has stopped at the death of the last Apostle and Saint Paul.

Private revelation:
1.) Are personal revelations not needed to be generally known in order to be saved.
2.) Are not required to be believed by any Catholic.

The scriptures especially The New Testament come from Sacred Tradition.

Please note that some of the sciptures were written many years after the events, and the early Christians did not have a compiled New Testament, what they had was Sacred Tradition.

Some of the Saced Tradition was written down, the New Testament itself says that some things were given by direct preaching and not by written letter.

I have found it very interesting to learn how the Catholic church brought forth the Bible and how it really does come from Sacred Tradition. I am not sure how many Christians are aware of that.
It’s an interesting area of study and research.

 

[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

We don’t really know that much about early christian worship at the time of Paul but I do doubt that it resembled the Trindentine Mass which did contain a lot of ceremony and pomp. I just can not see the early christians who were mainly poor doing the mass.

I have this feeling that the early christians were simple in their worship and focused on loving one another more than on ceremony, which would attract the pagans.

 

[why_me]

God bless you again, Dianaiad.

Public revelation stopped after the death of the last of the original Apostles and Saint Paul. It stopped because everything needed to be saved has been given.

.Private revelation still continues to this day, by visions and being led by The Holy Spirit, and possibly other ways such as dreams and direct wisdom from God.

The main distinctions between public and private revelation are:

Public revelation:
1.) Contains everything needed in order to be saved.
2.) Must be believed by all the Catholics.
3.) Has stopped at the death of the last Apostle and Saint Paul.

Please note that some of the sciptures were written many years after the events, and the early Christians did not have a compiled New Testament, what they had was Sacred Tradition.

Some of the Saced Tradition was written down as scripture, the New Testament itself says that some things were given by direct preaching and not by written letter.

I tend to doubt your analysis. What you are basically saying is that after the death of Paul God stopped communicating and giving advice to the general body of the church. And of course, according to the mormons he more or less did. But for the mormons, after years of apostacy and god’s silence, he decides to restore his church and prepare people for the coming of his son. He also has a prophet to help people in the process as god speaks through prophets as in ancient times.

If god remained silent in the public sphere, we would more or less be a ship without a rudder in these last days

Be that as it may, at least you answered politely and not in the usual style of people not being able to reply to you by pushing the reply button. I thought that you other replies and posts were impolite because of your rude style of posting technique and response format.

 

[Answersplease]

Whereas the idea of papal infallibility seems to be saying that the Pope CANNOT think, or consider–it is impossible for him to make an incorrect decision in certain matters. It’s not that he’ll get ‘removed’ if he does, but that he wouldn’t be able to do it in the first place.

So please excuse me if I think that your protest is a little ironic.

God bless you again, Dianaiad.

You are incorrect about Papal infallibility.

The Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from making an erroneous infallible teaching about faith and morals, how The Holy Spirit will do that is not known.

It may be possible for the Pope to think and attempt to teach error, but he will be prevented by the Holy Spirit somehow.

 

[Answersplease]

What you are basically saying is that after the death of Paul God stopped communicating and giving advice to the general body of the church.

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.

And of course, according to the mormons he more or less did. But for the mormons, after years of apostacy and god’s silence, he decides to restore his church and prepare people for the coming of his son. He also has a prophet to help people in the process as god speaks through prophets as in ancient times.

If god remained silent in the public sphere, we would more or less be a ship without a rudder in these last days

If I want to learn more about Mormonism, I’ll go to a different source.

Quote: from answerplease:

St. Augustine said, “God does not need my lie.”

since the hatred for mormons was very real. Polygamy would have created an intolerable position for the early mormons if the cat was let out of the bag. And so, I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.

(color added to the original text)

 

[Marie5890]

We don’t really know that much about early christian worship at the time of Paul
.

That comment suggest to me that you may really want to do more research into that very thing.

No personal offense, but there is lacking understanding of what we do know.

But I expect you may not really be interested and that certainly is your choice.

God Bless.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

That is very interesting and something I haven’t thought of. As you point out:

Scripture study hasn’t done the trick either–I’ve seen good arguments from both Catholic and Protestant apologists re: Matthew 16:18, etc.

The same can be said for the Bible. I’ve heard reading the Early Church Fathers does a better job of pointing seekers to the Catholic Church.

I always enjoy hearing why someone converts to the Catholic Church.