Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[why_me]

Let’s not forget that Mohammad supposedly met an angel of God while praying to know of the true god.

.

And let us not forget that many Marian apparitions occured while people were basically doing their normal business of the day. And for saint therese, her healing came from prayer to the virgin mary. Prayer is strange.

 

[why_me]

I’ve prayed it, at the request of some missionaries I used to invite over. It says “ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true.” So I asked “are these things not true?” And, as I told the missionaries, God has faithfully answered “these things are not true.”

False premises lead to erroneous conclusions.

But did you follow the counsel of James? My guess is that most catholics who are active in their faith would not seek for an answer to such a prayer because they did not follow the counsel of James.

6
But he should ask in faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind.

Did you sincerely ask in faith, without doubting? And did you expect an instant answer?

 

[why_me]

They’re really not trained to talk with informed Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

One time a missionary showed me his “priesthood” lineage with all the names from Joseph Smith to himself. I nodded and showed him a list of all the bishops of Rome from Peter to the present.

Missionaries are not actually trained for anything. If they serve abroad they are trained in the language of the country that they are serving in and of course, they do practice the missionary discussions. Missionaries have a message to give and people can either accept or reject that message. It is that simple.

For the missionaries it is all about speading the message of the restored church and the gospel. Nothing more.

 

[why_me]

I don’t think any LDS here has a clue as to what Catholics believe about how the Holy Spirit guides the church.

This will all go back to the history of christianity. Can unbiased individuals see corruption inside the catholic church as it existed in the previous centuries. Was the church mixing with the politics of men in the past? Was it overcome with its own power as existed in the middle ages? And was it speaking with the heart of man or was it speaking with heart of god?

People will need to make their own judgements. Now of course, we have a lot of protestant churches out there who question the validity of the catholic church. That is why those protestant dominations exist and more are coming into existence all the time.

Something went wrong somewhere.

 

[aquabatix]

Simply because there are groups that split from a chruch does not imply that the main church was not following the “heart of God”, it simply is the stubborness of man. Each split happened because someone did not want to resolve their issue within the church and thought they should lead and do it better. The same thing happened in the LDS as well with its numerous splinter groups in the years following the death of JS or the groups that split because of the ban on polygamy. Did they see the corruption in the LDS church, or were they following the “hearts of men”? I leave that to you.

 

[zaffiroborant]

This will all go back to the history of christianity. Can unbiased individuals see corruption inside the catholic church as it existed in the previous centuries. Was the church mixing with the politics of men in the past? Was it overcome with its own power as existed in the middle ages? And was it speaking with the heart of man or was it speaking with heart of god?

People will need to make their own judgements. Now of course, we have a lot of protestant churches out there who question the validity of the catholic church. That is why those protestant dominations exist and more are coming into existence all the time.

Something went wrong somewhere.

Like I said you haven’t a clue.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This will all go back to the history of christianity. Can unbiased individuals see corruption inside the catholic church as it existed in the previous centuries. Was the church mixing with the politics of men in the past? Was it overcome with its own power as existed in the middle ages? And was it speaking with the heart of man or was it speaking with heart of god?

A lot of Mormon responses, I see. Yet, no one is addressing my question about the early Church fathers, all of which were ordained through the imposition of hands. Here we see a Mormon refer to the ‘history of Christianity’, but still no direct response to my question.

Let me try and explain this, so everyone can understand my thoughts. The early Church fathers were all ordained and a part of the priesthood Mormons claim was ‘taken away’. Which Church fathers were corrupt, as to lose the priesthood, and which were still considered valid, in the view of Mormons? This is important as we can read those ‘valid’ Church father’s writings and see the doctrines they taught and compare them to the Catholic and Mormon faiths.

People will need to make their own judgements. Now of course, we have a lot of protestant churches out there who question the validity of the catholic church. That is why those protestant dominations exist and more are coming into existence all the time.

Something went wrong somewhere.

What I see, that you’ve left out in your statement above, is the fact that we should ask Protestants about their view of the validity of Mormonism. If Mormonism was considered valid ,by Protestants, it would slow the ‘more coming into existence all the time.’ Many denominations have been founded since Mormonism was founded in the 1800s. Or is the poster only considering the opinions of Protestant denominations, in reference to the validity of Catholicism and not Mormonism, for some reason?

 

[ParkerD]

A lot of Mormon responses, I see. Yet, no one is addressing my question about the early Church fathers, all of which were ordained through the imposition of hands. Here we see a Mormon refer to the ‘history of Christianity’, but still no direct response to my question.

Let me try and explain this, so everyone can understand my thoughts. The early Church fathers were all ordained and a part of the priesthood Mormons claim was ‘taken away’. Which Church fathers were corrupt, as to lose the priesthood, and which were still considered valid, in the view of Mormons? This is important as we can read those ‘valid’ Church father’s writings and see the doctrines they taught and compare them to the Catholic and Mormon faiths.

ProdigalSon1,
Here is a personal perspective on your question above:

Any leader who did not directly acknowledge that the apostle John was the leader of the church on earth after the deaths of Peter, James, and Andrew, had lost the authority of the priesthood because the authority is given by God only if used in righteousness, and John held the keys on the earth, under the direction and authority of Jesus Christ who had ordained him.

Any leader who felt the need to assert their “authority” based on “who they knew” or “who had taught them” had lost their authority, because such an assertion is totally outside of the order of that authority. It is not “who you know” or “who taught you” or “who baptized you”, but “is your authority directly from God through receiving the direct and specific guidance of the Holy Spirit in how you act within your calling.”

So you would be in a position to read the writings and compare with the above “standards” for evaluating.

Peace to you and all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdigalSon1,
Here is a personal perspective on your question above:

Any leader who did not directly acknowledge that the apostle John was the leader of the church on earth after the deaths of Peter, James, and Andrew, had lost the authority of the priesthood because the authority is given by God only if used in righteousness, and John held the keys on the earth, under the direction and authority of Jesus Christ who had ordained him.

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?

You are the one claiming a priesthood was lost and that some of the early Church fathers were affected because they, themselves, had lost their authority. Please be specific and provide a few examples, names, of early Church who were without the priesthood.

Any leader who felt the need to assert their “authority” based on “who they knew” or “who had taught them” had lost their authority, because such an assertion is totally outside of the order of that authority. It is not “who you know” or “who taught you” or “who baptized you”, but “is your authority directly from God through receiving the direct and specific guidance of the Holy Spirit in how you act within your calling.”

So you would be in a position to read the writings and compare with the above “standards” for evaluating.

Peace to you and all.

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. In fact, using your logic, it would almost seem you are saying Peter and Paul had lost their authority and need I remind you that Christ, Himself, asserted His authority. 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.

Act 20:20 How I have kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have preached it to you, and taught you publicly, and from house to house,

1Co 9:27 But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

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?

 

[spn82756]

I’m taking the lazy way out…but as Haroldcares said much earlier:

**The Book of Mormon is made up. There is so much to note. It mentions elephans and horses and none ever existed in North and South America. It mentions weapons of steel and brass and none ever existed in the New World.

The Book of Mormon contains 19 chapters of Isaiah in their entirety, along with parts of a few other chapters. Specifically, chapters 2-14, 48-51, 53, and 54 of Isaiah are contained in the Book of Mormon. Most of Isaiah 52 is contained in the Book of Mormon as well. Approximately 30% of Isaiah is found in the Book of Mormon.

I mean really, he made this stuff up. As he also completely dreamt up the Pearl of Great Price from an Egyptian papyrus detailing ordinary funerary rites. As he based priesthood ordinances on masonic ritual.

I don’t wanna be hard on Mormons. They are a GREAT people. They have GOOD social values. They support traditional marriage, pro-life, love children, encourage education, strong families. They have a good culture. But their theology is made up.

Each of us, as we explore our faith, have questions and tend to compare ourselves to other christian communities. But there will always be one, holy, apolostolic church.

**The book of mormon is made up…just like the koran.

 

[aspirant]

But did you follow the counsel of James? …Did you sincerely ask in faith, without doubting?

Yes. And God has faithfully answered my prayers far beyond what was merely necessary.

And did you expect an instant answer?

Nope. And God has more than provided his answer.

Missionaries are not actually trained for anything.

Wrong: “The Missionary Training Center curriculum consists of up to 12 weeks of studying doctrine, learning to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively, and developing excellent communication skills. When missionaries are called to serve in foreign lands, their training also includes learning a new language.”

of course, they do practice the missionary discussions.

As part of their training at the Missionary Training Center, for example.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Praying just for the fun or heck of it, may not be the way to go when it comes to prayer. Just an observation.

6
But he should ask in faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind.

I don’t think that you followed this advice from James.

I had already, the night before, when I was dealing with the issue of should I continue in Islam or embrace Christ. I prayed sincerely to God to lead me to the truth. And I’m sorry, but it didn’t take me to Mormonism. God had instructed me enough to know that path led to a false religion.

And let us not forget that many Marian apparitions occured while people were basically doing their normal business of the day. And for saint therese, her healing came from prayer to the virgin mary. Prayer is strange.

This is a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitor, or straw man. In other words, “A is just as wrong as B, so that somehow means B is correct.” It doesn’t prove nor negate your point.

Of course, I take any Marian apparition with a grain of salt. Furthermore, as an Orthodox most of those apparitions to Roman Catholic mystics don’t mean anything to me, as the majority of those saints are not considered saints in the Orthodox Church. You might as well try preaching Calvinism to me, it would be just as relevant.

 

[spn82756]

I had already, the night before, when I was dealing with the issue of should I continue in Islam or embrace Christ. I prayed sincerely to God to lead me to the truth. And I’m sorry, but it didn’t take me to Mormonism. God had instructed me enough to know that path led to a false religion.

This is a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitor, or straw man. In other words, “A is just as wrong as B, so that somehow means B is correct.” It doesn’t prove nor negate your point.

Of course, I take any Marian apparition with a grain of salt. Furthermore, as an Orthodox most of those apparitions to Roman Catholic mystics don’t mean anything to me, as the majority of those saints are not considered saints in the Orthodox Church. You might as well try preaching Calvinism to me, it would be just as relevant.

Howdy Byzantine Wolf my friend…While I do believe the Fatima apparitions…no Catholic is bound to believe in private revelations…which apparitions are considered to be.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Howdy Byzantine Wolf my friend…While I do believe the Fatima apparitions…no Catholic is bound to believe in private revelations…which apparitions are considered to be.

And most sensible Catholics believe in that way.

Know that I am not denouncing every Marian apparition (Orthodox saint Seraphim of Sarov is believed to have been visited by the Blessed Theotokos a few times in his life) but if “why me” is speaking of every single apparition and even those instances where the Virgin Mary is seen on a piece of toast crosses himself three times forgive me Lord… then no, I am not going to simply accept them.

 

[spn82756]

And most sensible Catholics believe in that way.

Know that I am not denouncing every Marian apparition (Orthodox saint Seraphim of Sarov is believed to have been visited by the Blessed Theotokos a few times in his life) but if “why me” is speaking of every single apparition and even those instances where the Virgin Mary is seen on a piece of toast crosses himself three times forgive me Lord… then no, I am not going to simply accept them.

Or on pancakes!!!

The end of last year there was a painting on a building in New Bedford, MA…just 15 miles from me…where Christ “appeared” with His hands covering His eyes. It’s a MIRACLE. When the artist that painted it came forward to say there was nothing supernatural about it…people were shocked! All he was trying to do was show Christ in dismay over many of the world’s problems. But some wackos thought it just appeared on the side of the building.

 

[spn82756]

And most sensible Catholics believe in that way.

Know that I am not denouncing every Marian apparition (Orthodox saint Seraphim of Sarov is believed to have been visited by the Blessed Theotokos a few times in his life) but if “why me” is speaking of every single apparition and even those instances where the Virgin Mary is seen on a piece of toast crosses himself three times forgive me Lord… then no, I am not going to simply accept them.

I think Medjugorie and Garabandal are a couple of examples of great deceit. Satan is always at work trying to mislead the faithful.

 

[dianaiad]

Be fair and don’t twist words around.

I AM being fair. One of the things that I have always been very careful about in here is this: I never make the claim that what we believe is TRUE, just that this or that is what we believe. That’s why I say 'we claim that…" and “we believe that…” because it is not my intent, and never has been, to argue that our beliefs are true. My purpose, in defending against attacks, is only to defend what those beliefs ARE. To make certain that if we are going to be attacked, we are attacked for what we really think, not some strawman version.

Do I believe that Mormonism is 'true?" Of course I do…and of course I am aware that you do not. I can tell you why we believe this thing or that thing to be true, but I am very aware that doing that is not going to prove that we are correct; it can’t. Religious faith simply doesn’t work like that. There is NO way that I can prove Mormonism to you, and no way that you can prove Catholicism to me; finding religious truth is always a matter of the seeker…and God.

Since the precise nature of words seems to be important in here, then it needs to be precise when you guys use them as well, y’know.

It was a question if the LDS thought that the priesthood was lost after the Apostles, not an affirmation that the CC thinks that as well because WE DON’T.

I’m sorry, but I didn’t see any mention of the priesthood in that post. The point of the posts, both Rebecca’s and mine, was God’s official guidance of the church. While the priesthood may be tangentelly involved in this, the POINT was continuous public revelation. Both Catholics and Mormons agree on this point…there wasn’t any after the early apostles died.

The priesthood has been passed on by the laying of hands since pentecost. It never stopped and continues today. It is an LDS belief that the authority was taken away, perhaps even without the Church’s knoledge. But it remains. No need for restoration after 1800 years because it never left.

I understand that you believe this. If I agreed with you I’d be a Catholic. Since I am not, obviously I do not agree with you.

 

[Marie5890]

ProdigalSon1,
Here is a personal perspective on your question above:

Any leader who did not directly acknowledge that the apostle John was the leader of the church on earth after the deaths of Peter, James, and Andrew, had lost the authority of the priesthood because the authority is given by God only if used in righteousness, and John held the keys on the earth, under the direction and authority of Jesus Christ who had ordained him.

Any leader who felt the need to assert their “authority” based on “who they knew” or “who had taught them” had lost their authority, because such an assertion is totally outside of the order of that authority. It is not “who you know” or “who taught you” or “who baptized you”, but “is your authority directly from God through receiving the direct and specific guidance of the Holy Spirit in how you act within your calling.”

So you would be in a position to read the writings and compare with the above “standards” for evaluating.

Peace to you and all.

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?

 

[dianaiad]

We are all called to the royal priesthood to share the Gospel. However, Christ chose 12 and appointed them. Scriptures go into detail on the imposition of hands with the ordination of others.

You kind of avoided a direct question. We have writings from the early Church fathers. Do you reject all of them as without a valid priesthood? If not, where did the valid priesthood end? What early Church fathers are you discounting?

So, why does scriptures, that I provided of Jesus speaking and making promises, not mention that the priesthood could be lost, or that He didn’t really mean until the consummation of the world? It’s really that simple. It kind of seems that you think there are errors, either with what Christ said, or what is written. You know we believe Christ is God. Maybe now would be a good time for you to explain the Mormon view of Jesus’ divinity.

We believe that the priesthood was lost/taken when the apostles all died without being replaced. A Bishop is NOT an apostle. A bishop, we believe, must recieve his authority to ordain from living apostles; the line of authority cannot be broken.

We believe that once the apostles were gone, that those who held the priesthood still did—but they could not pass that on to anyone else because they didn’t have the authority to do so.

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.

Mormons have a VERY different view of this. The ‘power’ is that of faith…and strong enough faith, held by anybody at all, can do anything at all. One does not need an official priestly office to pray for someone with such faith that this someone is healed, or to pray for guidance, or to recieve personal revalation for oneself and one’s family or responsibilities. We ARE told, after all, to pray over our flocks and fields…

To us, then, the priesthood IS that permission. If a bishop ordains a priest without the authority to do it, that ordination is neither lawful NOR valid. The line of authority is very important. Chain of command…line of authority…that IS the priesthood.

So we believe that when the apostles died, that line of authority was broken. While bishops continued to ordain more bishops and priests, without that permission, we believe that those ordinations were invalid.

However, as I said before, FAITH is not a line of authority. Individual faith in Christ continued, along with the inspiriation and revelation every person is entitled to. However, that’s not the same thing as official public revelation that results in the ‘Thus saith the Lord’ sort of scripture which was such an important aspect of the very early church…and which also ceased with the death of the apostles.

 

[why_me]

Simply because there are groups that split from a chruch does not imply that the main church was not following the “heart of God”, it simply is the stubborness of man. Each split happened because someone did not want to resolve their issue within the church and thought they should lead and do it better. The same thing happened in the LDS as well with its numerous splinter groups in the years following the death of JS or the groups that split because of the ban on polygamy. Did they see the corruption in the LDS church, or were they following the “hearts of men”? I leave that to you.

The protestant reformation was a major eruption. The splinter groups from mormonism were small and insignificant and these groups have more or less a miminal of members, including the community of christ with 250,000 members.

However, my point on history is important. One must investigate the history of the church and see if there would be any behavior that would make god angry or abandon the church. And there would be a need for a restoration and not just a reformation.