Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[why_me]

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

Nope. And God has more than provided his answer.

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.”

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

Your previous responses did not show that you were following the advice of james.

The missionary training center stay can vary from 4 weeks to 12 weeks depending on the country the missionary will be sent to. Usually it depends on the language and the difficulty of the mission. But most of the training is in the language and in giving the discussions. The missionaries are to give the message of the restoration and the gospel of christ. If people are not interested they move on. It is not about being highly learned in gospel matters or in debate with the learned of the world.

My daughter is a missionary at this moment and she was not given training in communication skills.

 

[why_me]

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.

If only more people had such ‘made up’ values to live by that gives the definition that you have given.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I am quite aware what is in your manuals. That is not what I am asking. I am asking you to actually look at what God has done for His Church and through His Church, through the ages. Rather than blindly accept what is in your manuals.

Rebecca, I have read the history of Catholicism, from Catholic history and from others as well. I’m not that impressed. Persecution of others, wholesale interdictions of entire nations for political rather than religious reasons, the absolution of all sins for those who began the African slave trade, conquest in the name of conversion–I do not think that these things are the marks of a God guided religion. They are the marks of a religion that, if God was speaking to it, wasn’t listening. Many individuals within the church were, absolutely…but the leaders of the church as a whole? …not so much.

No Catholic has ever admitted God does not guide His Church. The Holy Spirit does indeed guide individuals, and these individuals lead the Church. What do you find wrong with this?

Not a thing–unless you happen to believe, as I do, that the ‘true’ religion of God would have definite public revelation, the way His church and people always HAVE had–and the way that they did NOT have after the last of the apostles died.

Public revelation refers to revelation that is essential to Salvation. Yes, we believe this Revelation was made complete by Jesus Christ, given once and for all to His Church, which has carefully guarded and taught all that Apostles knew and experienced. This includes laying on of hands for the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Again I ask the question, WHAT DID HE FORGET TO TELL US?

http://www.cantius.org/uploads/documents/holy_orders.jpg

I doubt that He ‘forgot’ anything at all, Rebecca, but He reveals His thoughts in His own time, not when you think He should, or according to your timetables.

You realize that everything we have of Him was written by others—PRECISELY the way God has dealt with His people always. Remember Amos 3:7? Surely the Lord will do NOTHING except that “he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets?”

Even the coming of the Messiah was handled in this way; Christ’s message was revealed to us, not by HIM, but by His servants, the apostles and prophets who followed Him. You seem to be claiming that Christ was just another prophet…the last one. But He was NOT a prophet. He did not recieve revelation–He is the giver OF it–and He gave revelation and instruction to His followers both before AND AFTER His death, resurrection and ascention into heaven–else why do we consider anything that ANY of the apostles wrote as scripture? Especially, why do we consider Paul to be an apostle/prophet? Because we all do, you know, LDS and Catholic alike.

So here we have this fact; public revelation continued after Christ’s death…indeed, everything we know of Him is the result of that public revelation. The purpose of it was to teach what we need for salvation, yes…but some of it was also VERY specific to the times and the people living at that time. The letters of the NT were specifically addressed to specific groups, after all, weren’t they?

Actually…the burden of proof is upon you. It’s not my job to prove that the priesthood did NOT continue, or that revelation of the sort that the NT is full of did NOT continue; it is your job to prove to me, in the face of a complete and utter lack of further scripture, that it did indeed continue----and to show me where, anywhere in the bible or anywhere ELSE for that matter, Christ said that such revelation was to cease. Where? What date? What statement? WHO SAID IT WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP NOW?

 

[dianaiad]

“Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”

…and yet…the man who said that revelation was made complete in Christ (he was write about that, by the way, since Jesus ‘bought us with a price’ and all further revelation would indeed come FROM Him) wouldn’t have known anything about Christ if he had not recieved direct revelation from Him. In fact, the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of that particular verse has to be one of the most ironic positions I have ever seen taken.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Your explanation seems dangerously close to doubting Christ’s authority to pass authority to others. Authority received, grants authority to impose hands.

What is the Mormon view of the divinity of Christ?

Do Mormons believe John died?

Who was the first Apostle, in the view of Mormons, who received the authority to impose hands, after the death of the original Apostles?

I am still waiting on responses from ParkerD and whyme on the points and questions I raised in response to their posts…

 

[dianaiad]

I still don’t see how the idea that if a prophet tried to lead the church astray God would remove him from his place(just read that recently on MADB) doesn’t abrogate free will. The LDS claim that the church won’t fail abrogates free will just as much as the Catholic churches claim does.

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

Of course it does not abrogate free will…and it is a concept that Catholics ought to be familiar with (though the idea of Papal infallibility DOES abrogate free will considerably more than this claim does!)

Tell me…does the statement 'if the CFO of a company does something incredibly stupid or illegal, the CEO will fire him" mean that the free will of that chief financial officer is abrogated?

Nope…because the guy can certainly make those decisions and take those actions. He’ll just have to add ‘getting fired’ to the consequences of them.

So we believe that God will ‘remove’ a prophet before he can lead the church ‘astray.’ That doesn’t deny the man his freedom to act or think…it simply adds a consequence TO that thought or act.

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.

 

[dianaiad]

I have asked this question before concerning the priesthood within the LDS church but have never received an answer. A priest is one who offers sacrifice; that is an essential element in the priesthood. If you do not offer sacrifice you are not a priest. It is kind of like calling someone an Olympic swimmer who has never jumped into a pool. Is there a Mormon out there who can tell me when a Mormon “priest” offers sacrifice and exactly what he is offering? Thanks.

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?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course it does not abrogate free will…and it is a concept that Catholics ought to be familiar with (though the idea of Papal infallibility DOES abrogate free will considerably more than this claim does!)

Tell me…does the statement 'if the CFO of a company does something incredibly stupid or illegal, the CEO will fire him" mean that the free will of that chief financial officer is abrogated?

Nope…because the guy can certainly make those decisions and take those actions. He’ll just have to add ‘getting fired’ to the consequences of them.

So we believe that God will ‘remove’ a prophet before he can lead the church ‘astray.’ That doesn’t deny the man his freedom to act or think…it simply adds a consequence TO that thought or act.

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.

Using sensual perceptions to understand the ways of God is more than ironic.

**1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. **

It still goes back to Christ’s word. Did He forget to qualify conditions? Did He make a mistake? Did He go back on His word?

Christ was of the new and EVERLASTING covenant, without gaps. He is all powerful and could protect His truth through less than perfect men, He knew all men to begin with and knew none were or would be perfect. Did He teach the people that all authority over the Temple had been lost?

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Christ, who had authority, gave authority to men of the Church. They had authority, to impose hands and appoint successors.

 

[dianaiad]

Your explanation seems dangerously close to doubting Christ’s authority to pass authority to others. Authority received, grants authority to impose hands.

Here again is that attitude that Christ was less than divine…He is the ultimate source from which authority springs, y’know. However, He isn’t going to MAKE us listen.

What is the Mormon view of the divinity of Christ?

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.

Do Mormons believe John died?

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

Who was the first Apostle, in the view of Mormons, who received the authority to impose hands, after the death of the original Apostles?

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?

I am still waiting on responses from ParkerD and whyme on the points and questions I raised in response to their posts…

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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, I have read the history of Catholicism, from Catholic history and from others as well. I’m not that impressed. Persecution of others, wholesale interdictions of entire nations for political rather than religious reasons, the absolution of all sins for those who began the African slave trade, conquest in the name of conversion–I do not think that these things are the marks of a God guided religion. They are the marks of a religion that, if God was speaking to it, wasn’t listening. Many individuals within the church were, absolutely…but the leaders of the church as a whole? …not so much.

Yes, you have focused on the anti-Catholic. This comes through in everything your write here. Thus, you find people throwing words at you such as “bigot”. Though yes, you have a bigoted view, I can find forgiveness in the fact that this is how you have been trained by a false religion.

Not a thing–unless you happen to believe, as I do, that the ‘true’ religion of God would have definite public revelation, the way His church and people always HAVE had–and the way that they did NOT have after the last of the apostles died.

You have yet to list one thing that Christ forgot to give us.

I doubt that He ‘forgot’ anything at all, Rebecca, but He reveals His thoughts in His own time, not when you think He should, or according to your timetables.

Fair enough. What new thing has He revealed that is necessary for Salvation?

You realize that everything we have of Him was written by others—PRECISELY the way God has dealt with His people always. Remember Amos 3:7? Surely the Lord will do NOTHING except that “he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets?”

Even the coming of the Messiah was handled in this way; Christ’s message was revealed to us, not by HIM, but by His servants, the apostles and prophets who followed Him. You seem to be claiming that Christ was just another prophet…the last one. But He was NOT a prophet. He did not recieve revelation–He is the giver OF it–and He gave revelation and instruction to His followers both before AND AFTER His death, resurrection and ascention into heaven–else why do we consider anything that ANY of the apostles wrote as scripture? Especially, why do we consider Paul to be an apostle/prophet? Because we all do, you know, LDS and Catholic alike.

Hebrews 1:1-2

So here we have this fact; public revelation continued after Christ’s death…indeed, everything we know of Him is the result of that public revelation. The purpose of it was to teach what we need for salvation, yes…but some of it was also VERY specific to the times and the people living at that time. The letters of the NT were specifically addressed to specific groups, after all, weren’t they?

All testifies of Christ. Yes indeed, someone had to write it down, as Christ as far as we know wrote one thing…in the dirt.

The question you need to answer is how did this Bible come to be?

Actually…the burden of proof is upon you. It’s not my job to prove that the priesthood did NOT continue, or that revelation of the sort that the NT is full of did NOT continue; it is your job to prove to me, in the face of a complete and utter lack of further scripture, that it did indeed continue----and to show me where, anywhere in the bible or anywhere ELSE for that matter, Christ said that such revelation was to cease. Where? What date? What statement? WHO SAID IT WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP NOW?

Diana, Christian understanding is that all the OT prophets foretold re: the Messiah has been fulfilled.

The proof is at Pentecost, when Jesus sent us His Advocate. The gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles. The Apostles in turn handed on all they knew. This is clear in scripture. They appointed Bishops to continue the work. Further understanding can be had by reading the Early Church Fathers, and even further understanding of this can be had by our liturgies.

I do think it is up to you to prove to any Christian that the Apostles were so entirely derelict in their faith that they left us with something that is incomplete.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Actually…the burden of proof is upon you. It’s not my job to prove that the priesthood did NOT continue, or that revelation of the sort that the NT is full of did NOT continue; it is your job to prove to me, in the face of a complete and utter lack of further scripture, that it did indeed continue----and to show me where, anywhere in the bible or anywhere ELSE for that matter, Christ said that such revelation was to cease. Where? What date? What statement? WHO SAID IT WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP NOW?

For those following along at home…

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [Hebrews 1:1-2; ESV; emphasis mine]

 

[RebeccaJ]

Also Diana, Catholics (East and West) are not sola scriptura. Neither do we believe God left us orphans. We don’t believe the heavens are closed.

The Holy Spirit guides our Bishops, our Priests, and all the baptized, religious and laity. It is your belief that this guidance left us, not ours.

 

[aspirant]

Your previous responses did not show that you were following the advice of james.

I was.

The missionary training center stay can vary

Yep.

But most of the training is in the language and in giving the discussions.

Yep.

My daughter is a missionary at this moment and she was not given training in communication skills.

Take that up with the Missionary Training Center, then, because they claim the curriculum includes “developing excellent communication skills.” YMMV.

all further revelation would indeed come FROM Him

There’s nothing more to be said.

 

[aspirant]

For those following along at home…
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [Hebrews 1:1-2; ESV; emphasis mine]

 

[RebeccaJ]

For those following along at home… Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [Hebrews 1:1-2; ESV; emphasis mine]

St. John of the Cross taught regarding this scripture passage:

“In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.”

(bold emphasis mine)

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, you have focused on the anti-Catholic. This comes through in everything your write here. Thus, you find people throwing words at you such as “bigot”. Though yes, you have a bigoted view, I can find forgiveness in the fact that this is how you have been trained by a false religion.

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

You have yet to list one thing that Christ forgot to give us.

Fair enough. What new thing has He revealed that is necessary for Salvation?

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." This is, you understand, circular.

Hebrews 1:1-2

All testifies of Christ. Yes indeed, someone had to write it down, as Christ as far as we know wrote one thing…in the dirt.

My point precisely.

The question you need to answer is how did this Bible come to be?

Diana, Christian understanding is that all the OT prophets foretold re: the Messiah has been fulfilled.

The proof is at Pentecost, when Jesus sent us His Advocate. The gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles. The Apostles in turn handed on all they knew. This is clear in scripture. They appointed Bishops to continue the work. Further understanding can be had by reading the Early Church Fathers, and even further understanding of this can be had by our liturgies.

I do think it is up to you to prove to any Christian that the Apostles were so entirely derelict in their faith that they left us with something that is incomplete.

That, we contend, is obvious in the very fact that no scripture was written after the apostles died. Obvious on the very face of it. You are contending that revelation was complete…because it stopped happening. Yet there was no reason for it to stop. Certainly there was no hint in any of the writings of any of those men that a time would come when it would stop.

Your claim rests on the notion that it stopped because it was supposed to, and you know that it was supposed to because, well…it stopped. This is a very circular notion.

Our claim is that there is no reason given by any of the apostles, or by Christ Himself, that this sort of public revelation would cease because there was no more need of it. There WAS prophecy that it WOULD cease–but those prophecies were all about apostacy, so the idea that it would cease was not considered a positive one. Therefore the reason it ceased was because that apostasy actually happened.

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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

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.

 

[TheosisM]

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?

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. *

 

[dianaiad]

For those following along at home…

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [Hebrews 1:1-2; ESV; emphasis mine]

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?

It is, in fact, a paradox right up there with the "liar’s paradox. "

You know the one: “The next sentence is false. The previous statement is true.”

The only conclusion is that…Paul didn’t mean what you think he did. What he meant–and what IS absolutely true, is that Christ is the final giver of revelation; He ‘bought us with a price,’ and His is the ultimate authority to give or to withold. If HE chooses to call a prophet, then WE cannot tell Him He cannot. If He chooses to let everybody slide for a couple of thousand years, well…it wouldn’t be the first time that happened, either. The OT covers a LOT of human history.

 

[dianaiad]

Also Diana, Catholics (East and West) are not sola scriptura. Neither do we believe God left us orphans. We don’t believe the heavens are closed.

The Holy Spirit guides our Bishops, our Priests, and all the baptized, religious and laity. It is your belief that this guidance left us, not ours.

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.