Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[aspirant]

the church, composed as it is on this earth entirely OF humans

False premises, false conclusions.

 

[JMJ4]

TheosisM - I think it is great that you are THINKING and PRAYING about this decision. Remember, a true church should have nothing to hide and should welcome your questions and not rely solely upon one’s emotions.

I highly recommend you watch The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon on youtube. It is very well done and does not bash anyone. It answered a lot of my questions.

God be with you!

 

[dianaiad]

And even further…it is possible for a pope to live a very sinful life…but as you said…when it comes to teaching about faith and morals he is guided by the Holy Spirit. To teach incorrectly would make Jesus a lier. Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.

Which confirms my claim, wouldn’t you say? How can a pope leave a ‘very sinful life’ in everything except his teachings about faith and morals possibly be seen to have the freedom to think as he chooses about it? (shrug)

The difference in viewpoints is pretty clear in the way the two things are described; the LDS prophet will be ‘removed from his place’ if he tries this (which acknowledges that it’s possible for one of them to think about it or even try it), but a Pope simply…won’t do it. Not possible. Will be prevented.

No freedom to choose there, at all.

As for me, I don’t care. Mormons have a far stricter view of ‘free will’ than most other Christians do. I think most Christians have some form of belief in God’s ability to step in and control thoughts or actions when required…and not only in His ability, but also in His willingness to actually DO so. Of course, Mormons believe in something called 'fore-ordination…" which, unlike pre-destination means that while someone may be CALLED to do something special in mortal life, that person may decline the honor and do something else instead. Perhaps a little like Samson did.

We believe that free will is absolute. WE don’t, however, believe that God COULD NOT take that away from us, simply that He WILL not.

The point regarding the Pope vs. the LDS Prophet is only that it is rather idiotic of a Catholic to look down his nose at our claim that one of our Prophets would be ‘removed from his place’ if he tried to take the church ‘astray,’ when y’all have an even stricter view of the ability of a Pope to go off the doctrinal rails. Why is it OK for you to believe this of your leaders (even when these men can lead sinful lives), but it is somehow unreasonable for us to believe it of ours?

 

[spn82756]

Which confirms my claim, wouldn’t you say? How can a pope leave a ‘very sinful life’ in everything except his teachings about faith and morals possibly be seen to have the freedom to think as he chooses about it? (shrug)

The difference is quite clear. The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit in teaching. We are all sinful. Even the greatest mormon (a heretic). That has no bearing on the teaching of the Church.

You can be a murderer…pimp…prostitute…kidnapper…ETC. But you can teach your children that it is all evil.

I’m not surprised you don’t see that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which confirms my claim, wouldn’t you say? How can a pope leave a ‘very sinful life’ in everything except his teachings about faith and morals possibly be seen to have the freedom to think as he chooses about it? (shrug)

The difference in viewpoints is pretty clear in the way the two things are described; the LDS prophet will be ‘removed from his place’ if he tries this (which acknowledges that it’s possible for one of them to think about it or even try it), but a Pope simply…won’t do it. Not possible. Will be prevented.

No freedom to choose there, at all.

As for me, I don’t care. Mormons have a far stricter view of ‘free will’ than most other Christians do. I think most Christians have some form of belief in God’s ability to step in and control thoughts or actions when required…and not only in His ability, but also in His willingness to actually DO so. Of course, Mormons believe in something called 'fore-ordination…" which, unlike pre-destination means that while someone may be CALLED to do something special in mortal life, that person may decline the honor and do something else instead. Perhaps a little like Samson did.

We believe that free will is absolute. WE don’t, however, believe that God COULD NOT take that away from us, simply that He WILL not.

The point regarding the Pope vs. the LDS Prophet is only that it is rather idiotic of a Catholic to look down his nose at our claim that one of our Prophets would be ‘removed from his place’ if he tried to take the church ‘astray,’ when y’all have an even stricter view of the ability of a Pope to go off the doctrinal rails. Why is it OK for you to believe this of your leaders (even when these men can lead sinful lives), but it is somehow unreasonable for us to believe it of ours?

We have FAITH in the promises and power of God. Do you doubt He could do this to protect His Church, that He built? It’s really that simple. We don’t claim that we can do a better job than Him.

 

[dianaiad]

Catholic: The Sacraments are made valid by Christ. If the bishop/priest/deacon celebrating a particular Sacrament has committed a mortal sin and not sought Reconciliation, the Sacrament remains valid because of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Himself, not as a description of Priesthood).

Mormon: A Sacrament is made invalid by a mormon priesthood holder if that person has committed a mortal sin.

Please explain your grammar, Rebecca. If you mean that a baptism performed by a man who has committed a 'mortal sin" (and remember, Mormons don’t really HAVE that concept!) is invalid, you are dead wrong.

If you mean that a baptism performed on someone who isn’t worthy of BEING baptised is invalid…well, the whole point of baptism is to wash away sins so that doesn’t work.

OK…let’s make this the blessing and administration of the sacrament (communion) instead. If the person RECIEVING it isn’t worthy of doing so, then the whole point of it is invalid…it’s no more than eating a bit of bread and drinking a sip of water; worse, because partaking of this sacrament unworthily is a sin all by itself.

If the man blessing it, or administering it (passing it to the congregation) is having a problem in his life, it doesn’t matter. That authority is still there; the sacrament is still blessed, and the sacrament is still passed. It’s valid. AND lawful.

Let’s take an extreme example: a Mormon Elder may arise from the bed of his mistress, whom he has just murdered, and go baptize his niece. That baptism is valid. HE is in a lot of trouble, of course, but the ordinance he just performed is perfectly valid.

…but don’t trust me, I’m only the Mormon. go look it up for yourself.

An example in regards to this thread is Holy Orders. This Sacrament is made valid by our High Priest, Jesus Christ. The Bishop who confers Holy Orders does not make this Sacrament invalid by his particular sin(s) that have not been forgiven. This is essentially the argument mormons present for why Christ’s Church failed, that is, the priesthood was made invalid by individual sin, to a point where there was no priesthood left.

No, the priesthood was made ‘invalid’ because the line of authority was broken. That line of authority was broken for several reasons…most of which include apostasy. Apostates who take upon themselves the authority to pass on the priesthood simply do not have it, no matter how much they want to think they do.

THEY might still have it, but they can’t PASS IT ON without the proper permission from those above him.

I noticed the inconsistency of this when I was still young, in my teens. As I knew certain people were dirty as hell, still all acting like they were as pious as you can get. So, according to mormons themselves, they had no priesthood authority. This is one of the reasons I left that house of cards for atheism.

Well, if THAT’S why you left, you can come back, since you were all wrong about this bit.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(meaning…go get black slaves from Africa).

Please explain this remark?

 

[dianaiad]

D&C 121

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Apostasy

“After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth.”

How is something done without valid priesthood authority?

Thank you for posting both of those references, Rebecca, because they explain the problem you had. In verse 37 the Doctrine and Covenants is telling priesthood holders that if they misuse the priesthood authority or are evil, that their priesthood would be removed.

In that last quote, the claim is that BECAUSE of this widespread apostasy, “the Lord WITHDREW the authority of the priesthood from the earth.”

I understand that Catholics have this concept of latae sententiae excommunication, where the sin itself results in the the automatic and instant imposition of the consequences, but we don’t. We never did…and you should have been paying attention. In BOTH quotes the removal of the priesthood was mentioned as a consequence. In the first it is a threat, and in the second a statement; first came the apostasy…and THEN the Lord withdrew the priesthood.

If a man is too full of sin to properly honor his priesthood, then it will be taken from him…but that is an official action, not automatic. He will be excommunicated, in which case that authority to act is simply removed, or disfellowshipped, in which case he is told not to excercise it because if he tried, anything he did would be invalid.

But until that happens, no matter HOW full of sin he may be, he still has permission to act…and trust me, you were not taught anything else.

Ever.

Until, that is, you decided to get your information about Mormonism from the anti’s.

 

[dianaiad]

lol. sure. even if their scriptures say otherwise. and their concept of a “great apostasy” is dependent on saying our are not!

What is the definition of mormon doctrine again?

:hypno:

It’s what we say it is, Rebecca.

It is NOT what you say it is.

 

[dianaiad]

Have you prayed about the Koran, the Bhagavad Vita and/or the Kojiki and Nihon shoki?

Dunno about her, but I have. Or rather, I have about the Koran and the Bhagavad Vita. Both books have a great deal of truth IN them…but then that can be said for every religious system out there.

 

[dianaiad]

This doesn’t surprise me. Fortunately, God provides much better answers to prayer than “burning in the bosom.”

Really?

I guess, then, that the apostles didn’t have a clue what they were talking about when they met the resurrected Christ by the river, did they?

 

[dianaiad]

I would say that to consider LDS a Christian Church is a considerable misnomer. Jesus was not created. He was the Word from the beginning. And the Word was with God… and the Word was God.

There was no creation of Jesus. He always was…is and will be.

OK…one real non sequitur in terms of the post this was supposed to answer, though.

 

[dianaiad]

False premises, false conclusions.

What…you have canine Catholics? Feline ones? An orca or two hanging around the pews of a Sunday?

Try putting my quote back in context, aspirant. You know, like including the part where I restricted this to mortality, or this planet, or the earth…like that?

 

[dianaiad]

The difference is quite clear. The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit in teaching. We are all sinful. Even the greatest mormon (a heretic). That has no bearing on the teaching of the Church.

You can be a murderer…pimp…prostitute…kidnapper…ETC. But you can teach your children that it is all evil.

I’m not surprised you don’t see that.

Non sequitur.

You don’t claim that the Pope can be guided by the Holy Spirit in terms of morality and doctrine even if he lives an evil life.

Y’all claim that he can’t do OTHERWISE.

 

[spn82756]

OK…one real non sequitur in terms of the post this was supposed to answer, though.

WHAT???

I paraphrased the beginning of St John. You didn’t expect me to paraphrase or quote Johnny Smith…did you? He’s not recognized by the almost 2 billion Christians in this world as anything other than a heretic. St John is recognized as an Apostle of the Lord. It’s too bad you are turned off by him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is, after all, not possible for just anybody to absolve an entire army from their sins as an incentive for them to 'attack the infidels" (meaning…go get black slaves from Africa).

Again, please explain this statement.

 

[aspirant]

Really?

Yes, really.

I guess, then, that the apostles didn’t have a clue what they were talking about when they met the resurrected Christ by the river, did they?

You appear to be unfamiliar with the very scripture to which you are trying to refer, and trying to insert an idea that is not present.

 

[spn82756]

I will say this about the book of mormon. (as with the koran). It is specifically mentioned in the Bible.

**Revelation 22:17-19

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away in the tree of life and the holy city described in this book.

**That is why we know the book of mormon is on the same deceitful ground as the koran.

 

[aspirant]

Try putting my quote back in context, aspirant. You know, like including the part where I restricted this to mortality, or this planet, or the earth…like that?

Doesn’t change the problem with your premise.

 

[dianaiad]

We have FAITH in the promises and power of God. Do you doubt He could do this to protect His Church, that He built? It’s really that simple. We don’t claim that we can do a better job than Him.

(sigh)

I understand that you believe this. I GET that. this is another one of those nutty conversations I have with you guys where the dialogue goes:

Me: the sky is blue.
the Catholic (well, not all of you are quite this insulting about it, but enough of you are…) : NO, you ignorant Mormon you, how could you say such a thing in your bigoted misunderstanding! We have FAITH, I tell you! WE know what we believe…don’t you DARE tell us what we think! THE SKY IS BLUE!

Here’s the deal: The sky is blue. Catholics believe in the concept of Papal infallibility. MORMONS believe that God will ‘remove’ a prophet ‘from his place’ if he tries to lead the church astray. Both concepts require faith in God’s ability to handle apostasy at the highest level.

I am simply stating that it is hypocritical of certain Catholics to dismiss OUR faith in such a thing, and then claim a similar faith for their own belief system—especially when they couch that dismissal in terms of disdain and 'how could anybody believe something a stupid as that?" attitudes.

Especially when the mechanics of the thing are a little different. WE at least conceded that it is possible for a prophet to consider going nutso–we simply believe that if one tries it, he’ll be ‘removed.’

Y’all don’t believe that a Pope can even try it. Won’t even enter into his head, so that no matter what he says, it’s ‘truth’ simply because you have faith that God would not allow an untrue thought to escape from his mouth.

which, frankly, is no skin off of my nose…it’s your faith. I only get annoyed about it when a Catholic starts criticizing us for being blind followers of the leader of our church. when you think about it for a moment, I think you can see why that might be.