Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[Stephen168]

Go read the Papal Bull “Dum Diversas” by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452. That’s one…but there was an earlier one that literally offered to remit the sins of anybody who would go battle the ‘Saracens’ and enslave them. While that term has later become associated with Muslims, at the time it refered to Africans who were NOT Arabs–that is, all who were not Caucasian.

Saracen meant non-Arabs near syria, but by the time Dum Diversas was written it refered to Muslims.

 

[aspirant]

there is no reason to believe that Paul is referring to the Bible as a whole

It’s John.

Luke 24:32 (King James Version)

32And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

I’m familiar with it. The problem is that, if your previous words about it are any indication, you aren’t. And on top of that there’s the additional problem of trying read an idea that’s not present into the text.

It resolves ‘the problem’ with my premise.

Not remotely. The problem remains.

 

[dianaiad]

Papal infallibility…only on faith and morals.

I didn’t claim anything else. You are the one putting in the red herring here. Consider; 'faith and morals" pretty much IS what Catholic leaders are in charge of; this topic encompases pretty much everything church related.

Read my previous post. You join many new false religions of the last 100 to 200 years that have sprung up. All know better than the Church (Orthodox included) that has been in existance for 2000 years.

It’s called heresy…that’s what mormonism is. Right there with JW. It’s not recognized as being a Protestant demonination (notice my use of starting certain words with “caps”…it’s a sign of respect and acceptance) Mornonism and JW’s are cults.

mormoncult.org/

You are quite correct, Mormonism IS a cult. So is Catholicism. "Cult’ simply means ‘belief system.’ Any other definition is strictly derogatory, and is relative to the speaker.

As to that website you included?

How about I send you to mtc.org/ in order to get information about what Catholics really believe?

 

[TheosisM]

I stand corrected my frieind!

Now…the JW’s and mormons use their “addition to scripture” to change what the Bible says about Christ. He was never created…“Begotten not made…one in union with the Father” Now 1900 years later Joey Smith comes along and changes that. That’s certainly what Christianity DOES NOT accept. Both belief systems are inspired by less than God. Much as islam.

Jehovah’s Witnesses use their own unique translation of the Bible that supports their unique beliefs. Mormons use the King James Version.

The Bible does not say “begotten not made…one in union with the Father”. That is essentially what the Nicene Creed states. Mormons tend to believe that their unique view of Jesus Christ is biblically based. It is an interpretation issue and not really “chang[ing] what the Bible says about Christ”.

Also, I see this issue of “Christianity” not accepting the supposed revelations of Joseph Smith in a similar way as to how Judaism saw the revelations given to the early Christians. Judaism was/is a strictly monotheistic religion (though it is debatable when Israelite religion became such), where there is essentially a Unitarian belief (basically there is only one God, who is one Person). Christianity then comes on the scene and posits the belief that there are three distinct Persons that are one in Being (i.e one God), introducing a plurality within the “one God”. Judaism “DOES NOT” accept this.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

dianaiad,

Let’s take another approach to this discussion.

Anything you want to discuss about Catholicism is open for discussion, there is no subject we are not willing to discuss openly and honestly.

Is there anything about the Mormon faith we shouldn’t ask questions about; ceremonies, hand symbols, etc. etc.?

 

[TheosisM]

It’s John.

Thanks! My mind has been on Paul lately

 

[dianaiad]

See the condescending tone of your post. I say, it’s our faith in God, His promises and His power. You say another nutty conversation. To be fair you to, you added wording to include an ‘ignorant Mormon’. That was added by you, I did not use it. But I guess you decided to judge me according to the actions of others?

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but you believe St. John was ‘translated’, was he removed? No, you don’t believe that, you believe that immediately upon his translation the hierarchy in the Church lost it’s valid priesthood, or it was removed, but you cannot state the actions specifically why it was removed.

We follow Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He is the founder of our Church.

Tell us about the founder of your Church.

Since it was very obvious that I wasn’t addressing YOU, specifically, it’s a little difficult to understand why you figure that I am JUDGING you, specifically.

However, I will be happy to tell you about the founder of our church. In about AD 0-3 a young girl, about 13 or 14, was visited by an angel who told her that she would bear a son, the only Begotten Son of God, the Savior of mankind. She was a little concerned about how that could be, given that she was a virgin and all, but the angel told her that the Holy Ghost would handle that small problem. A few months (I suppose nine would be a safe bet) she, a virgin, gave birth to Jesus. He had quite a life, sacrificed Himself for our sins, was resurrected, …

Well, that’s a very, very short and much abridged bio of the Founder of our church.

 

[spn82756]

Jehovah’s Witnesses use their own unique translation of the Bible that supports their unique beliefs. Mormons use the King James Version.

The Bible does not say “begotten not made…one in union with the Father”. That is essentially what the Nicene Creed states. Mormons tend to believe that their unique view of Jesus Christ is biblically based. It is an interpretation issue and not really "chang[ing] what the Bible says about Christ.

Correct…it’s not in the Bible. But Jesus said that He and the Father are one. St John also says that Jesus was not created or born. He is in the beginning. The Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word IS God.

The Nicene Creed merely paraphrases that. Written at a time when common people were not well educated and probably had no idea how to read.

 

[dianaiad]

So what was John really warning us about in Revelation 22? Simple. He had written the book of Revelation as a prophetic document for the edification and guidance of the Church, and he didn't want it tampered with--nothing added, nothing subtracted. He knew that some knucklehead in a later generation might decide he could improve on the message, or, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, twist it to better suit his personal theology. Revelation 22:18-19 is essentially a first-century copyright, designed to discourage people from altering the work. "

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm

Beautiful. Can I quote this?

 

[TheosisM]

Correct…it’s not in the Bible. But Jesus said that He and the Father are one. St John also says that Jesus was not created or born. He is in the beginning. The Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word IS God.

Mormons agree that Jesus and the Father are one, that He was in the beginning, the Word with God, and is God.

Could you please quote the verse by John that says that Jesus was not created or born?

The Nicene Creed merely paraphrases that. Written at a time when common people were not well educated and probably had no idea how to read.

There are a number of reasons why the Nicene Creed came into being. Speaking of “being”, I think that Mormons would agree with everything that the Nicene Creed states, though there would be some debate about what it means for the Father and the Son to be “consubstantial”. If that is defined (essentially it is referring to the divine essence, the divine nature), I think that Mormons would agree with it, though they believe (from my understanding) that we are all of the divine nature. Traditional Christians would disagree.

 

[TheosisM]

Beautiful. Can I quote this?

Of course, it’s not mine

 

[Stephen168]

Also, I see this issue of “Christianity” not accepting the supposed revelations of Joseph Smith in a similar way as to how Judaism saw the revelations given to the early Christians.

Are you suggesting Mormons think of Joseph Smith the way Christian think of Christ?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since it was very obvious that I wasn’t addressing YOU, specifically, it’s a little difficult to understand why you figure that I am JUDGING you, specifically.

However, I will be happy to tell you about the founder of our church. In about AD 0-3 a young girl, about 13 or 14, was visited by an angel who told her that she would bear a son, the only Begotten Son of God, the Savior of mankind. She was a little concerned about how that could be, given that she was a virgin and all, but the angel told her that the Holy Ghost would handle that small problem. A few months (I suppose nine would be a safe bet) she, a virgin, gave birth to Jesus. He had quite a life, sacrificed Himself for our sins, was resurrected, …

Well, that’s a very, very short and much abridged bio of the Founder of our church.

Ok, same, same… now tell us about the author of the Book of Mormon?

 

[TheosisM]

Are you suggesting Mormons think of Joseph Smith the way Christian think of Christ?

Of course not, since my quoted statement is about traditional Christians’ view of Joseph Smith’s supposed revelations (in comparison to how early (and current) Judaism viewed the change in knowledge of the persons of God by early Christianity), and not the Mormons’ view of Joseph Smith.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s what we say it is, Rebecca.

It is NOT what you say it is.

Depends on the day, maybe even the hour.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, those things I mentioned were authorized and begun by Popes, and made official through Papal declarations, and were the official policies of the church AS A WHOLE.

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).

If you want to call that the ‘sin of individuals,’ and separate that out from the policies and doctrine of the church as a whole, I suppose you can.

Of course, I will remind you of that the next time you decide that the Mormon Church believes or does this thing or that thing because one of our leaders made a statement you can make hay of.

You only prove my point. Again.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Absolutely…I agree.

…but…how do we know of Him?

It’s ‘new’ to us…but you are conflating the two concepts here, of personal confirmation of truth, and the sort of public revelation that the early Christian apostles recieved from Christ. While they are both revelation, they aren’t both the same kind…and my point is simple;

There is no reason…none at all…to assume that because it ceased it was supposed to cease. After all, there are only two reasons such a thing WOULD cease, put plainly; either He stopped talking or we stopped listening. If it is that He stopped talking, it would seem that there would be SOME indication of ‘fini…’ in there. A "the end’ statement, or '‘y’all are pretty much on your own now…I’m not going to talk through prophets any more.’ sort of notification.

You are making up stuff. Which I understand, considering you are LDS and that is what mormons do. Soon enough you could fire up your own religion.

However, there isn’t anything like that. In fact, the verse that y’all love to use to claim that there IS such a statement is absolutely disproof that it means what y’all think it does.

Catholics are aware of heresies and apostasies from the teachings they espoused. Y’all have been doing nasty and not so nasty things to heretics for a very, very long time. We simply contend that the heresies began one step before you claim they did.

…so we go with option #2; people stopped listening.

I see your bigot-mode has come out in full force today. Maybe tomorrow you’ll be back to being reasonable.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…and when the church, composed as it is on this earth entirely OF humans, goes off the rails, it is up to Jesus to fix it.

We, of course, contend that this is precisely what He did.

We contend His Church cannot fail as He promised that it would not. But I know Diana, y’all like to twist scripture to show Jesus as a liar.

 

[aspirant]

Mormons use the King James Version.

On an unrelated note, can anyone tell me about the translations Mormons use in other languages? Do they always go for one of the archaic translations, if one exists, or do Mormons who speak other languages sometimes use Bibles translated into contemporary language even when an archaic translation exists?

I mean, for example, do German Mormons use a 400 year-old German translation, or do they use a contemporary German Bible?

And what about the Book of Mormon? When it’s translated into other languages, is it only translated into archaic language, or do German Mormons (again, just for example) get to read the Book of Mormon in contemporary German?

This is not intended as any kind of attack. I’m just curious.

The Bible does not say “begotten not made…one in union with the Father”. That is essentially what the Nicene Creed states.

Actually, the Creed says “consubstantial with the Father” or “one in being with the Father.”

Thanks! My mind has been on Paul lately

No worries.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

I did, your D&C clearly says such a person has no priesthood authority.

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.

So God thought the perfect thing to do was to restore a false priesthood authority to a philandering con-man? That’s an awesome belief you have going there.

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

Which they have. duh.

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

I wouldn’t come back if it were the last religion on the planet.