Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[TheosisM]

I think that being ONE with the Father is for all eternity. Backward in time (our concept since there is no time to God) and forward.

Jesus was not created or born. He is one with the Father for all time. I don’t see how the beginning of the Gospel according to St John could be read any other way. Neither does the rest of Christianity. And again…I do not consider mormonism to be Christian.

Like Genesis 1:1, Mormons interpret John 1:1 differently, where “the beginning” referred to is not an absolute beginning. This actually goes into the belief in creatio ex nihilo(creation from nothing), which Mormons also reject.

Perhaps another thread

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks, it does. Perhaps a Mormon can comment on this, however I don’t see that they disagree with any of this. It’s an interpretation issue, especially with the issue of when “the beginning” was (i.e., is Genesis 1:1 referring to an absolute “beginning”, or is it referring to a relative “beginning” when creation began).

There used to be a Catholic convert from Mormonism here, who thought the LDS teaching re:God had changed over time enough to the point that it was almost Christian. He thought as mormon doctrine changed further (as it does and will) they would eventually understand and accept the Trinity. The RLDS have made it to that point. They also view the Book of Mormon as non-historical allegory. Something the LDS are slowly working towards as well.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

OK, I was wondering because;
Christians follow Christ, who is God, which changes our understanding of God from Judaism.
If you were saying that Joseph Smith teaching something new about who God is, is similar to the change made by Christianity; then it seemed to me you were saying:
Mormons follow Joseph Smith, who is God, which changes the Mormon understand of God from Christianity. I didn’t think Mormons believed Joseph Smith was God, so I was confused by your meaning.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

We have what Jesus Himself taught regarding this, so as Christians, of course we believe and follow Christ.

Smith falls under Galations 1:8.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

 

[Marie5890]

There used to be a Catholic convert from Mormonism here, who thought the LDS teaching re:God had changed over time enough to the point that it was almost Christian. He thought as mormon doctrine changed further (as it does and will) they would eventually understand and accept the Trinity. The RLDS have made it to that point. They also view the Book of Mormon as non-historical allegory. Something the LDS are slowly working towards as well.

I tend to agree with this as well. Seeing how Mormonism has evolved since 1830 and how many of the core doctrines from back then have dimmed, I expect many of today’s core doctrines will also have dimmed quite a bit in the next 50-100 + so years.

It will have too in order to survive somehow. As it is now the retention rates of adult converts is extremely poor, and they are losing adult membership thru membership resignation in very large numbers every year.

And like ALL religious organizations, that means the money they have coming in is dropping significantly.

It’s my understanding that the leadership has made some serious financial investments which should help with bottom line (somehting about a very large mall in Salt Lake? Or something like that…Im fuzzy on the specs)

All the religious aspects aside, the LDS church like other churches definitely has the “it’s a business” side to it. So I fully expect them to become even more mainstream as time passes to stay solid

(Gordon B Hinckley did a great deal to mainstream the church when he was president/prophet)

I remember when I first was going thru RCIA and was talking to our RCIA director (who was our Pastoral Associate) about having been Mormon. Several months later she came to me and told me the research she had done. She said the biggest thing that struck her was how young of a church it is and how little theological scholarship has been done by it’s leadership.

I just looked at her not knowing what to say to her dead on observations.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Again, you have simply confirmed the irony. What Paul recieved was, in terms of his life and times, certainly as different as the Book of Mormon is in THESE times; He recieved the gospel, yes…but who ELSE had it? Paul got knocked in the head on the road to Damascus, and went on to learn more of Christ, and to get more specific revelation ABOUT Christ and FROM Him over his lifetime—and he wrote of that and taught of that.

In fact, he served as a very traditional prophet in the OT sense; he recieved the Word of God and he told the people around him what it was. That’s what prophets DO. That’s what they all do. All you have done here in this post is confirm that this is what he did.

Repeating an argument without addressing it is not really addressing an argument. In fact, it is a sign that you have no real argument. As I said once in discussion with Muslims, I am suddenly reminded of that scene in This is Spinal Tap where a band member boasts about amplifiers that go up to 11, is told of the illogical nature of this, and simply responds with a stammering, “Yeah…but…these go up to 11…”

The role of prophets were to connect God with people and have God speak to the people so as to connect them with God. This, however, ended with John the Baptist. Christ says this (Luke 16:16), and it is affirmed by St. Paul (Heb 1:1-2). In fact, let’s review Hebrews 1:1-2 again, since you refuse to do so yourself:

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. [Heb 1:1-2; ESV]

What was the role of the prophets? For God to speak to the people. How does God speak to us now? Through His Son. You cannot possibly say that St. Paul was fulfilling that role - Paul himself would scoff at that assumption. The role of the prophets in that regard is over - hence men like Mani, Mohammad, Joseph Smith and many other individuals who claim to be prophets and speak for God are simply lying.

As you said, Christ is the “final and only giver of revelation,” but what kind of revelation? It was not the kind given to Moses, Jeremiah, Elijah, or any other prophet of old - if it was, then Paul committed a theological error in his letter to the Hebrews. It was not anything new - it was simply that foundation which was already laid, which was Jesus Christ and the Gospel. There was nothing else to give, nor should anything else be given.

If you are going to argue that he believed there was room for new revelation, instead of presenting emotional arguments, repeating what you said before, or saying childish phrases like “m’friend” (I felt like I was reading a Peter Ruckman article there for a moment) please address it from the scripture. If you think we are teaching a different gospel, use the New Testament to show we are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s my understanding that the leadership has made some serious financial investments which should help with bottom line (somehting about a very large mall in Salt Lake? Or something like that…Im fuzzy on the specs)

Yes, this multi-billion dollar mall in downtown SLC, as well as a spate of real estate purchases in the downtown area reported in the local papers over the last two weeks or so (MAJOR big money purchases).

I remember when I first was going thru RCIA and was talking to our RCIA director (who was our Pastoral Associate) about having been Mormon. Several months later she came to me and told me the research she had done. She said the biggest thing that struck her was how young of a church it is and how little theological scholarship has been done by it’s leadership.

Scholarship in regards to mormonism is mainly discouraged, and if/when it does occur, it stands only about 20 years.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There used to be a Catholic convert from Mormonism here, who thought the LDS teaching re:God had changed over time enough to the point that it was almost Christian. He thought as mormon doctrine changed further (as it does and will) they would eventually understand and accept the Trinity. The RLDS have made it to that point. They also view the Book of Mormon as non-historical allegory. Something the LDS are slowly working towards as well.

Are you talking about Paul Dupre? I think that was his name.

 

[TheosisM]

OK, I was wondering because;
Christians follow Christ, who is God, which changes our understanding of God from Judaism.
If you were saying that Joseph Smith teaching something new about who God is, is similar to the change made by Christianity; then it seemed to me you were saying:
Mormons follow Joseph Smith, who is God, which changes the Mormon understand of God from Christianity. I didn’t think Mormons believed Joseph Smith was God, so I was confused by your meaning.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

 

[TheosisM]

There used to be a Catholic convert from Mormonism here, who thought the LDS teaching re:God had changed over time enough to the point that it was almost Christian. He thought as mormon doctrine changed further (as it does and will) they would eventually understand and accept the Trinity. The RLDS have made it to that point. They also view the Book of Mormon as non-historical allegory. Something the LDS are slowly working towards as well.

Perhaps. For some reason, I think that it is too late for the LDS church to go the way of the RLDS at this point. I do think that there has been more of a move to perhaps make their doctrines more…palatable (Mormons perhaps would see this as removing the speculation), especially with the new Gospel Principles, however I don’t really see the LDS church ever becoming Trinitarian or viewing the Book of Mormon as “non-historical allegory”. Becoming Trinitarian would mean changing a host of other doctrines, which the RLDS didn’t have in the first place.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you talking about Paul Dupre? I think that was his name.

PaulDupre is still around. I’m trying to think of his name…drawing a blank.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PaulDupre is still around. I’m trying to think of his name…drawing a blank.

hosemonkey? (seriously, there was a poster called hosemonkey that was ex-mormon and now Catholic)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps. For some reason, I think that it is too late for the LDS church to go the way of the RLDS at this point. I do think that there has been more of a move to perhaps make their doctrines more…palatable (Mormons perhaps would see this as removing the speculation), especially with the new Gospel Principles, however I don’t really see the LDS church ever becoming Trinitarian or viewing the Book of Mormon as “non-historical allegory”. Becoming Trinitarian would mean changing a host of other doctrines, which the RLDS didn’t have in the first place.

True. But the LDS church (Brighamites for clarity) has always done what it takes to survive, including changing doctrines. Discontinuing polygamy and removing the ban they had for African men being ordained to their priesthood, are two examples.

Myself, I can’t see it ever happening, but some think it is possible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

hosemonkey? (seriously, there was a poster called hosemonkey that was ex-mormon and now Catholic)

I don’t think hosemonkey was ever mormon, but certainly, he has very strong things to say about mormonism. He’s still around too.

But you jogged my memory. BartBurk was his name.

 

[KathleenGee]

That is what I was implying on another thread, that may be i 100 years from now, or alot sooner … Mormonism will be integrated with Christianity…

 

[Marie5890]

Perhaps. For some reason, I think that it is too late for the LDS church to go the way of the RLDS at this point. I do think that there has been more of a move to perhaps make their doctrines more…palatable (Mormons perhaps would see this as removing the speculation), especially with the new Gospel Principles, however I don’t really see the LDS church ever becoming Trinitarian or viewing the Book of Mormon as “non-historical allegory”. Becoming Trinitarian would mean changing a host of other doctrines, which the RLDS didn’t have in the first place.

I dont know Theosis, given they fully believe they are lead by a living prophet of God, I think it’s always a possibility in the sense that certain doctrines will be dimmed and de-emphasized to the point where they basically fade quietly away (IE blood atonement, Adam-God, plural marriage etc) as years go by.

In our life time? Of course not. But the Mormonism that is today is nothing like it was in Joseph Smith’s time nor will it be the same in 100+ years.

Catholic Church also has done similar kinds of evolutions. What we have today is different from 500 years ago, 1000 years ago etc etc…

 

[TheosisM]

I dont know Theosis, given they fully believe they are lead by a living prophet of God, I think it’s always a possibility in the sense that certain doctrines will be dimmed and de-emphasized to the point where they basically fade quietly away (IE blood atonement, Adam-God, plural marriage etc) as years go by.

In our life time? Of course not. But the Mormonism that is today is nothing like it was in Joseph Smith’s time nor will it be the same in 100+ years.

Catholic Church also has done similar kinds of evolutions. What we have today is different from 500 years ago, 1000 years ago etc etc…

Perhaps. I think I agree with Rebecca in that while it may be possible, I don’t think it will happen. It would be very difficult to change something as foundation as the nature of God, as well as the related doctrines of the pre-existence and exaltation.

 

[sablouwho]

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.

The importance of this observation cannot be underestimated, I think, when it comes to the LDS question.

I came to the same observation myself when I was considering becoming LDS. Afterall, I had already been down the road of a complete paradigm change (Judaism to Christianity). And that shift specifically involved “unlearning” things about the nature of God that I had originally be taught were true (strict monotheism). It was a difficult change to make, but I had prayed to God to “show me what was true about Him” and promised that I would follow whatever path He showed me.

I think that it was because of this prayer and my desire to find truth that was able to overcome my pre-conceived notions about God, and that this is how/why I came to develop faith in Christ.

So, encountering Mormon concepts that differed from more orthodox Christianity really felt like a “replay” of what I had experienced when I went from being a secular Jew to believing Christian.

I also think that my coming from a Jewish perspective and having to change what I believed about God makes me less uncomfortable with (some) LDS beliefs than I would be had I always been raised with a traditional Christian paradigm.

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.

Indeed, it doesn’t. Theosis–does that confuse you–I notice your “shrug”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ParkerD

I had to delete your post to fit a response.

The same authority in Matthew 16 was differentiated by the giving of the keys. The other Apostles guessed Jesus was Elias or John the Baptist. The Father chose Peter by revealing to Him that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

**Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. **

From there anyone can see that Jesus was addressing Peter. He did not say, ‘I give to the 12’, ‘I give to all of you’, or ‘I give to my disciples’, the keys. He stated:

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 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. **

This was the first announcment of the Church. The second mention of ‘binding and loosing’ was in the Church’s authority to settle disputes. You can withhold communion and communion will be withheld in heaven, you can give communion and communion will be with heaven. With the keys, Peter received doctrinal authority that through those teachings, heaven would be open or shut.

Peter used the term 3 times and he used terms putting himself as equal to those who served but were not eye witnesses to the suffering of Christ.

The differences in the use of ‘Apostles’ is attributed to different writing styles of the authors, as well as their own knowledge of the Greek language.

John was humble and would not have questiioned the Lord on His decisions.

Peter was also a humble man. When Christ appeared to them and instructed Peter to tend to His flock, 3 times, Peter seemingly felt others were more deserving.

Joh 21:21 Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?

The Lord had a plan for each of His followers. And while we’re looking at this passage (and you did not respond to where the belief that John did not die comes from) note, that this was misinterpreted by some who understood that John would not die and would remain till the Lord come again. John, himself, corrected this error in thinking and explained it, ‘And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?’

Some would claim to read the Bible literally, but cannot see the literal context of the keys and mistake the interpretation of the above passage.

What was the plan for John?

Joh 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
Joh 19:27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Jesus wanted John, whom the Lord loved, to care for the ark of the new and everlasting covenant, His own mother.

It would be interesting to know where you get that James was dead when Paul was appointed. In Acts 9, we see:

**Act 9:10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias, And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest, that thou mayest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales: and he received his sight. And rising up, he was baptized.**

In Acts 21 we see:

Act 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
Act 21:18 And the day following, Paul went in with us unto James: and all the ancients were assembled.

James, bishop of Jerusalem, and all the ancients were assembled and Paul, already received the imposition of hands and filled with the Holy Ghost.

ParkerD,

I hate to keep repeating certain questions or points, but it appears they are being overlooked or ignored.

How does the Mormon Church have the authority to appoint ‘Apostles’? What differentiates the difference between those and the original Apostles?

Who was the ‘quorum’ of Apostles, necessary in your view, to appoint other Apostles at the beginning of the ‘restoration’, specifically the founding of the Mormon Church?

Lastly, just a point and not a question, it’s ironic that the Mormon Church claims the loss of a valid priesthood at the death of the last Apostle, yet they believe Apostle John did not die. This seems to indicate a non-belief in Christ’s words or intentions. Why would Christ ‘translate’ the last Apostle who clearly could have saved His Church through His priesthood? To claim a quorum was necessary certainly appears, to me, to be an excuse of convenience.

 

[Annie_B]

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

No. However, if any of those writings interested me in a spiritual way as a spiritual path I might walk, I would not hesitate to pray about them.

Annie