Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[zaffiroborant]

(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.

You would ***** up a storm if we misrepresented your beliefs the way you constantly do ours.

 

[sablouwho]

Smith falls under Galatians 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.

Hi Rebecca~

In one sense, I can certainly see this passage being applied to apply to JS and LDS.

But I can also see that IF the LDS claim that “important truths were lost” were true (I know you don’t believe that, but may I ask you to pretend for just a moment?) well, then it seems to me that it would be the traditional Christians rather than LDS who are anathema.

This is one of those things that really made me think. I found good LDS apologetics to back up why they believed as they did. To my mind these apologists did a very good job at answering Christian attacks/objections. I felt after all that reading that a very good case could be made. Granted, there was stuff I didn’t believe in (no one is going to succeed in convincing me that God really cares whether I have a cuppa tea! ) But overall, a very good case.

And I say that, yet I am obviously not LDS, and I am no longer an investigator, though I do still have some LDS friends.

The reason I bring it up goes back to the original post, which for me, brings up the question of HOW we know that our faith is true. Studying apologetics and/or praying can lead earnest people to find different answers. That is something that is hard for me to understand and something that I grapple with.

That is especially so because, for me, I can’t say that I believe in any one church 100%, and yes, that includes the CC. It would be hard for me to swallow the whole enchilada …

 

[dianaiad]

Oh, the D & C, that’s doctrines and covenants, correct? Are those considered scriptures by Mormons, or are they doctrines? Can Mormon’s change doctrines at will?

We consider them scripture, Prodigal Son. They are one of the “four standard works” of the church, all of which we consider to be scripture equally: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are considered “closed canon…” that is, we believe that they are complete in and of themselves. The Doctrine and Covenants, however, is a record of scripture that is being written now. While most of it was written early in the church history (early 1800’s, that is…) it has been, can be, and will be added to as further revelation is given to modern prophets and apostles.

A good comparison would be…New Testament Christians who were living during the time the apostles were writing the letters.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t remember making a personal attack.

No, it was not a personal attack. Nor did I say that you were. You were, however, demanding that he defend a doctrine he doesn’t believe in. That’s a little silly…not that it’s all that unusual. Antis do that to me all the time.

 

[dianaiad]

It is something I noticed a long time ago, on my own, without any help from “antis” (whoever they are). Mormons claim priesthood authority can fail for certain reasons, this is how the apostasy is explained. You yourself go off on bigoted tirades about how Catholics are moral failures and therefore that is proof to you of an apostasy. Yet, when I bring up the same for your so-called priesthood, all of the sudden it’s a different story. Even show you side by side, two almost exact explanations, one for Catholic priesthood, the other for mormon priesthood. Yet, here you are, telling me they are different.

I understand, I really do. You put on one hat for one thing, another hat for another, and you hope to GOD that the two hats never happen to sit on your head at the same time.

Rebecca, I have never said that "Catholics are moral failures,’ y’know. Quite the opposite.

However, has it occured to you that one of the reasons you left the LDS church is that you committed a little heresy yourself? I mean, really…isnt that what its called when you decide that scriptures mean something other than the leaders of the faith…and all the folks around you…think it means?

…and why are you getting all upset about this? Shouldn’t you be saying whew, you really DON’T believe that? That’s nice to know!

By the way, I’m a little bemused here. Who is telling whom that the priesthoods are different, again?

 

[dianaiad]

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).

You are correct, we do not disagree with any of this. The problem, as you have stated, lies in a difference of interpretation as to ‘beginning…’

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, I have never said that "Catholics are moral failures,’ y’know. Quite the opposite.

However, has it occured to you that one of the reasons you left the LDS church is that you committed a little heresy yourself? I mean, really…isnt that what its called when you decide that scriptures mean something other than the leaders of the faith…and all the folks around you…think it means?

…and why are you getting all upset about this? Shouldn’t you be saying whew, you really DON’T believe that? That’s nice to know!

By the way, I’m a little bemused here. Who is telling whom that the priesthoods are different, again?

diana i left your church because it is bs. thanks for asking. again.

 

[dianaiad]

We both know what we’re discussing, but it always seems wrong, to me, to bring people in and not tell them everything up front. Christ commanded the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel. There was nothing to hide, nothing to hold back. Holding back certain things is like, wait until they’re in too deep, then through peer pressure we’ll get them into the rest of it.

What part of 'nothing is taught in the Temple that is not taught elsewhere" passed you by, Prodigal? There isn’t any new or different doctrine, no special secrets, no different version of things, nothing doctrinal that Temple goers know that non Temple goers do not know. The only difference is in the method of presentation…

I think its more like describing a landscape. You can describe it on a map, in driving directions, in prosaic discussions over dinner, or take a photograph…all these things are common, everyday and accurate. Or…you can write it in a poem. Same topic, same information, different delivery.

The Temple is a different delivery. Certain ordinances are performed there that are not performed elsewhere, but there’s nothing about THAT which is secret or different from what is taught elsewhere, either.

You brought up a ‘race’ issue earlier as if only the Catholic Church had a history of race issues, even though you brought up a misconception, but I see you avoided discussing the ‘mark of Cain’ in the early Mormon Church, early being in the 1800s, as there is no evidence of ‘Mormon’ prior to that.

Well, duh, Prodigal, since the Book of Mormon wasn’t given to anyone to translate prior to that. As to the ‘Mark of Cain,’ thing…be careful, because quite frankly THAT was an opinion held by many people of the time, Catholics and Protestants alike. Do you want me to dredge up all the Catholic leaders who not only thought so, but SAID so…including more than one Pope?

As I said, my friend, neither Catholics nor Mormons have a pure history when it comes to racial issues. Using it to paint the other guy as wrong and false is to stand on very thin ice…so perhaps you shouldn’t do that? Stick to doctrinal differences.

Don’t continue to try and paint the Catholic Church as evil, unless you wish to discuss the evils within your own Church. There were and are not any Churches without sinful people in them, the Mormon Church included. Glass house arguments don’t get us anywhere. As you say, there are mutltiple websites giving detailed information about every aspect of either religion, even though Mormons try to paint ex-Mormon websites as lies.

Only because they are, by and large, lies. Of course, I’m sure you have a loving opinion of ex-Catholic websites as accurate and friendly places to learn about your own faith?

As for 'painting the Catholic church as evil…" No such thing. I have never said that the Catholic church is evil. True, Catholics do love to CLAIM that we do, but ‘we’ don’t, and I don’t. I DO, however, remind Catholics of their own history when they try to criticise Mormons for former racist policies, and I absolutely get annoyed when any Catholic criticises Mormons for blindly following their leaders, considering how you view yours.

There’s nothing WRONG with having faith in God, that He will keep your leaders from going off the rails, Prodigal. In fact, that’s a good thing. However, there is something VERY wrong with deciding that your belief in God’s guidance for your leaders is faith and a great thing, but that our faith in ours is stupidity and cultism.

Just as there is something very wrong, and incredibly irritating, for members of a church whose black population is STILL vastly underserved in the clergy having the gall to criticize us for racist policies.

I call on double standards, Prodigal, every single time. You go ahead and comment on racist pasts…it’s true. We have a racist past. SO DO YOU, and since you don’t think that affects the truth of YOUR faith, then claiming that ours affects the truth of our teachings is…assinine.

The same thing goes for faith in our respective leaders.

I have been trying to reason with scriptures, and yes I’m going to limit it to what I believe are scriptures. We both accept them as such, there’s no need to demand that we accept other writings ‘translated’ in the 1800s, that are not around for anyone else to inspect, as the same. If that’s too much to ask, maybe some shouldn’t join in the discussion.

Perhaps you should wait until I ask you to accept BoM, PoGP or D&C verses as prooftexts before you turn your nose up, Prodigal. I have never done that, for the very reason you present; you do not accept them as scripture. Therefore they cannot be used to prove that what I believe is true.

Of course, I’ve never tried to DO that.

I will, however, present any and all of these scriptures if necessary to explain why WE believe something is true, because WE believe they are indeed scripture.

There is a difference between attempting to prove that what we believe is true, and proving that we believe what we claim we do. Nobody but God and personal revelation can "prove’ religious Truth to anybody. However, in showing you why we believe what we do, and THAT we believe what we do?

I’m sorry, Prodigal, but for that you just might get exposed to the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Sorry about that.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Odd, I have seen no sign of this myself.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Rebecca, There are no other Mormons who call themselves "LDS.’ To refer to us as “Brighamites” for ‘clarity’ or any other reason, is an insult. “LDS” is acknowledged by all Mormon groups as the largest one based out of SLC.

but you know that already.

 

[ParkerD]

***(edited for space by deleting to here.)
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.

Hi, ProdigalSon1,
I wanted to get back to you even though the discussion has moved way on. (Everyone can ignore–no problem, but I felt out of due respect, I should answer the questions.)

There were two apostles named James, and one was martyred (James the brother of John) as recounted in Acts 12:2. At that point, Paul was not an apostle, but soon thereafter, he was.

The apostles hold the keys to bind and loose, and Peter, James and John restored those keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who gave them by the laying on of hands to twelve modern apostles, and so forth.

As far as the apostle John, he was part of the church going “into the wilderness”, and he had a different assignment from God at that point, and he also saw in his vision that the authorities and pure doctrines of the gospel would be restored by angelic visit, as noted in Revelation 14:6-7. The leading holders of the keys (Peter, James and John) restored the keys, and the pure doctrine was restored by means of the Book of Mormon being revealed by the angel Moroni to be brought out of the ground (fulfilling Isaiah 29) and to be translated to restore pure truth and add the second witness to the world for the truth that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[dianaiad]

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…

We already ARE Christians. lady.

What I predict is that in a hundred years from now, no matter what we may do or think or believe, mainstream Christianity will find something ELSE to criticise, so as to keep the schisms going.

…and this isn’t about being LDS. It’s about having ANY belief that is different from the ones you have…or the ones he has, or she does, or which the guy over in the next pew does.

Sheesh, I just attempted to join a private Baptist chat group very much like this one, only to be told that I could not do so because my beliefs were 'incompatible with Christianity."

Pretty typical…and before you get all ‘there she goes, pulling the victim/persecution card again…’ they don’t let Catholics in, either, for the same reason.

I think it’s time that Christianity as a whole got it’s act together and stopped making of itself a laughingstock.

 

[Marie5890]

I think it’s time that Christianity as a whole got it’s act together and stopped making of itself a laughingstock.

(note my sig!)

 

[dianaiad]

You would ***** up a storm if we misrepresented your beliefs the way you constantly do ours.

OK, how did I misrepresent your beliefs in this post? I went to the papal bull about how infallibility works. I went to Catholic sources to see what the prevailing thought is…and what I said seems to be what was written. A pope, when he is writing or speaking about ‘faith or morals,’ and speaking ‘ex cathedra’ CANNOT be in error. Not ‘if he is in error, God will remove him,’ but ‘cannot be in error.’ As in, will be prevented from committing that error. As in…he can’t say it if it is in error.

What’s the problem with this? Do you think that this is a bad thing? Is it only true if these precise words come out of Catholic mouths?

I don’t get it.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Rebecca~

In one sense, I can certainly see this passage being applied to apply to JS and LDS.

But I can also see that IF the LDS claim that “important truths were lost” were true (I know you don’t believe that, but may I ask you to pretend for just a moment?) well, then it seems to me that it would be the traditional Christians rather than LDS who are anathema.

This is one of those things that really made me think. I found good LDS apologetics to back up why they believed as they did. To my mind these apologists did a very good job at answering Christian attacks/objections. I felt after all that reading that a very good case could be made. Granted, there was stuff I didn’t believe in (no one is going to succeed in convincing me that God really cares whether I have a cuppa tea! )

Just for the record, He doesn’t. He DOES, however, care whether you keep your promises, even if that promise is only about drinking a cuppa tea.

But overall, a very good case.

And I say that, yet I am obviously not LDS, and I am no longer an investigator, though I do still have some LDS friends.

The reason I bring it up goes back to the original post, which for me, brings up the question of HOW we know that our faith is true. Studying apologetics and/or praying can lead earnest people to find different answers. That is something that is hard for me to understand and something that I grapple with.

That is especially so because, for me, I can’t say that I believe in any one church 100%, and yes, that includes the CC. It would be hard for me to swallow the whole enchilada …

I keep running into that attitude, too. It’s not just Mormons, but Catholics and Baptists and…??? They are CERTAIN that God would never, EVER, lead someone away from the ‘really true’ church, so if it looks as if He is, it must be the fault of the pray-er.

As for me, I think in quite a few cases it IS the ‘fault’ of the seeker. That is, s/he may not be actually open minded, no matter how much s/he may say, or even THINK, s/he is. So…the responses that confirm what is wanted are heard, and the responses that say…nope…are not.

However, I also think that eternity is a very long time. As a former investigator, you are aware that WE believe that we grow, and learn, and progress after death. There is a great deal to lean and accomplish, and not everything has to be done right here and right now. So, if for some reason God thinks you are better off as a Catholic, or as a Budhist, or (heaven alone knows why…) a Calvinist…then there’s probably a reason for it. We’ll catch you later, when you are ready.

…and no, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would confirm a lie. He will, however, confirm truth, and if you can handle truth better in this frame than in another one, perhaps that’s where you need to be.

I’ve met too many sincere people who are aching to find truth, who live their lives sincerely and closely to the Lord–and who have what SEEM like diametrically opposing belief systems–to be all that sure that it’s all ‘them.’

 

[zaffiroborant]

OK, how did I misrepresent your beliefs in this post? I went to the papal bull about how infallibility works. I went to Catholic sources to see what the prevailing thought is…and what I said seems to be what was written. A pope, when he is writing or speaking about ‘faith or morals,’ and speaking ‘ex cathedra’ CANNOT be in error. Not ‘if he is in error, God will remove him,’ but ‘cannot be in error.’ As in, will be prevented from committing that error. As in…he can’t say it if it is in error.

What’s the problem with this? Do you think that this is a bad thing? Is it only true if these precise words come out of Catholic mouths?

I don’t get it.

Backpedaling.

 

[dianaiad]

diana i left your church because it is bs. thanks for asking. again.

Yet the ‘bs’ you claim we believe…we don’t. So…hmmn.

 

[dianaiad]

Backpedaling.

(sigh)

And exactly WHAT am I supposed to be ‘backpedaling’ from?

 

[Stephen168]

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.

I think they have changed the nature of God in the past, so I think they could do it again. The other two things, I don’t know much about.

 

[zaffiroborant]

(sigh)

And exactly WHAT am I supposed to be ‘backpedaling’ from?

The post with the misrepresentation.