Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[Stephen168]

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…

In April 1844, Joseph Smith led the Mormons out of Christianity and I’m sure in the future someone else could lead them back.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree, by the way, that the scriptures ought to be read and understood in their full context. That is what one should do–agreed. You have used one single verse of scripture to say that only Peter held keys, yet I showed in Matthew 18:18 (you can read it, along with the entire chapter) that all the apostles were given the authority to “bind and loose”, and those words had been used when the keys were discussed in Matthew 16.

I actually used the passage, starting with where Jesus told Peter, flesh and blood had not revealed the answer to him, but the Father who was in heaven revealed the correct answer to him. Then I showed, or attempted to show, the continuous statement from the Lord, referencing the keys and the binding and loosing. But, I don’t see that as being up for discussion, since you don’t respond to the points made. I even made reference to Isaiah 22:22 and 1 Chronicles 9, that gives the specifics of the keys. Only one was assigned to hold the keys for the king, on the throne of David. We know that Christ, according to scriptures, received the throne of David and there was no new assignment of keys to a dozen.

What boggles my mind is that you make the incredible assumption without any scriptural basis or support, that the keys Peter held were magically passed on to someone else. Yet you chide me for not having scriptural support for my belief that all the twelve held keys. You might ponder the whole issue of why Christ would specifically give keys, and that if they were important, He would have a “back-up” system for those keys staying on the earth–and it makes far more sense that He would begin that back-up system among the apostles who were special witnesses than relying on someone far down the historical road to take the keys from Peter, (magically it would seem).

Would that ‘incredible assumption’ be similar to the assumption you make, that the keys were given to all the Apostles? The backup system is scriptural.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Christ chose 12 and appointed them, knowing these men were Jewish and knew the scriptures and understood them according to their time, much better than a modern mind can understand them simply by doing a read through. They understood the cultural differences that we do not realize. If one bishopric was vacated and needed to be replaced, then all bishopric positions have to be replaced once is vacated.

So, you’re saying Christ gave the keys and said He’d be with His Church until the consummation of time, without a backup. Then you say Christ translated John, further preventing a backup. Here is a wonderful gift of my Church, but I have not provided it a way to last for all men, of all generations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ParkerD, this is continued response…

I never wrote that John “never died”. I wrote that he was “translated”. That meant he would not die for a very long time, but it does not mean he would “never die.” It meant he would “tarry till I come” (John 21:22), and Peter was told essentially to mind his own business about John’s role.

Remember, I pointed out how an entire belief was based upon a ‘piece of a verse’? Read that in context with other scriptures and make it work the same. John, himself, corrected the misunderstanding, in natural terms. There is nothing to indicate John or anyone else’s belief that John would not live a normal lifte time.

**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? **

This says, Christ did not say he should not die, he said what is it to you what I plan for the other, even if I want him to remain until I come again, you do what I’m instructing you to do.

Again, I make the assumption that one such as yourself has read the New Testament, studied it in all its contexts, and that I don’t need to “create the context” for you. That means I can refer to a verse or cite part of a verse and YOU CAN LOOK UP THE WHOLE VERSE or the WHOLE CHAPTER if you want to refresh your memory. I think that is the better thing to do.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I haven’t claimed to have read ALL the contexts. On these subjects we discuss, I have read some. I have tied Old Testament typology to New Testament ‘fulfillments’. I have provided passages, or whole verses, where you relied on single verses with no typology or other mentions or piece of verses with no other mentions.

IThe same thing goes for the Book of Revelation. I suggest you read the entire book. The church flies on the “wings of a great eagle” “into the wilderness” “for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent” which means that the serpent could not reach the church and have influence among the church because the church was gone away “into the wilderness”. (Revelation 12:14) Then after that, the dragon goes to “make war with the remnant of her seed” and that situation is more fully described in Revelation 13.

I’m afraid, after witnessing what you’ve done with single verses and pieces of verses, there’s no way we will agree on the interpretations of Revelations, especially in light of one being able to read it as future to the time it was written, yet as already happened prior to our time. One can also read it as ‘happening’ and of course some can read it as going to happen.

IBut all in all, I suggest we are worlds apart as you suggested also, and that each of us just carry on reading the Bible ourselves and you can have your set of beliefs that make you comfortable, and that is fine with me. We both love the Bible. We can learn more and more by reading it and being guided by the Holy Spirit as we read and think and pray.

There is no comfortability in, ‘…work our your salvation with fear and trembling.’ One must work and let God fill him with what He wants and we have to be able to discern what’s true, logically and spiritually, as opposed to a good feeling or a warm fuzzy that can be generated through ‘peer’ pressure.

You know, I explained how Catholics will provide explanations, point by point. If we missed something, other Catholics help fill in the blanks. Since we’ve entered this point by point discussion and, as I’ve pointed out, you haven’t provided the same type responses and you explained time constraints, no other Mormon has touched the subjects we’re going over. That is kind of hard to understand…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Ok, you consider them scriptures. Can what has been written in those ‘scriptures’ be changed at a later date? This is an important question in the Catholic view of what is ‘scriptures’ is God inspired. Is this the same view of Mormons, specifically what you consider scriptures, do you consider them to be God inspired?

 

[aspirant]

I think you are misunderstanding what “creation ex nihilo” is saying.

On the contrary, friend, I think you are.

Creation ex nihilo states that the universe was made to exist from nothing. Mormons believe that the universe was made to exist from pre-existing matter.

I know. In other words, Catholics believe God gave all creatures (the heavens and the earth) their very existence, and Mormons do not.

Bringing something from non-being (which is what the Greek says of 2 Macc, and not “from nothing”) to being (from non-existence to existence) does not necessitate that it occurred from nothing.

And this is where you go wrong. Giving existence to the heavens and the earth does mean creatio ex nihilo.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

They have yet to show anything that was lost.

Firing up a new religion with differing beliefs is not proof for this. It is only a new religion. They also have the problem of religious artifacts that can’t stand in the light of truth, ala, the papyrus that Smith turned into the Book of Abraham.

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.

I have never found good lds apologetics. First, you’d have to have the mormons agree on something. They don’t.

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.

I think a cup of tea is the least of their problems.

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.

This I understand. But I think my grappling was for different reasons.

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 …

RC was the first religion I studied (and I studied quite a few) that made any sense to me whatsoever. It is because it does not leave reasoning out of matters of faith. Even beliefs that on the surface are very reliant on faith, have good reasoning behind them.

Mormonism for me, from when I was a teenager, has a lot of irrationality, that people just accept for the sake of accepting. It is not possible for me to adhere to something like that. It is like asking me to believe the sky is red when I can clearly see it is not.

I have never experienced this is Catholicism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think you are misunderstanding what “creation ex nihilo” is saying. The difference between the traditional and Mormon views is not that creation ex nihilo says that the heavens and earth were made to exist, while Mormons don’t say that. Both say that the universe was made to exist. Creation ex nihilo states that the universe was made to exist from nothing. Mormons believe that the universe was made to exist from pre-existing matter. Hubler’s statement does not support creation ex nihilo, because he states (in reference to 2 Macc) " It does not express absolute non-existence". Creation ex nihilo posits absolute non-existence “in the beginning”. Bringing something from non-being (which is what the Greek says of 2 Macc, and not “from nothing”) to being (from non-existence to existence) does not necessitate that it occurred from nothing.

Well then, you are left with what created this pre-existing matter, what first god created something from this matter, and what created this first god?? Why not worship this first god, or the pre-existing matter? Obviously both are greater than the god mormons worship as their creator, errr, former. (OH yeah, the Book of Abraham says this earth was formed by “the Gods”.)

 

[Stephen168]

RC was the first religion I studied (and I studied quite a few) that made any sense to me whatsoever. It is because it does not leave reasoning out of matters of faith. Even beliefs that on the surface are very reliant on faith, have good reasoning behind them.

Mormonism for me, from when I was a teenager, has a lot of irrationality, that people just accept for the sake of accepting. It is not possible for me to adhere to something like that. It is like asking me to believe the sky is red when I can clearly see it is not.

I have never experienced this is Catholicism.

I believe ‘faith with reason’ was one of the themes of Pope John Paul II’s pontificate.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

No, I would not know why this is an insult. Do you not follow the branch of the Latter day saint movement that was led by Brigham Young?

And sure, there are others that call themselves LDS (latter day saint).

strangite.org/Welcome.htm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I believe ‘faith with reason’ was one of the themes of Pope John Paul II’s pontificate.

Probably why I like his writings.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Odd, I have seen no sign of this myself.

The theory of relativity can be applied here.

 

[TheosisM]

Well then, you are left with what created this pre-existing matter, what first god created something from this matter, and what created this first god?? Why not worship this first god, or the pre-existing matter? Obviously both are greater than the god mormons worship as their creator, errr, former. (OH yeah, the Book of Abraham says this earth was formed by “the Gods”.)

Mormons believe that this pre-existing matter is eternal right? I think Mormons would say (not using the same words) that the pre-existent matter is co-eternal with God. At least, that’s what they also say about “intelligences”.

Organizer

 

[TheosisM]

On the contrary, friend, I think you are.

I know. In other words, Catholics believe God gave all creatures (the heavens and the earth) their very existence, and Mormons do not.

And this is where you go wrong. Giving existence to the heavens and the earth does mean creatio ex nihilo.

Perhaps I should be clear on how I understand the terminology, since I think that I understand it correctly (don’t we always ):

-Creatio ex nihilo refers to the belief that creation occurred from nothing. Now, we need to understand that “nothing” is not a “something”. As Frank Sheed states in “Theology and Sanity”-“We must not misunderstand the statement that God made the universe of nothing. It does not mean that God used nothing as a kind of material which He proceeded to shape into a universe. It means that God used no material whatever in the making of the universe.”. We see that creatio ex nihilo is specifically talking about the how of creation, in that God did not use anything to create, He simply willed it into existence.

It is clear that bringing something from non-being to being (or from non-existence to existence), meaning that something now exists that did not before, does not necessitate creation from nothing. Again, creation from nothing is talking about how that thing came into existence. There are many examples of this “non-existence to existence” that do not necessitate that thing being created from nothing. A sperm and egg come together to form a zygote, which grows, etc. This is a clear example of something going from non-existence to existence, yet coming from pre-existent material. A house is built from wood, for example. The house did not exist, but the wood was used to make it. These are examples of things coming into existence from non-existence, yet they were not created from nothing.

Now, I personally believe that creatio ex nihilo places a greater emphasis on God, and that everything is ultimately existing because of Him, and that, in the words of Sheed, “because we are made by God of nothing, then we cannot continue in existence unless God continuously holds us in existence…Take God away and the universe ceases”. However, my point here is that something going from non-existence to existence does not necessitate that it occurred from nothing, since a baby comes from non-existence to existence, yet it came from a sperm and egg, not nothing. Creation from nothing and creation from pre-existing matter are explanations as to how something went from non-existence to existence.

 

[dianaiad]

Catch us later, how?

Well now, Xavier, that question should be included in the definition of ‘disengenuous,’ especially given your own views regarding LDS missionary work and proxy work for the dead. We DO believe that you will be given one last chance to say yea or nay, remember?

The choice remains entirely yours, of course, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t going to offer it!

Diana

 

[spn82756]

Well now, Xavier, that question should be included in the definition of ‘disengenuous,’ especially given your own views regarding LDS missionary work and proxy work for the dead. We DO believe that you will be given one last chance to say yea or nay, remember?

The choice remains entirely yours, of course, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t going to offer it!

Diana

Doesn’t the NT say that there are no second chances after death? I’m sorry if I misunderstand your post.

Steve

 

[sablouwho]

Hey Rebecca,

Well, I guess I come from a different perspective than you do with regard to the LDS thing. HOWEVER, I can’t blame you one bit for feeling as you do (not finding any of the LDS apologetics to be satisfactory, etc.)

It sounds like you had some significantly negative LDS experiences/role models in your formative years that left an indelible impression on you. I can understand this–I had a similar thing happen to me within Judaism.

I agree that “firing up a new religion” is not proof of anything, not in and of itself anyway. All I was saying is that IF it IS true, than it would seem logical that things in Christianity could have been lost. My point was more about the logics of it than anything else. I don’t expect you to change your mind based on my comments.

That said, I too had problems with the BoA issue. I know a (liberal) LDS guy who is a brilliant amateur theologian and who knows a lot of about the BoA issue. There are things that he knows from his own research that he has to keep to himself, lest he upset the more fundamentalist-believing majority in his ward.

I certainly can understand that:

Mormonism for me, from when I was a teenager, has a lot of irrationality, that people just accept for the sake of accepting. It is not possible for me to adhere to something like that. It is like asking me to believe the sky is red when I can clearly see it is not.

I very much understand this. My LDS experiences were similar in some respects. I found it to be rather fundamentalist in approach.

That said, there are things about the RCC that FOR ME, also seem irrational. Yet I find myself wanting to be Catholic anyway.

I have never experienced this is Catholicism.

THAT is quite a gift, Rebecca! And clearly an indication (at least IMO) that you’ve found your proper spiritual home.

 

[dianaiad]

Answersplease:
And you say that Papal infallibility means that the Pope cannot be incorrect when he speaks of matters of faith and morals…

And you tell me that I’m wrong because I say that you believe that the Pope cannot be incorrect when he speaks of matters of faith and morals?

Will you PULEASE, without the standard insults and snootiness, tell me how what I said is different from what YOU claim?

I was comparing the idea that the Catholics believe that a Pope cannot be incorrect when he speaks of matters of faith and morals with the LDS belief that 'God will remove from his place" a prophet who tries to lead the church astray.

My point is that we believe that a prophet can TRY It…and perhaps even make inscorrect statements, but if he does, he will be ‘fired,’ more or less.

Am I all that wrong to interpret Catholic belief in Papal infallibility as the idea that a Pope (speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals) simply cannot be incorrect?

Please, without all the sturm und drung. Without all the ‘oh, you ignorant Mormon anti-Catholic trying to tell us what we believe stupid person’ addendums, tell me how I am incorrect in this?

…and why on earth do you consider my perception of this issue to be a flippin’ ATTACK?

 

[dianaiad]

The theory of relativity can be applied here.

I see.

So…it’s all relative unless Rebecca experienced it, and then whatever Rebecca experienced must then, of course, be the absolute concrete gospel of what the entire church teaches, even when what Rebecca experienced was her own heresy?

You are correct. The theory of relativity can be applied here.

 

[dianaiad]

Doesn’t the NT say that there are no second chances after death? I’m sorry if I misunderstand your post.

Steve

I’m not aware of a verse that says there are no second chances. However, we don’t, quite, believe that it IS a ‘second chance,’ but rather a first full and complete one. The NT DOES mention baptism for the dead, though…

And I am aware that you might interpret it very differently from the way we do. Can you do us the courtesy of accepting that we might not interpret everything the way you do? After all, that would be obvious–if we agreed with you, we’d be Catholics.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I see.

So…it’s all relative unless Rebecca experienced it, and then whatever Rebecca experienced must then, of course, be the absolute concrete gospel of what the entire church teaches, even when what Rebecca experienced was her own heresy?

You are correct. The theory of relativity can be applied here.

I don’t think you understand the theory of relativity.

Maybe I should have been more clear. I was thinking of simultaneity.