Kathleen is correct in stating that Protestants oppose Catholicism’s acceptance as Sacred Scripture those books that the Protestants flatly and wholly reject (what the Protestants call the “Apocrypha”). She points to Protestants’ “omitting the Books of Wisdom, Sirach and others that would give one a greater insight into the nature of God, nature law sic], and the nature of creation.” But she is actually somewhat misdirected in stating that the Latter-day Saints follow or join the Protestants regarding the Protestants’ rejection of those books.
Although it is true that the Latter-day Saints use the King James Version of the Bible as their authoritative text (which omits the Apocrypha), they do not either reject those additional books of scripture that otherwise are found in the Catholic versions nor do they “oppose Catholicism” in referring only rarely to those books. On the contrary, the Latter-day Saints believe – as a matter of canonized scripture (D&C 91:1, 5) – that in those other books of scripture “there are many things contained therein that are true . . . and whoso is enlighted by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom.” The Latter-day Saints, far from rejecting those texts, accept them, only they do so with caution. Again, the Latter-day Saint view of those scriptures is not at all the Protestant view and the two views should not be lumped together and rejected together.
Take the eighth chapter of the Book of Wisdom, for example. Latter-day Saints likely would accept at face value what is taught therein. Of course, both Catholics and Latter-day Saints, in the end, could be charged with the fallacy of reading into Wisdom chapter 8 their own respective opposing theologies, but one must admit that the text says what the text says (and the rest is left up to interpretation, which some, no doubt will offer).
In chapter 8, the author clearly and unmistakably differentiates between himself, on the one hand, and the *eternal principle of Wisdom *on the other (“Wisdom I loved” (v. 2); "I resolved to have her as my bride: (v. 2); “I fell in love with her beauty” (v. 2); “I therefore determined to take her to share my life” (v. 9); “When I go home I shall take my ease with her” (v. 16)).
Yet, in verses 19-20 we read the following: “I was a boy of happy disposition, I had received a good soul as my lot, or rather, being good,* I had entered an undefiled body*.” Interpret that as one may, it is simply a straightforward reading of the text itself. It seems to constitute “scriptural evidence [not “proof” mind you, but scriptural evidence”] for ‘pre-mortal existence.’"
The foregoing quotations from Wisdom 8 are taken from the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), a Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985, the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States, enjoying the imprimatur of Cardinal George Basil Hume. The same texts may be quoted, too, from the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, as follows: “Her [wisdom] have I loved” (v. 2); “* have desired to take her [wisdom] for my spouse” (v. 2); “I became a lover of her [wisdom’s] beauty” (v. 2); “I purposed therefore to take her [wisdom] to me to live with me” (v. 9); “When I go into my house, I shall repose myself with her [e.g., with wisdom]” (v. 16); and “I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled” (vv. 19-20).*
Huh…run away…what are you talking about…it is you who have run away…instead of answering the question…you come with this…it is called a deflection…an attemp to not to answer the question…
There’s not only a breach in Apostolic Teaching here, the Protestants have a total disregard for Mormon theology from the reformation foward which is self-evident today. In fact they can’t stop talking about the Mormon church on SBN.
There’s a sound theory. 