The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

I’ve seen some different wording, but the concept is right and well accepted by LDS. Where we are likely to disagree though is in our position that what we now preach is the same gospel taught in NT times.

So if Paul is right in this verse as you indicate above, shouldn’t the, “Angel Moroni” raise a big red flag"?

 

[mercygate]

A prophet saying so.

The LDS leaders have taught that there are errors in the Bible.

LDS Articles of faith:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Here is where Christians and Mormons have something in common. Catholics believe that the **autographs **of the scriptural manuscripts are without error but that translations cannot be held to that standard.

But here is where we have a problem with the Mormon view. In the past 150 years, massive and indisputable manuscript evidence has emerged. The manuscripts may differ slightly, but overall they corroborate one another. Scribal errors or families of manuscripts that share a certain reading of a text can be eliminated by reviewing the collected portions and fragments and thus ascertaining with certainty what the actual texts said.

 

[mercygate]

I want to take a moment out to thank teancum79 for patiently bearing with us as we exchange views and questions.

 

[teancum79]

Here is where Christians and Mormons have something in common. Catholics believe that the **autographs **of the scriptural manuscripts are without error but that translations cannot be held to that standard.

But here is where we have a problem with the Mormon view. In the past 150 years, massive and indisputable manuscript evidence has emerged. The manuscripts may differ slightly, but overall they corroborate one another. Scribal errors or families of manuscripts that share a certain reading of a text can be eliminated by reviewing the collected portions and fragments and thus ascertaining with certainty what the actual texts said.

Mostly the problem here though is that if there is an error at or near the top you are going to pass it along. The LDS church knows there are some more accurate text than the KJV (at least some parts), but I don’t think they are going to update until they see a vastly better and wildly accepted version.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

It would derail this thread to chase down the trail of “your” historical sources. But they appear to be highly “inflected” to say the least.

As for the Communion of Saints, it is documented in Scripture perfectly well, and your phrase “polytheistic looking practice” bespeaks a pejorative outlook that has condemned the history before the history has been properly learned.

To say that Constantine was “not a Christian” until the end of his life implies that he was something else: Gnostic? Arian? Pagan? but this is not true. His mother was a devout Christian and very influential on Constantine. The delayn of baptism until near death was fairly common at the time because penance for post-baptismal sin was extremely lengthy and difficult.

One of Constantine’s last imperial edicts, BTW (and off topic), was to abolish the cross as a means of execution in honor of Our Lord’s death.

The thing is, the LDS don’t tend to make appeals to solid evidence, rather they make appeals to the LACK of evidence and then jump in saying “see, so technically our position is PLAUSABLE” but in all reality not definitive.

A great example is the idea of the “apostasy” itself. A Latter Day Saint can’t tell you when and by whom the apostasy occurred, they just take certain verses in the New Testament that allude to a falling away, and then make the quantum leap that is “this falling away was a grand, final, ultimate, all-encompassing apostasy”.

When trying to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, an LDS can’t show you definitively where any of these pre-columbian civilizations existed, provide any of their actual archaeological artifacts or definitively give one example of a Native American having Jewish DNA haplotypes, rather they negate the overwhelming evidence to the contrary by bringing to the table highly improbable, howbeit possible explanations.

Essentially, EVERY Mormon argument I’ve ever heard (and even posed myself when I was an LDS) is:

“Since anything is possible, the LDS church is true”.

 

[mercygate]

Well if your are right you’d better correct the worlds schoolers the info I posted was from history teachers who frankly could not care less whither or nor the CC is right or wrong.

Curious. I learned my history of the ancient world at the University of Michigan – hardly a pro-Catholic, pro-Christian, institution. In fact, my Professor was the guy who popularized the idea that the Crusades were an unmitigated evil.

That said, we read primary sources (in translation, however), even at the undergraduate level. So we were not reading "the worlds schoolers (sic) but the actual documents of the period we were studying.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

In a word LDS.

Many of the details are very unclear in the Bible as to what was done and was it done because it was a doctrine or was it just a way of doing it. A living mouth peace of God though was present and is today.

First off, I want to apologize for having misspelled your handle in the past couple of posts.

Now it’s been a little over a year since I’ve attended any kind of LDS religious service, so maybe some new “evidence” has come to light since my last experience.

Can you tell me, where are the “Temples” that the “original 1st century church” held endowments and proxy-baptisms in? They must exist somewhere in Europe or in Judaea if this hypothetical proto-Mormon church existed would they not?

Where are the “Temple Garments” of the 1st century Christians?
Where are the historical references to “continual revelation by an actual PROPHET”?

Most importantly, WHERE in the apostolic succession did the Catholic church go wrong? Which pope was the “wrong link” so to speak.

Thanks.

 

[teancum79]

First off, I want to apologize for having misspelled your handle in the past couple of posts.

Now it’s been a little over a year since I’ve attended any kind of LDS religious service, so maybe some new “evidence” has come to light since my last experience.

Can you tell me, where are the “Temples” that the “original 1st century church” held endowments and proxy-baptisms in? They must exist somewhere in Europe or in Judaea if this hypothetical proto-Mormon church existed would they not?

Where are the “Temple Garments” of the 1st century Christians?
Where are the historical references to “continual revelation by an actual PROPHET”?

Most importantly, WHERE in the apostolic succession did the Catholic church go wrong? Which pope was the “wrong link” so to speak.

Thanks.

In the Early days of the LDS baptisms for the dead where done in a river. Mostly likely building a temple would have been imposable for the saints of Christ’s time. They where few in number and spread out. I’m unsure what they may have used for garments, but given their sacred nature they would not have been talked about in every other letter written by Paul. As far as where I’d say whoever claimed to get authority from Peter to lead the church as anything but a prophet and apostle. Continual revelation clearly came to Peter

 

[mercygate]

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Yes the LDS believe that the Bible has errors in it (which are said to boil down to incorrect translating).

Translating? Where does the manuscript evidence fit into this picture? Or CAN it? I guess teancum79 is pushed into the position of saying that it is not even a translation problem but a total manuscript problem and no amount of textual corroboration can fix that.

I suppose that even something as compelling as the Qumran find would not cause a Morman to turn a hair.

 

[wisdomseeker]

In a word LDS.

Many of the details are very unclear in the Bible as to what was done and was it done because it was a doctrine or was it just a way of doing it. A living mouth peace of God though was present and is today.

if it is unclear to you, then why do you keep saying that the Church is wrong today? and is not the same as it was yesterday.

do you see my point?

the Church was never call LDS then and is not called LDS today. She is called One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
wether you like or not.
i know you wish it was your church but it is not.

[SIGN]“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [/SIGN]

 

[xixxvmcm85]

In the Early days of the LDS baptisms for the dead where done in a river. Mostly likely building a temple would have been imposable for the saints of Christ’s time. They where few in number and spread out. I’m unsure what they may have used for garments, but given their sacred nature they would not have been talked about in every other letter written by Paul. As far as where I’d say whoever claimed to get authority from Peter to lead the church as anything but a prophet and apostle. Continual revelation clearly came to Peter

But where are the garments themselves?

 

[teancum79]

if it is unclear to you, then why do you keep saying that the Church is wrong today? and is not the same as it was yesterday.

do you see my point?

the Church was never call LDS then and is not called LDS today. She is called One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
wether you like or not.
i know you wish it was your church but it is not.

[SIGN]“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [/SIGN]

when " One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" appears in a newly found version of one of Paul’s letters let me know.

 

[wisdomseeker]

when " One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" appears in a newly found version of one of Paul’s letters let me know.

For your information, the Creed was created by the early christians because of many heresies that arose. you know! just like today. this way the True Church can be identified throughout the world and from ages to ages to come.

I ask the same.

where does LDS appears in a newly found version of one of St Paul’s letter?

does St Paul right letters to the Church in rome or not. was there a Church in rome at his time or not? is not this Church still there today or not?

where in the Bible Jesus says that He would send other prophets after Him to find LDS churches and it is for us to follow it?

[SIGN]“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [/SIGN]

 

[teancum79]

For your information, the Creed was created by the early christians because of many heresies that arose. you know! just like today. this way the True Church can be identified throughout the world and from ages to ages to come.

I ask the same.

where does LDS appears in a newly found version of one of St Paul’s letter?

does St Paul right letters to the Church in rome or not. was there a Church in rome at his time or not? is not this Church still there today or not?

where in the Bible Jesus says that He would send other prophets after Him to find LDS churches and it is for us to follow it?

[SIGN]“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [/SIGN]

The church Paul was addressing ceased to be there for a long time. There are several allusions to a falling away and a restitution, but those tend to be ignored.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The church Paul was addressing ceased to be there for a long time. There are several allusions to a falling away and a restitution, but those tend to be ignored.

They aren’t ignored, simply not exaggerated. History demonstrates that there was indeed an apostasy (howbeit not an all-encompassing one) during the infancy of the church. This is evident in the numerous gnostic, mosaic, and other heretical sects of Christianity that were springing up left and right. In the long run however, God’s promise in Matthew 16 has been kept namely that evil did not prevail against the church.

 

[teancum79]

They aren’t ignored, simply not exaggerated. History demonstrates that there was indeed an apostasy (howbeit not an all-encompassing one) during the infancy of the church. This is evident in the numerous gnostic, mosaic, and other heretical sects of Christianity that were springing up left and right. In the long run however, God’s promise in Matthew 16 has been kept namely that evil did not prevail against the church.

I suppose that depends on your view.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I suppose that depends on your view.

I suppose it does. There’s evidence of quasi-Christian 1st century groups, however there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of uniquely quasi-Mormon (or proto-Mormon) groups. There is also (obvious) evidence that Catholic Christianity prevailed against these heretical sects (just as the promise in Matthew states).

 

[teancum79]

I suppose it does. There’s evidence of quasi-Christian 1st century groups, however there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of uniquely quasi-Mormon (or proto-Mormon) groups. There is also (obvious) evidence that Catholic Christianity prevailed against these heretical sects (just as the promise in Matthew states).

you know the jewish leaders in Christ day had out lasted their rivals it did not make them right.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

you know the jewish leaders in Christ day had out lasted their rivals it did not make them right.

I’m not making a sole appeal to longevity (for as you pointed out that is quite fallacious). What I did say is that keeping in mind God’s promise found in Matthew, the Catholic Church was the “victor” so to speak in the 1st century “theological wars”.

Either the Catholic Church is that church mentioned in Matthew, or there was indeed an all-out apostasy, which would then make God a liar (or the gospel of St. Matthew fraudulent).

 

[teancum79]

I’m not making a sole appeal to longevity (for as you pointed out that is quite fallacious). What I did say is that keeping in mind God’s promise found in Matthew, the Catholic Church was the “victor” so to speak in the 1st century “theological wars”.

Either the Catholic Church is that church mentioned in Matthew, or there was indeed an all-out apostasy, which would then make God a liar (or the gospel of St. Matthew fraudulent).

Or your understanding of the words in Matthew incorrect.