Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope

Cruciform

New member
Why you do something is more important than what you do. Faith cannot be imperially measured as your post implied. You say you don't trust your own emotions. You should. If you see somebody in need and your motivation for helping them is that your church obligates you to do so, then your work, regardless of how magnificent it is, is naught but filthy rags.
You're talking about something other than what I was discussing with RevTestament, so it doesn't really apply. I was replying to RT's claim that the Lord "spoke to his soul" and told him that the LDS "church" is the true Church. You're off on something else entirely.

I was asking an epistemological question, not an ontological one.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Cruciform

New member
To Abraham it wasn't unknowable...
You're making the common mistake of assuming that God's normative means of communicating his truth with lay believers is the same as his unique means of delivering his word to patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Of course, that's simply not the case. So comparing yourself with Abraham on this particular issue just doesn't work.

There is no way to gain more truth if one is not willing to search.
Ah. You mean the way that you so carefully and thoroughly studied the sources I provided in my previous post? Sources that you admitted you wouldn't "waste your time" taking seriously because you're simply unwilling---unable---to honestly evaluate your own present assumptions and beliefs? You might want to read your own statement just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
Last edited:

RevTestament

New member
You're making the common mistake of assuming that God's normative means of communicating his truth with lay believers is the same as his unique means of delivering his word to patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Of course, that's simply not the case. So comparing yourself with Abraham on this particular issue just doesn't work.
I am simply relaying some personal experiences, and some stories of other people in my church. It's obvious that to believe them would disturb your apple cart - I can actually understand that. But there is always the do-it-yourself approach. Ultimately, that is the only way to achieve a lasting testimony. I am certainly not suggesting to expect an audible voice from God for anyone who decides to investigate the LDS church. I don't believe the way God communicated with His prophets was the same as being told a simple phrase - after all, the prophets delivered His word, word for word. I am stating however, that God still does speak to followers.


Ah. You mean the way that you so carefully and thoroughly studied the sources I provided in my previous post? Sources that you admitted you wouldn't "waste your time" taking seriously because your simply unwiling---unable---to honestly evaluate your own present assumptions and beliefs? You might want to read your own statement just above.
I did look at the links, and then stated I wouldn't waste my time "copying them" as you suggested. If I read something I liked I would have downloaded a copy. I have reams of religious material, and simply do not copy everything I run across... If it makes you feel better, I did copy one of the links you gave in response to the Boettner list in another thread :)
Did you open and read the link I provided?
 

Dona Bate

New member
First that is actually not from the Book of Mormon itself, but was added later as a Forward.
As stated in post #279...

'From the INTRODUCTION of the Book of Mormon:

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible... ...and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."...,'

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction


Nevertheless, how is that blasphemous?
From the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

"...that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world,*that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days..."


From the Bible:

Hebrews 1:1-2, "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets,*last of all in these days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the world;..."


How can Joseph Smith*be a prophet who came after Jesus Christ, when Scripture so clearly tells us in Hebrews 1:1-2 that Jesus Christ was the last of the prophets?


So either the Holy Bible is wrong and Joseph Smith really is a prophet who came after Jesus Christ?

Or

The book of Mormon is wrong and your founder Joseph Smith is neither HIS revelator nor is he a prophet?


Which is it?

Please don't blaspheme God's written Word by claiming that the Bible is in error!


It teaches what one needs to be saved. It is what the people needed since they didn't have the NT record.
Hebrews 1:1-2, definitively inform us that there will be no more divine revelation revealed after the teaching by the Word of GOD, Jesus Christ, to His Apostles. Divine revelation ended when the last Apostle died.*


First, that statement is not from the BoM, but was a statement Joseph Smith made about it which is not even in the book.
Tell that to the LDS who say in their INTRODUCTION to the bom....

'Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” '

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction


I don't believe you will find the LDS church teaches that the Bible is inferior to the BoM.
You don't believe your own churches statement here?...

'Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, THAN BY ANY OTHER BOOK.” '

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction

God Bless!
 

RevTestament

New member
As stated in post #279...

'From the INTRODUCTION of the Book of Mormon:

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible... ...and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."...,'

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction
Like I said it is not actually from the Book of Mormon itself but was added as a Forward later.


From the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

"...that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world,*that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days..."


From the Bible:

Hebrews 1:1-2, "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets,*last of all in these days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the world;..."

How can Joseph Smith*be a prophet who came after Jesus Christ, when Scripture so clearly tells us in Hebrews 1:1-2 that Jesus Christ was the last of the prophets?


So either the Holy Bible is wrong and Joseph Smith really is a prophet who came after Jesus Christ?

Or

The book of Mormon is wrong and your founder Joseph Smith is neither HIS revelator nor is he a prophet?

Which is it?

Please don't blaspheme God's written Word by claiming that the Bible is in error!
No, your interpretation is in error.
Interesting...a Catholic who is propounding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura....one little problem...that doctrine is wrong.
1. If it is right how come, Jesus wasn't the last prophet, but John prophesied in the book of Revelation, and Paul prophesied in his epistles?
2. How come the two witnesses of Rev 11 have yet to prophesy?
3. How come Peter refers to Joel saying in the last days God will pour out His spirit and people will prophesy, have visions, and dreams to emphasize this was happening after Jesus left? Acts 2:17
4. Hebrews 1 is not saying Jesus was the last prophet. It is simply telling us that God did speak through His Son "in these last days." What is meant by "these last days" is not really obvious. It could be referring to the last days of the Jews in Jerusalem, and the last days for the city before being destroyed. Or it could be referring to the last half of the days of the 7 seals of the gospel. Jesus Himself did not use "the last days" the same as His references to "the end."

Hebrews 1:1-2, definitively inform us that there will be no more divine revelation revealed after the teaching by the Word of GOD, Jesus Christ, to His Apostles. Divine revelation ended when the last Apostle died.*
It says nothing of the kind and Rev 11 directly refutes such an interpretation.

Tell that to the LDS who say in their INTRODUCTION to the bom....

'Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” '

Source:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction
As I indicated it is a statement of Joseph Smith about the book and is not in the Book itself - it is added to some versions later as a part of a Forward or Introduction.
You don't believe your own churches statement here?...
That is not really my "church's statement." It was Joseph Smith's statement. It seems to be his opinion. I'm sure he had lots of opinions. It doesn't change my love of the Bible, and it's many precepts. Although having studied the Bible intently for years, I have to agree that The BoM is more accurate - especially as compared the the Catholic Bible. Scribal errors, poor translation, and outright additions and omissions have affected the Bible. Even your own Catholic Encyclopedia admits to ancient addition in what's known as the Johanine Coma from a manuscript margin note, etc.
 

Cruciform

New member
I am simply relaying some personal experiences, and some stories of other people in my church. It's obvious that to believe them would disturb your apple cart...
You have given no reason to believe any of them. Sorry, but unsubstantiated assertions that "the Lord told me so in my heart" simply fail to compel belief, as they must for any Christian who is committed to loving God with all of his mind.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
You have given no reason to believe any of them. Sorry, but unsubstantiated assertions that "the Lord told me so in my heart" simply fail to compel belief, as they must for any Christian who is committed to loving God with all of his mind.
The odd thing is, he does not need to provide you a reason, it is a matter of faith. All you can do, all any of us can do, is share the Truth of the Gospel. It is not up to us convince anybody that we are right. We share the Truth, our reason for hope, and then its between them and God. In the end, the reason we believe is entirely experiential. If ones faith is empirical than they have no faith at all.
 

Cruciform

New member
The odd thing is, he does not need to provide you a reason, it is a matter of faith. All you can do, all any of us can do, is share the Truth of the Gospel. It is not up to us convince anybody that we are right.
Sharing the Gospel is, once again, a different issue from what RT and I have been discussing, which is RT's claim that "the Lord told him" that the LDS "church" is the true Church of Jesus Christ. My point has been that one needs more than bare subjective claims if one expects others to take him at all seriously. My statement in Post #306 therefore stands.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Sharing the Gospel is, once again, a different issue from what RT and I have been discussing, which is RT's claim that "the Lord told him" that the LDS "church" is the true Church of Jesus Christ. My point has been that one needs more than bare subjective claims if one expects others to take him at all seriously. My statement in Post #306 therefore stands.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
My point is that all one has for faith are subjective claim. Faith in God is a subjective experience that differs from each one of us. When people begin to accept extra biblical writings as equally authoritative to scripture then real problems begin to set in.
 

Cruciform

New member
My point is that all one has for faith are subjective claim. Faith in God is a subjective experience that differs from each one of us.
Yet again, the topic of discussion was not "faith," but knowledge. The subject was epistemology. If you want to discuss the nature of faith, you'll have to start another thread.

When people begin to accept extra biblical writings as equally authoritative to scripture then real problems begin to set in.
...declares the guy who himself holds to any number of extra-biblical notions and beliefs.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Yet again, the topic of discussion was not "faith," but knowledge. The subject was epistemology. If you want to discuss the nature of faith, you'll have to start another thread.


...declares the guy who himself holds to any number of extra-biblical notions and beliefs.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Which is entirely in true. I live quite simply on every word that God had spoken to us. That's it. The standard by which all else is tested: God's Word.
 

Cruciform

New member
Which is entirely in true. I live quite simply on every word that God had spoken to us.
"Scripture alone" (sola scriptura) is certainly not "every word that God has spoken to us," as even the Scriptures themselves plainly testify. Sola scriptura is itself an extra-biblical notion invented by mere men. Thus, you've merely proven my point.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

RevTestament

New member
You have given no reason to believe any of them. Sorry, but unsubstantiated assertions that "the Lord told me so in my heart" simply fail to compel belief, as they must for any Christian who is committed to loving God with all of his mind.

A heart of stone never saved anyone Cruciform.

Ya know I read your links, but you never did say you bothered to open mine and read it. There are numerous stories in my church in which people heard the voice of the Lord or angels - many times to warn them not to step into the road or to save them from other such hazards. People like yourself are never interested in reading them... they demand proof - which is nonsensical when it comes to God:

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Again, I don't expect you to believe what I have told you, but numerous people telling these types of stories should be enough to merit investigation for oneself:

This is how faith works:

Alma 32:36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
"Scripture alone" (sola scriptura) is certainly not "every word that God has spoken to us," as even the Scriptures themselves plainly testify. Sola scriptura is itself an extra-biblical notion invented by mere men. Thus, you've merely proven my point.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

But you have never been able to counter it unless you misrepresent it. Scripture is all that we have that know, through faith, that
God gave us. Even you admit that. You just choose to willingly accept extra biblical texts as another revelation from God. Sound familiar to anything on this thread? You do exactly that which you say Rev has no right to do.
 

Cruciform

New member
You just choose to willingly accept extra biblical texts as another revelation from God.
Post #312.

You do exactly that which you say Rev has no right to do.
Not at all. The only Scriptures accepted by Catholics are those that comprise the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Mormons, by contrast, accept additional supposed Scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Catholics affirm only the Bible as "Scripture."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Post #312.


Not at all. The only Scriptures accepted by Catholics are those that comprise the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Mormons, by contrast, accept additional supposed Scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Catholics affirm only the Bible as "Scripture."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
And yet you see the Catechism as functionally equivalent to scripture. You have stated so in the past.
 

Cruciform

New member
A heart of stone never saved anyone...
Non Sequitur Fallacy.

Ya know I read your links, but you never did say you bothered to open mine and read it.
Yes, I read your sources. I've been reading Mormon literature---BOM, Robert Millet, Terryl Givens, etc.---for years.


The rest of your comments have already been answered in previous posts.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Cruciform

New member
And yet you see the Catechism as functionally equivalent to scripture. You have stated so in the past.
And yet the Catechism is not "Scripture," as I've also stated. The point being that---contrary to your assumptions---something does not have to be "Scripture" to be the infallibly true and authoritative word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). See this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

everready

New member
And yet the Catechism is not "Scripture," as I've also stated. The point being that---contrary to your assumptions---something does not have to be "Scripture" to be the infallibly true and authoritative word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). See this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Are you saying that someone has the right to usurp the authoritative word of God?


everready
 
Top