You never want to have a serious discussion. I have had Zerinius and you try to tell me that Mormons don’t believe the Catholic Church is a false church. That’s disingenuous and you’re not going to get away with it with a former Mormon. I will state up front that I believe the Mormon Church is absolutely false. If you believe the Book of Mormon it necessarily follows that you believe the Catholic Church is false because the Book of Mormon is very clear about it. Why do you try to sugarcoat it? Either you believe the Book of Mormon or you don’t.
As a non-Mormon who knows next to nothing about Mormonism, even I can see the problem with what you say here.
It appears to me that Parker is stating that his position towards Catholicism is similar to Catholicism’s position towards Protestantism in general. Catholics don’t deny that there is some truth to what most protestants believe but say that protestants don’t have the whole picture and that some of what they believe is wrong. We would say the same thing about Mormonism, though I think we would tend to think there is less truth there (no offense meant of course, but you can see that if what you believe is further from what we believe, we would see it as containing less truth).
It would make sense that other religions feel the same way about us. This whole “do you think we’re retarded or do you think we’re right” thing is not a terribly good way of looking at things.
In terms more similar to what you are using, I think the Mormon position as presented by Parker is that Catholicism is false (that is, not in possession of the whole truth, and in possession of some falsehoods) but that there is some truth in it, with the specific reasons he already gave you. Since we say the same thing about nearly every non-Catholic religion currently in existence (though not for the same reasons as Parker claimed) I cannot see a problem with a statement like this taken in and of itself.
The BOM was written to try to prove that Mormonism is a true religion even though a man invented it.
The Bible *came from the church *that was founded by Christ. The church was here before the Bible.
Thanks very much for your comments here. Wishing you all the best, and a wonderful day.
I don’t consider that I was “sugar-coating”. I would post the entire Jacob 5, but it’s too long. A person gets and lives by as much “truth” as they seek. That is how God gives truth. Satan tries to masquerade truth so that he is followed. That is how he works.
It is up to the individual to figure out what they want, and develop a relationship with God to seek Him and find Him in the way that works for them.
Why does that sound like relativism to me?
I’ll play advocatus Diabolus now: Are you sure the Church was after the Bible?
Hm, what about the Septuagint then? (The first “Bible” of the first Christians)? - It was, well, a hundred to two hundred years before Christ?!
Some of us beleive the “church” took it’s “myth” and “theology” from isolated passages of the LXX…sort of “re-heroed” the LXX stories with “Christian characters” now that had a distinct “Christian” theme. The stories of the NT are OT stories “re-told” with Jesus as the “new Moses” and “prophet”.
The Jewish scriptures WERE the writings the NT authors used to develop their “Christian story”…when Christianity broke away from it’s Jewish roots after 70CE, the theology took on a distinct “Greek” mythic tone.
I meant the book of mormon!!! :p:(
I assume you mean “before” in your question.
Some of the texts were written before the Church was founded. Some were written after.
Any of those texts were either true or false (taken in the strict sense of “not 100% true”) as soon as they were written.
But the knowledge of whether a particular text was true or false did not come about until later, when the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, declared that certain of them were true.
It is at this point that the various writings became “The Bible,” that is a collection of works which are known to be absolutely undeniable true, worth of study, etc etc. Until then the writings of, say, Paul were only known to be important thoughts of an important and intelligent person (much like some of the papers released by the various Vatican departments today).
I think much more discussion on this might be more well suited for another thread though (and I imagine there are several threads devoted to it elsewhere).
Are you equating the church of the devil, the one that persecutes the saints, with the Catholic Church? When I read these passages, I inteprete them to mean the church of the evil one and nothing more. I wonder if church is a force and not an organization or actual church body?
Thank you Iron, I was beginning to shake my head at why there were so many poor arguments here and you reignite my faith that all is not lost. Does no one study logic or philosophy anymore?
The better question is this: If the real Scriptures are true (and by that I mean the Old and New Testaments without all the Joseph Smith editing,) what does that mean for Mormons?
1 Nephi 13:5-6:
And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity. And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
If this verse is true, then since the devil founded the Catholic Church, doesn’t that make the Bible the devil’s tool and totally useless? The Bible would not have any validity whatsoever, yet the Mormons use it for what portions they deem as truth. Does the Holy Spirit guide them into deciphering what is truth and what is not truth from the devils work?
Hope you’ll come around!
Yep the Septuagint was there. But, it was not what we know of as the canon of books that we call the Bible.
That canon was determined by the Catholic Church.
The Septuagint is and was the whole OT, this means the bigger part of what we call now Bible!
You see, most Eastern Churches still use the LXX as their OT!
So, the greatest part of the Bible was indeed BEFORE the Church.
But, actually, I’ve started a new thread. - Maybe we should switch there…
Hi Parker! I have read some writings from the members of your early church that definitely claimed the Catholic Church was evil and there was nothing good about it.
Also that when the priesthood authority was taken away, darkness filled the earth.
Now, there has been a definite shift away from this, wouldn’t you agree?
The problem that I think Mormons and Catholics have when discussing such things is Catholics have definite, unchangeable teachings that do not evolve and Mormon teachings seem to be always shifting to become more palatable to the masses.
It should not matter how you feel today or what zerinus’ blog states as the new definition of apostasy, what should matter are the teachings of your founder Joseph Smith.
Nobody can back away from that. All religions are built on the teachings of _____ (fill in the blank). Now PEOPLE do that all the time, but should they?
Should Mormons re-define their history and the words and meanings of Joseph Smith and the early followers/leaders? How can truth change?
Of course the larger part of the bible was before the church.
larger, but undeniably less important as a Christian. Largely history lessons. The weight of the bible now lay in Jesus Christ, the son of god, whom my faith revolves around.
The New testament is the covenant I follow, informed by the old.
If you had been more specific about specific statements you have in mind (besides some from Orson Pratt who wrote with a shrill pen and often didn’t bring context with what he was writing), then I could answer your questions. Joseph Smith didn’t single out the Catholic church, to my knowledge. He did say that restored authority was important, especially for such ordinances as the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple marriages and sealing. He also wrote that Heavenly Father is “more benevolent” in how He will treat humankind in their judgment, when all is said and done, than most people have any idea of.
The problem one faces with studying Joseph Smith’s teachings, is that since he was pointing toward exaltation as the goal, then anything less than that is not something he would write encouraging words about. An apostle would not equivocate about the goal of the gospel being to become like Christ, because that is what their witness to the world is–that such is possible, and is promised to those who love Him with all their heart and do His will, including learning to have faith in Him, hope in His redemption and grace, and love for everyone around them and for all the world.
I do think the 19th century had more religious fervor generally, and certainly more people knowledgeable about the Bible and its language, than people generally today, so when people hear some “strong” language today in words written or spoken in the 19th century, they aren’t familiar that what they are reading is language straight from the Bible.
Best wishes, again, to you and your family.
And to you and yours!