3DOP

I can't figure out how to quote you properly The Nehor. Let me simply thank you for your reply. I know little about biblical criticism. The Catholic Church recognizes the need for what She calls the historico-critical method. Do you have any book recommendations to explain your own journey? Have you had formal training? Was there a time when you were more mainstream? If so, was the transition painful? All of my many "conversions" have been accompanied by painful and distressing human disagreement with friends and family. But peace follows when I think I have moved in the right direction. Thanks for your candor. Edited to PS: I respect any reticence to be fully candid. Just ignore and you will lose no respect from me.

Hi Smac. Thanks for replying. I agree with your view of Jesus' bodily Resurrection. Fictional heroes can be instructive, but I have never heard of anyone with a lifelong zeal to tell the world about them. I am not in a position to know how important historicity is to the Book of Mormon. I had been thinking that some LDS parties who have participated here were toying with it as pious fiction. In another post, I explained that I don't see LDS young people being motivated to give two years of their lives to missionary efforts to help people to see the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. But again, I could be wrong. I have tentatively admitted elsewhere, I don't think I need New Testament evidence that Christ is risen. That the Galilean fishermen and other Apostles gave their lives to convincingly preaching a Resurrection which they never witnessed seems less credible than that they did witness it. What could give them such permanent fervour as they had to have to reach others with a "resurrected Jesus story" when they had to presume his death? Maybe I am naive, but I think my faith in the Resurrection event is a gift to my heart from God, what you all might call a testimony. I am thankful that I want it to be true. At the same time it seems reasonable to my intellect. The visible Resurrection of Christ to His disciples becomes the most plausible explanation I can think of for why Christianity took root and spread through the Roman Empire and over time, to the world beyond. I can give some answer to those who would wonder at my faith because the gift of faith is also reasonable.

Indeed. I tend to agree. I thank you for pointing out a potential mistake in procedure. The first believers didn't have any New Testament to help them make the assent of faith to the Resurrection that was preached to them. I can live with the idea that we need not, 2,000 years later, quote ANY New Testament text, but especially those that LDS like yourself, would presumably accept, as pious fiction, but reject as historically accurate "evidence" of a Resurrection. I had not reckoned with the idea that Latter-day Saints would readily dismiss references to St. Paul's conversion as described in Acts, as a factor in Christian faith claims. But as admitted, I can give ground in that area, and tend to agree with your assessment. I still must also admit to being a little taken aback, by your position. In twenty-five years of interaction with LDS on the internet, I cannot recall the Latter-day-Saint who expressed doubt about the historicity of the book of Acts or the Gospel of John. This is a little off topic, since we both see that it is not necessarily pertinent to the question of the Resurrection, but should I know that this position against the historicity of the book of Acts and John's Gospel reflects that of some Apostles or other LDS church leaders? Do you see it as a growing development in the LDS mainstream? I had been thinking that most LDS were more "Catholic", if you will, in their view of New Testament Scripture than you seem to represent. Maybe I have not been paying close attention? As I tried to say above, I assumed that Latter-day Saints had more latitude for doubt of literal historical value in the Scripture than I do as a Catholic. I was thinking about Noah's Ark or some of Samson's reported exploits which even I can legitimately take as pious, but inspired fiction. True myths as someone else has suggested. But I wouldn't have guessed that many Latter-day Saints have misgivings about the historicity of Acts and John's Gospel because "the Book of Acts and the Gospel of John came very late so their historicity is questionable at best. Acts is probably more a collection of legends rather than an eye witness account." I truly don't mind being corrected in my naivete, even after 25 years of internet familiarity. Thanks, The Nehor for your consideration, and correction of any misunderstanding I may have been entertaining about LDS beliefs. Rory

The dating of books seems irrelevant if Christ isn't risen from the dead. To be more clear, I was saying that if Christ was NOT resurrected, regardless of the dating of Acts and John's Gospel, the events described would not have taken place either. The post-resurrection experiences described in Acts and John's Gospel were lies, regardless of who wrote them and when, if Christ was not resurrected. Am in disagreement with you?

Hey Pyreaux. I had not heard of the "true myth"! It sounds like an appealing idea. Thanks for sharing. I am such a modern westerner. A myth is necessarily deceptive? I have to be a wee bit hesitant with the Gospel of Philip and gnostic thought. My God likes matter. The physical world is no error. Catholics are not in favor of celibacy because the body is bad, or the marital bed is bad, but because they are good, and therefore a worthy sacrifice, but only for those who might be called to it. Fasting which you guys practice too, is the same. Physical food is good and necessary, but self denial in this area is a good sacrifice. Rom 12: 1, 2 tells us to offer our bodies (physical?), a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. Catholics can't be dualistic about matter and spirit. Both are good.

Hi Mr. Shorty. THAT is an excellent way to approach the question of possible "pious fiction". I am bound as a Catholic to certain norms of belief about the Scriptures and you would probably have more wiggle room than me. The main new (to me) truth about the Scriptures which we have to assert as historically precise, historically hyperbolic, or pious fiction must be resolved by Catholics according to principles to which other Christians are not bound but which I find to be advantageous for explaining what we might consider to be "irregularities" in the Scripture by Christian standards. Some common irregularities are often cited by critics of Scripture and faith. They include vindictive Psalms and canticles, approval of slavery, and apparent instructions to leaders among the Patriarchs of Israel to wipe out entire populations with children, women, and sometimes even animals. Mr. Shorty, these have been "problems" for me of late, but never so much so as to make me able to plausibly deny the Resurrection of Christ. If you and others can follow a long passage from the Vatican II document on Divine Revelation called Dei Verbum, I will try to illustrate how it has helped me to be more confident that I can still insist on the sacredness and inspiration of the entire canon of Catholic Scriptures. There are 73 books, of which we share 66 with the LDS. The most important principle for me is found in a section about the Old Testament: 14. In carefully planning and preparing the salvation of the whole human race the God of infinite love, by a special dispensation, chose for Himself a people to whom He would entrust His promises. First He entered into a covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 15:18) and, through Moses, with the people of Israel (see Ex. 24:8). To this people which He had acquired for Himself, He so manifested Himself through words and deeds as the one true and living God that Israel came to know by experience the ways of God with men. Then too, when God Himself spoke to them through the mouth of the prophets, Israel daily gained a deeper and clearer understanding of His ways and made them more widely known among the nations (see Ps. 21:29; 95:1-3; Is. 2:1-5; Jer. 3:17). The plan of salvation foretold by the sacred authors, recounted and explained by them, is found as the true word of God in the books of the Old Testament: these books, therefore, written under divine inspiration, remain permanently valuable. "For all that was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). 15. The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. (1) These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence. call 16. God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. (2) For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, (3) acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it. ---Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965, paragraphs 14-16. As I understand it, the divine pedagogy emphasizes how God in history leads mankind gradually to the fullness of revelation until we are privileged to know Him face to face in yet another era from the one we now enjoy. It is clear even from the New Testament that God permitted certain activities before which He once "winked at" (Acts 17:30). We only need to remember how Christ explained divorce as being allowed from the times of Moses, before it was a sacrament (according to the Catholic Church), because of "hardness of hearts" and that Jesus is returning us to the strict monogamy of Adam and Eve. I think we have to admit that polygamy, while not lauded, was tolerated during the pre-Christian period. The divine pedagogy is the reason why in a different post, I mentioned that passage in the Gospel where Jesus says that we have heard that we should love our neighbors and hate our enemies. But He (Christ) is bringing an updated calling to love and charity for all. Where in the Psalms one can sometimes read of curses directed towards true enemies, one hears Christ and St. Stephen the proto-martyr, to "forgive them, for they know not what they do." I cannot say I have resolved every "problem". But I am convinced that we have a key through recognizing a divine pedagogy for understanding why behaviors under the Old Law that we find questionable today, should not be cause for any faith crisis. These "problems" occurred during a period of relative ignorance, which God "winked at", according to the New Testament itself. Finally Mr. Shorty, this is why I recommend your approach to "pious fiction" and the Resurrection of Christ as the critically important question to resolve regarding literal salvation history. Of course, someone could object, God could have revealed everything to Moses all at once. That is true. I can think of reasons why it is fitting to teach mankind step by step in the way it has unfolded. But this is already a long post, and I have at least one more to make. I am content for God's wisdom to be fully illustrated at the Last Judgment.

Yes indeed Tony. I mention those ideas here in my post to bluebell! Heh. I still haven't answered calm's question which I am saving for last. But isn't it great that we all seem to agree so far? Doesn't it make us want to go to church together? It does me! Alas though, my post to calm will undo the practicality of my sentimental vision of unity. For now. May we never despair of that desire, for which you prayed, Lord. (Jn. 17:11)

You allow for the utility, or necessity (?), of belief in both, as do I. Without beliefs about Christ, we would be experiencing a never ending Lent. We need triumph over death and the grave. We need rejoicing after sorrow. We need the hope of our own resurrections tomorrow in heaven. Without Christ's teaching we have no sense of moral elevation here and now, a change in our universe when we hear Him say, "You have heard it said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you to love your enemy." Thanks for that reminder. But what devout young person could be motivated to learning another language and giving up two years of their early 20's to go to a foreign land hoping they will be able to find someone willing to be baptized in the name of this dead man? Jesus claimed to have all authority in heaven and on earth post-resurrection. I don't see the Roman authorities perceiving any threat to the Empire by the introduction of a cult directed to an unresurrected Jewish carpenter. Much less do I see a church being built on the foundation of Apostles and martyrs willing to die for such a cause.

There are many reasons why I agree. Instead of the resurrected Christ entering a house on Easter evening through closed doors where the disciples had huddled in fear, no one would have come. Here is John's recollection about what Jesus said: "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he said this he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit." ---John 20:21, 22 Without this experience, I see the disciples' fearfulness subsiding fairly quickly. They would have lacked a sense of mission, of being sent by God to preach to the world. In seven weeks, instead of praying together for the Advocate to come ten days after seeing Jesus Ascension (which would not have happened either), for the coming of the Holy Spirit, they probably would have already begun to go their separate ways. They could not have any guilt about failure to carry a message of Christ's resurrection into the world. I think it would be normal to feel a sense of relief perhaps. They certainly shared some extraordinary years. Maybe they would have had a "class reunion" every so often?

I asked calm about the possibility of the Book of Mormon being ahistorical in a different thread. I wondered if it could be acceptable as what I called "inspired fiction". As a Catholic, I would suggest there is latitude as to historicity in canonical texts while maintaining that the entire canon as well as the "pious fiction" is inspired Scripture. I gave the example of Jonah. It would be miraculous, and I do not say it wasn't miraculous. But I do say it doesn't have to be a miracle story to have great value, and belong in the Catholic Bible. When calm asks if I "feel that way about the resurrection" I understand her to be referring back to my comment about the book of Jonah. I would add that Jesus did refer to Jonah in connection with His resurrection. It could be argued that if Jonah is ahistorical, but teaches a good message, so likewise it could be that way with Jesus. calm Do you feel that way about the resurrection? That it would still have sufficient value to remain Christian even if there was no resurrected Christ, but perhaps a divine being who taught humans valuable lessons using such inspired stories? About not just the stories of Christ’s life where he taught and healed, but that he was God who became flesh, lived and died and rose of Christ again? That such would still have great value as inspired pious fiction? If so, what is there for you in Catholic belief that must be relatively close to how it’s taught in order to have not just moral value (teaching principles), but salvation for those who participate in it? That must be true as taught in order for you to remain Catholic? I hope this doesn’t come across as challenging or disrespecting your faith, you just made me curious about how you look at your faith in this way given what you said. Rory Challenging is good, cal. In over a quarter of a century of interaction in various places, I have never noted that you have ever been disrespectful to anyone, and certainly not me. (I think you scolded me once. I can't remember what it was about. Hopefully I have changed my ways!) ----- To anyone interested...feel free to share your ideas, and of course I intend to be adding mine, but not yet.

Oh cal, you would never be disrespectful of my faith. I would like to answer your questions in another thread. This thread seems very academic (over my head) and a side conversation that is not directly associated might become distracting. Some time this week, I would hope.

Hey calm, thanks for your reply. I would only say that when I suggested "pious fiction", I meant inspired pious fiction. Scripture. I doubt the Jonah story as history. But there are good lessons from the tale. Maybe it IS historical. I tend to THINK it is historical. But either way I have faith that it is Scripture. I thought maybe you all could go that way with the Book of Mormon.

This thread seems to hinge on the notion that the Book of Mormon is necessarily a work of actual history. What if it is more fittingly in the genre of true, but pious fiction? Are the parties here agreed that if the Book of Mormon is ahistorical, that the CoJCoLDS is false? I am a Catholic as most here know. I have been around for a lot of years now mainly to defend my Church against Apostasy theory. I am thinking that most LDS here would not go to any other "church" if they become unbelievers in LDS claims. It seems like, above all, Mormons are thoroughly materialistic. NO substance is immaterial. I wish that I could help Mormons who begin to doubt LDS claims would also question the arguably false metaphysics they have assumed. Analytics, hi. I find your method to be fair and honorable. I don't want to derail here. We should all just want to identify the best explanation for the "Jesus Event". Maybe that should come after this examination? Just wanting to feel relevant here and friendly to all. Happy Easter Monday. Carry on. Rory

Hi Tony, good point about non religious images. I think it is a healthy human instinct to make images of those for whom we love or have deep respect. Imagery isn't good if one's imagination is imagining that the image IS God, or Lincoln or Wellington. But we Catholics even kneel before our images. Sometimes through misunderstanding, Catholics have been accused of replacing God with an image. It is a human trait to have trouble concentrating our imaginations. It takes a lot of discipline which I lack. In the Gospel, we are told that Mary pondered certain events in her heart. It CAN be done without physical images. But must it be? Are we in danger of idolatry if we need visual aids to tame our wild imaginations? There is no question in my mind that images must be used as aids to our meditations. Of course, like Mary, we can limit our images to our own interior imagination without outside help, especially if we fear offending God by the use of an artist's representation. The main thing is to develop a deeper penetration into the meaning of an event.

In one of the readings from "the Office" (not Jim and Pam, or Michael, heh) for Palm Sunday we see the familiar prophetic words of Jesus Christ, "When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself." I was meditating on these words a little while gazing at a Crucifix that hangs in our bedroom. It came to mind that this image over my wife's dresser demonstrates why it was necessary for the Lord to suffer as He did, and not only to achieve redemption for our souls. We certainly need forgiveness of sins. I hold that the Cross of Christ is a fathomless mystery, which perhaps no one has fully realized in its depth. Through our imaginations, faithful Christians continually try to realize more profoundly the gift that Jesus gives us on Calvary. He draws all men to Himself. He doesn't force His divine love upon us. Rather He shows it to us, when we picture Him suffering in body, when we hear Him repeat His dying words, when we see the centurion thrust His spear into the side of our dead Savior. When men and women, young and old, have imagined the horrid but sacred scene they have run to this Savior, of their own free will, and offered Him their spirits and souls and bodies for 2,000 years on every continent and in every nation. He draws us to Himself. I am aware that there is a bit of a taboo in some Christian circles against the making of religious art that shows our Lord on a Cross. Perhaps LDS lead the way in this era of time, but they didn't arrive at the conclusion without precedent. Reforming Protestants also disdained the practice centuries before Joseph Smith. Before that there was the iconoclastic movement in the Middle Ages, mostly limited to Eastern Christianity, which was exposed to ideas gained from devout Muslim neighbors. This is not a history lesson. It is try to understand and have sympathy with those who do not like a Crucifix, a rude, garish symbol hanging prominently in Catholic churches, and privately in Catholic homes. I am not suggesting to the Muslim, Protestant Reformer, or Latter-day Saint that they need to start hanging up crucifixes. But I am suggesting that whether one of these should use a physical image such as a crucifix to help them picture the scene at Calvary, or merely use their imaginations to see the event where Christ triumphs over sin and death, that we need to see it in our minds, with or without using our physical vision. However far we may have advanced in our love for God the Father and His Blessed Son, we will always be drawn to a greater love for the Lord Jesus Christ by taking time, and making a point to purposely imagine again what Jesus did for us to make our Easter resurrection and His, a reality of history that shall never fade away. May there be a Blessed Palm Sunday and holy week of preparation for us all. May we be more ready than ever to race to Him, in the glory of His Resurrection, with hearts bursting with love and joy in seven days. May we always be more and more profoundly drawn to Him, using the method He left for us. Rory

Hi manol, It wasn't until 1870 that the First Vatican Council, defined the doctrine of papal infallibility. The pope when acting alone, is almost always fallible. There were some faithful observers of the Council who believed the teaching, but feared that as it was explained, would be misunderstood by non-Catholics and Catholics alike. Sure enough. They had that right!

Just for the record, informed Catholics are aware that in 2,000 years there have been only two times when a pope has certainly spoken infallibly. And even the declaration in 1950 for the Assumption wasn't made until after consultation with the world's bishops. It is much more often that the Catholic Church speaks infallibly through the joint unanimity of the pope and bishops in an ecumenical council.

Jesse! I had been following and thinking how I needed to close the thread by making a post about what times and seasons are about liturgically and catechetically (word?). Heh. I am glad to see you. Still in the Southwest? Teaching? I retired almost a year ago.

Okay, so we get to deduct the gifts we give from our tithing? Brilliant. Who would have thought? This is great news. So in effect, our gifts ARE tithing? That helps, with like 40 children, grandchildren, godchildren, in-laws, and random gifts we have tithed a lot more than we should have over the years. Now the Church owes me! I am probably good for the next twenty years! TitheDOP, who is kidding, but who when very young tithed on gifts received without considering gifts given. The things you do at 29, you just shake your head at that kid 40 years later. We were broke, so friends would do free mechanic work on my car. Of course we tithed 10% of what it would have cost at a shop. Doesn’t everybody?

Is it true that if I become LDS I need to add up an estimated value to the gifts I receive for Christmas and tithe on that? If yes, I suppose I would also need to tithe on the cost of shipping? Heh. TitheDOP

Hi again InCog. Thanks. I appreciate your reluctance to make firm assertions. Me too. But we are permitted to speculate where revelation is limited to propose plausible scenarios that seem compatible with what we have been given. I think maybe I should take some time off before I offer further speculations on a third question you had asked above about Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body. About speculation. We learn gradually, and especially by corporately pondering and investigating mysteries whether they are mysteries of creation or mysteries of God. God made us this way, and I speculate that it honors and pleases God if when we have faith in Him and His Word of truth, that we are not content without exploring His mysteries to unlock new truths only to discover new mysteries. A delight to be a small part of the exercise. We are made to be speculators! The only problem is that we sometimes have speculations that are not well thought out. Heh. That is why I want to wait a little before I make my speculations public Regards, 3

Hi CV. Do you think it is likely that most of your fellow LDS here, see enough similarity in Catholic ideas on eternal family and heaven to view it in a favorable way if it were true? I would like to believe that. Of course LDS can not believe that the Catholic teaching is true. I am not suggesting that LDS could believe our teaching is true. But I have been trying to demonstrate that it might not be as unappealing as perhaps many think. If you guys feel the teaching as understood is unappealing to the heart, I thought I might be able to explain it in a better light. That is why I ask you and your fellows here the question I pose above. Maybe that is where I should have started instead of assuming that there is an underlying antipathy to overcome? What do you all think? Rory

Hi InCognitus. For context, I will provide something I wrote on the Protestant Apologetics thread to provide the interpretation Pope John Paul II gave: Pope John Paul II, adhering to the ancient teaching of the Church, appeals to Holy Scripture for his authority in affirming that with the Resurrection of the Body, each of us retains the same gender that they had on earth, with the meaning we can learn from the differences and compatibility of the sexes: "When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Mk 12:25) Those of course are Christ's words to the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection and knew it would be absurd for a woman's seven legitimate husbands to be wife to all of them in any Resurrection. Which is to be the husband? Clearly, none of them. The pope goes on to explain: These words have a key meaning for the theology of the body...All three synoptic Gospels report the same statement, except that Luke's version is different in some details from Matthew and Mark. Essential for them all is the fact that, in the future resurrection human beings, after having reacquired their bodies in the fullness of the perfection characteristic of the image and likeness of God - after having reacquired them in their masculinity and femininity - neither marry nor are given in marriage. In the next paragraph he succinctly states the teaching of the Gospels: As can be seen from these words, marriage, that union in which, according to Genesis, "A man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (2:24) - the union characteristic right from the beginning - belongs exclusively to this age. Marriage and procreation, do not constitute on the other hand, the eschatological future of man. ---The Theology of the Body, Human Love in the Divine Plan, Pope John Paul II, Daughters of St. Paul, Boston MA, 1997, p. 238 (bold mine) I have a comment and a few questions for you if you don't mind: I cannot argue against your position from those words of the Gospels alone. My tradition obviously helps inform my interpretation. I think my position is only plausible from the Scriptures alone. I think I have to agree with you about its not being "black and white" from the Scriptures alone. 1) I often say that the Scriptures alone are ordinarily inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy because they are subject to multiple interpretations. Do we agree on that? 2) If I understood you correctly...Nobody gets married in what you call the Celestial Kingdom and I call heaven. I think we agree on that? 3) What about procreation? Continuing or ceasing? Thanks IC! Rory