Catholic Faith Defenders Clueless About the Book of Mormon
The author relies on third-hand information and half baked arguments. I see that the author is not also very aware of the Book of Mormon, where it seems to pick only a few passages but does not try to apply the standard process of interpreting sacred text, i.e., the historical and critical method of exegesis, as for any other texts or literature. The author also uses double standards on both Latter-day Saints and Roman Catholicism, as well as on the Bible and the Book of Mormon: not knowing any common similarities how sacred scripture is viewed and how the inconsistencies that have been presented are also true with the Bible. I will provide the content of the article then followed by my responses.
ON THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE BIBLICAL CANON
“...The Book of Mormon is not part on the Canon of the Bible. If their book is in line with the Holy Bible and “another testament of Christ”, then supposed to be that it must be approved by any apostle nor to church father’s but none.”
The author starts by arguing that because the Book of Mormon is not part of the canon of the Bible, therefore its not inspired Scripture. It is a strawman argument for the rhetorical goals of Latter-day Saints of the Book of Mormon as the “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” I doubt that the author is aware of the primary views and beliefs held on the Book of Mormon and rather argues against the divinity of the Book of Mormon with a Protestant tone (seemingly assuming “Scripture”/Bible alone). The author demands any written statements made by the church fathers or any New Testament apostles for approving the Book of Mormon to be canonical and sacred Scripture.
If it be so, then the author must also be aware that the current “canon” (s) of the Bible accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant churches have not also been approved by any New Testament apostles or church fathers pre-3rd century. We do not have a “Bible” until the development of the biblical canon. The Shepherd of Hermas is accepted to be inspired Scripture in the past (see. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why [New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005], 47.; Daniel C. Peterson, Stephen D. Ricks, “Comparing LDS Beliefs with First Century Christianity,” Ensign, March 1988 [1988]); while some epistles in the New Testament are not accepted to be inspired or even authentic by some church Fathers. For e.g., there is a general consensus among New Testament scholars that the Pastoral Epistles and the General Epistles are more likely to be pseudepigraphical rather than original writings by the said apostles of Jesus Christ. With following the author's own standards, we also have no written statements made by any New Testament apostles on an “official canon” or that the canons accepted by churches today are correct.
Several New Testament authors quoted from sources not included in the “official canon,” as The General Epistle of Jude for example quotes and alludes from the Book of Enoch (1Enoch 10:4-14, cp. Jude 6; 1Enoch 12:4, cp. Jude 6; 1Enoch 48:10, cp. Jude 4). This is an example of appealing to ignorance where conclusions are drawn just because “i don't see it” or “we don't have it.” This is flatly absurd and also, we do not claim that the Book of Mormon is a part of the Bible, in which here, the author’s lack of further research of basic doctrines of Latter-day Saint theology is on display. It begs the question of why do Roman Catholics appeal to the proto-evangelium of James for the Marian dogmas together with the biblical text—when it is not part of the original biblical canon? Can we apply the same standard with the proto-evangelium of James or not? The author rather engages in double standards rather than formulating carefully his arguments against the Book of Mormon and Latter-day Saint theology.
The Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible but is not a part of the Bible. It begs the question that why would the author assume that it's not a part of the Bible? The author is arguing against the Book of Mormon like assuming that if it is approved and if it is approved Scripture, then it must be a part of the Bible. “Another Testament” shows companionship to the Bible. The assumption made by the author however, is based upon distortions.
“...The Holy Bible tells us that there are apostolic traditions that we need to keep and follow both oral and written (2 Thes 2:14-15). For sure the Book of Mormon is not an apostolic one since they said from their book itself that the testament of Christ/message of salvation was received by Mormon, down to Moroni, then to Joseph Smith and witnesses (Book of Mormon, Introduction). Remember that these persons are not apostles and therefore their book is not reliable.”
This is one example of the Genetic Fallacy where x is assumed to be false because it came from y. As for this case, the author assumes that the Book of Mormon is unreliable because it is assumed that it came from Mormon, Moroni, and Joseph Smith and then assumes that they are not apostles. The assertion is barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't engage in making arguments and conclusions out of both sides of the two theological views; and is therefore biased, rather than making proper arguments.
True, that we must follow apostolic tradition, and that is exactly what Rome and orthodoxy deviated from when they adopted false views and false traditions like icon veneration and the Marian dogmas. There is no apostle that taught it nor practiced it. Furthermore, the author also ignores the stand of Latter-day Saints that these three men being mentioned by the author are prophets and messengers of God, and Latter Day Saints claim that they are inspired. Inspired scripture is not limited to apostles. Inspired scripture also comes from Prophets and prophetic revelation. Latter Day Saints also claim that there are apostles at the setting of the Book Of Mormon, that Christ chose them when he visited the American Continent. This claim by Latter Day Saints however, has not been taken into consideration by the author of the article and made evaluations above it, whether in disagreement or not. The author has a face value reading of the Book of Mormon and its story. This is flatly absurd.
Latter-day Saints and Roman Catholics have a common ground that both prophets/oracles and God are the agents of the writing of divine scripture. With the same wording (ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί) that “they wrote” and “added a few words,” Paul said that he is writing the epistle to the with his own hand (Gal. 6:11) and that Paul dictated his written letter to Tertius, said that he wrote that letter (Rom. 16:22); and Paul also said that he writes to the Corinthian Saints are the Lord’s command (1Cor. 14:37). Paul said in many places in his epistles that he and the people who he dictated his words to, are the the ones who wrote his epistles (1Cor. 4:14; 14:37; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:9; 9:1; 13:2-10; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 3:1; 1Ths. 4:9; 5:1; 2Ths. 3:17; 1Tim. 3:14): and this does not exclude the involvement of God in the authorship of divine scripture as the author of the article claims.
PERSONAL OPINIONS, THEREFORE NOT INSPIRED?
“...Alma 40:20 (From Book of Mormon)
“Now, my son, I DO NOT SAY THAT THEIR RESURRECTION COMETH AT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST; BUT BEHOLD, I GAVE IT AS MY OPINION, THAT THE SOULS AND THE BODIES ARE REUNITED, OF THE RIGHTEOUS, AT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, AND HIS ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN”.
Note:
– Personal opinion is No if it is word of God.
– Christ will come on the Judgment day to judge the living and the dead (1 Cor 15, 1 Thes 4, Rev 20, Rev 22).
– During the judgment day, those who died will be resurrected regardless if wicked or not (Jn 5:28-29).
– Remember that resurrection is sure, not an opinion.”
According to the author, if Alma said that he gave it as his “opinion,” then it would be dismissed as divinely inspired. The author provides a conclusion from only an assumption that if it is an 'opinion’, therefore there is no room for inspiration. Using the author's own standard, his assertion is merely an opinion and is therefore not reliable.
As for opinions, Paul also gave advice to unmarried Corinthian saints in his own accord for there was no given commandment from the Lord (1Cor. 7:25). Paul also said that he thinks he has the spirit of God (1Cor. 7:40). Does this make Paul’s letters less inspired? Does Paul deny the inspiration of his own epistles? By not using double standards, Alma is not in denial of the reality of the Resurrection of the dead, that is something that the author missed the point, but he became unsure of when the Resurrection will happen as for Alma lives at the times before Christ was even born. Reading the context as a vital part of the process of exegetical interpretation shows that it is on the time period of the Resurrection and not on its reality.
On the Resurrection, we have agreements that everyone will be resurrected regardless of their moral choices. The author draws conclusions out of incomplete syllogisms. The author as well misinterprets what Latter-day Scripture says about Moroni and him being a resurrected being. The author questions the timeline that the day of Resurrection has not happened yet and begs us the question, how about Jesus Christ and other people who were resurrected before the day of Resurrection? (Mt. 27:50-51; 1Cor. 15:20-23). Are resurrected beings only confined at eschatological Resurrections or some people as well were resurrected before the end times? It depends on what day of Resurrection that you refer to, whether it is eschatological or not. Commentators agree that there are saints who are resurrected before that day of Resurrection, right after Christ was resurrected. Some commentators wrote:
“27:51-53 (Mark 15:38; Luke 23:44-45). At the time of Jesus’ death, three momentous events occurred. First, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. This curtain separated the holy place from the holy of holies in the temple (Heb. 9:2-3). The fact that this occurred from top to bottom signified that God is the One who ripped the thick curtain. It was not torn from the bottom by men ripping it. God was showing that the way of access into His presence was now available for everyone, not simply the Old Testament high priest (Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19-22).
Second, at Christ’s death a strong earthquake occurred, splitting rocks (Matt. 27:51). Truly the death of Christ was a powerful, earthshaking event with repercussions affecting even the creation. A third event mentioned was recorded only by Matthew. The tombs of many holy (righteous) people (v. 52) were opened, probably at a Jerusalem cemetery. The NIV suggests that these saints were resurrected when Jesus died and then went into Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection. A number of commentators agree with this view. Many others, however, say that since Christ is the firstfruits of the dead (1 Cor. 15:23), their resurrection did not occur till He was raised. In this view, the phrase “after Jesus’ resurrection” goes with the words were raised to life and came out of the tombs. This is possible in the Greek, and is suggested in the KJV and the NASB. The tombs, then, broke open at Christ’s death, probably by the earthquake, thus heralding Christ’s triumph in death over sin, but the bodies were not raised till Christ was raised.” (Dallas Theological Seminary, J. Walvoord, R.B Zuck: The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old And New Testament [Wheaton IL: Victor Books/Scripture Press, 1985, 2002]).
Furthermore, Latter Day Saint scholar, Theologian, and Apologist, Robert Boylan, gives the following on “opinions” in the Book of Mormon and also in the Bible (something that the author of the Catholic article did not taken into consideration, e.g 2 Macc. 15:39; 1 Cor. 7:40). The following verses from the Book of Mormon affirms its own inspiration. If anyone wants to confirm, read the following passages and the Book itself, by yourself:
1 Nephi 6:1-6; 9:2-6; 19:2-3; 2 Nephi 5:30-31; Words of Mormon 3-9; 3 Nephi 26:6-12; 28:24-25; Mormon 5:9; 8:13-16; Ether 4:1-6; 5:1-6; 8:26; 13:13; 15:33; Moroni 9:24
