Testaments and Covenants

[Crypto]

That actually brings about a good question (I think). If the Book of Mormon, at least in theory, teaches the same thing as the bible, would I be better served skipping it for now and starting with Doctrine and Covenants? Or will I not understand the Doctrine and Covenants without reading the Book of Mormon first? (Heavens knows that one section gave me trouble).

 

-Claire

I would recommend starting with the Book of Mormon.

It's how our church started, and was important in the founding of our religion. That makes it pretty important.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Crypto

[Jane_Doe]

That actually brings about a good question (I think). If the Book of Mormon, at least in theory, teaches the same thing as the bible, would I be better served skipping it for now and starting with Doctrine and Covenants? Or will I not understand the Doctrine and Covenants without reading the Book of Mormon first? (Heavens knows that one section gave me trouble).

 

-Claire

 

Definitely start with BoM!  The BoM's purpose is to testify for Christ-- that's a good starting point.  If you want, you can skip to the book Third Nephi chapter 11 for Christ's big appearance.  If you're getting lost frequently, there an official study guide book which can help you out (https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual?lang=eng).   

 

D&C is hard to read because there's a lot of background history not included, and a lot of legalist how-to-run-the-church stuff.  

 

If you're looking for a good official Mormon 101 book, I would recommend the Gospel Principles manual (https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng).  It's the manual for the new member Sunday School class, which may be vaguely similar to RCIA (other Catholics could clarify that).

Edited January 13, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Claire]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I'll definitely keep with the Book of Mormon. I also snagged my boyfriend's Gospel Principles manual, and have started thumbing through that as well. There are definitely some more questions brewing from the latter!

 

-Claire

[Palerider]

Guys we should focus back on Claire, not chasing our own tail.

Agreed

[Jane_Doe]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I'll definitely keep with the Book of Mormon. I also snagged my boyfriend's Gospel Principles manual, and have started thumbing through that as well. There are definitely some more questions brewing from the latter!

 

-Claire

 

Well keep us updated!  I've really enjoyed this thread.

[sxfritz]

That actually brings about a good question (I think). If the Book of Mormon, at least in theory, teaches the same thing as the bible, would I be better served skipping it for now and starting with Doctrine and Covenants? Or will I not understand the Doctrine and Covenants without reading the Book of Mormon first? (Heavens knows that one section gave me trouble).

 

-Claire

Absolutely not!! The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. The D&C is not comprehensive to our faith - meaning it addresses some aspects of our faith but doesn't come near to what we learn in the other scriptures.

[Guest]

I'm sorry if I started a bit of an argument here, that was not my intention. That being said, the original question was splitting hairs a bit, so I have to take at least some responsibility for the resulting hair splitting and debates. Sorry guys!

 

I get that the Book of Mormon is meant to be another witness to Jesus and the covenants established in the bible. I'm still a bit confused as whether it is simply a witness to those covenants or if it is also a sort of "supplemental" covenant, though I suspect that I should get a bit further into it before tackling that question. Hopefully it will answer itself! :)

 

Anyway, thanks to everybody for your insights. Again, I'm sorry if I caused any trouble

 

-Claire

 

No, no trouble at all.  You'll notice we are not shy about expressing our opinions with some bit of strength over here - if it's an opinion near and dear to us.  Catholic/LDS topics are something very near and dear to me so I tend to be a bit more emphatic about it.

 

Book of Mormon definitely is, I believe, the best way to start.  You can cross-reference certain texts from the BoM to the Bible (there are footnotes and cross-references available plus a Topical Guide referencing both).  But just keep in mind that there are several things in the Bible that has a different interpretation when seen through the LDS lens... most, if not all, of these are due to certain LDS teachings that are not present in the Catholic faith (restored doctrines).

 

But you don't have to wait until you've finished the entire BoM to start digging through specific teachings in other references (like in Mormon.org, lds.org, or even here on lds.net - although you'll get everyday Mormon people trying to answer your question with their own opinions and not necessarily the "official" teaching) as you encounter them in the BoM.

 

Talking to a missionary could also help.  You can ask for one to meet face-to-face or you can just communicate with them online through Mormon.org.

 

Hope this helps.

[Roseslipper]

A covenant is a promise made between Heavenly Father and his children.....

.......

[Roseslipper]

A covenant is a promise made between Heavenly Father and his children.....

.......

[Roseslipper]

A covenant is a promise made between Heavenly Father and his children.....

.......

[Guest]

That said:  you should also be aware that while Mormon teaching is aware of the usage of "testament" as a meaning for "covenant", Mormonism also teaches that the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was known to the ancient patriarchs and that the fundamentals of the Gospel as we understand it (faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring/living a consecrated life until the end) are the same now as they were in the days of Adam or Abraham.  We would reject, for instance, any idea that people who lived in Moses' day were saved by their own works whereas people who live now are saved by the grace of Christ--we would say that salvation always has and always will come through Christ's atonement.

 

Let me just address this one for the LDS folks of the thread...

 

Catholic teaching do not teach "work based salvation" - not even for those who died before Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.  So, Catholic and LDS believe the same thing on this point - up to the implications of pre-mortal existence and post-mortal progression that is absent in Catholic teaching.

 

Basically, Catholics base their teaching of the fullness of salvation from Genesis 3 - more familiarly called protoevangelium (first gospel) in Catholic school.  In this chapter, it is declared that the promised Messiah is going to bring salvation to all... which includes everyone under the covenant... therefore, nobody can be saved by works - they can only be saved by Christ.

 

Now... the difference here lies in the implications of pre-mortal existence and post-mortal progression.  Since Catholics don't have the teaching of pre-mortal existence, they can only conclude that when Jesus went to the realm of the dead after his death on the cross, he delivered from death only the righteous souls... because, without pre-mortal and post-mortal teaching, these souls can only accept to follow Christ in mortality... whereas, all souls in LDS teaching chose to follow Christ in pre-existence so they qualify for Salvation through the grace of Christ unless they reject it with full knowledge.  And, because there's no post-mortal progression, the requirement of baptism as the initiatory saving ordinance can only be filled through baptism by the blood of Christ which, in effect, exempts the righteous soul from the requirement of the baptismal water.

 

Make sense?

Edited January 13, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

It does, thanks. I wasn't thinking so much of (my perception of) Catholic doctrine; as I was thinking of some recent conversations I've had with a friend who left Mormonism and is increasingly turning towards a cafeteria version of evangelical Christianity.

[Guest]

It does, thanks. I wasn't thinking so much of (my perception of) Catholic doctrine; as I was thinking of some recent conversations I've had with a friend who left Mormonism and is increasingly turning towards a cafeteria version of evangelical Christianity.

 

Oh yes, I supposed you weren't saying that Catholics believe in the salvation by works thing... this is usually a rallying point between Catholics/LDS against Protestants because both Catholics and LDS have to defend themselves against this charge.  I was merely trying to explain to the LDS crowd how Catholics can believe in the Salvation by Grace but still believe that the Old Testament folks are still subject to their righteousness and the initiatory ordinance of baptism (what Protestants point to as proof positive of works getting you heaven) to be saved.  Make sense?

[estradling75]

Estradling, with due respect... I've been through this road before.  It took me more than 3 years to just to get how you guys use certain words... because I had NOBODY who guided me through it.  Missionaries couldn't help me.

 

Never mind... this is exhausting.  I'm talking to the wall.

 

 

Go ahead... guide her... answer her questions that is what she is hear for.  In fact even 'translate' for her if you are so inclined...  But talk to her.  Don't say 'hey everyone else you doing it wrong' when we do our best to give her what she asks for.  Because that is basically telling everyone to sit down and shut up so Anatess and Clarie can have a privative conversion 

[Guest]

Go ahead... guide her... answer her questions that is what she is hear for.  In fact even 'translate' for her if you are so inclined...  But talk to her.  Don't say 'hey everyone else you doing it wrong' when we do our best to give her what she asks for.  Because that is basically telling everyone to sit down and shut up so Anatess and Clarie can have a privative conversion 

 

First Bini and now you.  It's been a rough day of trying to communicate with y'all.  I didn't say what you said I said.  I'm trying to tell you how what you said would sound to a Catholic.  There's a reason missionaries are taught not to stray from the basics... it's not so they should just sit down and shut up.

[estradling75]

I'm sorry if I started a bit of an argument here, that was not my intention. That being said, the original question was splitting hairs a bit, so I have to take at least some responsibility for the resulting hair splitting and debates. Sorry guys!

 

I get that the Book of Mormon is meant to be another witness to Jesus and the covenants established in the bible. I'm still a bit confused as whether it is simply a witness to those covenants or if it is also a sort of "supplemental" covenant, though I suspect that I should get a bit further into it before tackling that question. Hopefully it will answer itself! :)

 

Anyway, thanks to everybody for your insights. Again, I'm sorry if I caused any trouble

 

-Claire

 

Naw no trouble just typical internet forums stuff...

 

Lets see if I can explain by parable the word play I am talking about.

 

Let say I eat a glazed donut...  Then later I eat "Another" donut or a "New" donut.  Clearly the word "Another" and "New" can be used interchangeably in this case.  But it doesn't tell you if they are the "Same" donut. (Which is the question you are asking) Because "Same" could mean different things.  Option 1 Is is literally exactly the same?  Well no it was eaten at a different time, different place and even by a slightly different person (minimum difference +1 donut).  Option 2 Do we mean just the same type...  Like glazed vs chocolate frosted vs sprinkles?... That is quiet a valid question that is not answered with the words "Another" or "New".  Option 3.  The farthest away would be by "Same" did I really mean food to eat, because if I meant that then I clearly could get away with a sandwich and chips.  This last one fails to really because it is clear we are talking about donuts but this is the Internet and communication can be very difficult, so we cover it to just in case.

 

So you are asking does the Book of Mormon represent a New different covenant or the Same covenant?  And that depend on what it take for you too define it as "different." And to whom are you talking about? First of all let make clear that option three is off the table.  The Old and New Testament is a record of covenant people. The Book of Mormon is a record of a covenant people.  The LDS consider themselves a covenant people.  How much differences do you need to call it "different" covenant?  That is the question.  The Old and New seem different enough because of the Law of Moses and all that.  But we LDS say that the core was in both (aka both were donuts)  The Book of Mormon people brought the Old Convent (including the Law of Moses) with them to there new home.  Then Christ visited them after he finished his work and established his church among them  (Book of Mormon Spoiler alert :) )  To me that means that the Book of Mormon people where under the Same Covenant.  They were in a different location, they had local prophets so there scriptural record was a bit different.  Is that enough to make it a different covenant?  That is your call, but I say no.

 

Then we get to the LDS people.  We claim to be a covenant people.  We are in a different location, we have local prophets and we have the Book of Mormon so our scriptural record is different.  We have temple which seem to be a type and shadow call back to the Old covenant although it is also different.  Is it enough to be a "Different" Covenant in your mind?  I have no issues with either way personally.  You could say that the Old was glazed that the New is Chocolate frosted.  The Book of Mormon people followed that.  That would make the LDS church either Chocolate frosted or sprinkled depending on how much differences you think should be allowed.  We do know that God said it was a New and Everlasting Covenant when he made it with us.  But the New part of that could mean NEW to us and/or reNewed rather then different (or it could really mean different).

[Claire]

Oh yes, I supposed you weren't saying that Catholics believe in the salvation by works thing... this is usually a rallying point between Catholics/LDS against Protestants because both Catholics and LDS have to defend themselves against this charge.  I was merely trying to explain to the LDS crowd how Catholics can believe in the Salvation by Grace but still believe that the Old Testament folks are still subject to their righteousness and the initiatory ordinance of baptism (what Protestants point to as proof positive of works getting you heaven) to be saved.  Make sense?

 

By the large, it has been my experience that the debate on justification between Catholics/LDS and protestants is usually more an issue with combating straw man arguments vice any real doctrinal difference. 

 

A protestant professing "sola fide" normally does so imagining that those in the "faith and works" camp are saying that they can earn salvation by virtue of their own merits. Catholics condemned this position way back in the fourth century. Incidentally, Saint Augustine lead the charge against this particular heresy (Pelagianism), and Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, so you can kind of see how this issue first surfaced.

 

Meanwhile, Catholics/LDS usually imagine that those in the "faith alone" camp are arguing that they believe in Jesus and can therefor live as sinful a life as they'd like without fear of damnation, which again is generally not what they actually profess.

 

Ultimately, both sides tend to agree that we are saved only through the merits of Christ. Further, both sides will generally agree that a person who is living a sinful life does not have faith, which is really what James appears to have been getting at when he said that "faith without works is dead." In fact, the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation issued a joint statement a few years back which basically amounted to saying "We basically agree on this one." Here's a particularly interesting excerpt:

 

"Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration."

 

Now, there still are some issues on the subjects of sacraments, purgatory, and its cousin indulgences. That being said, for the most part the justification issue has been laid to rest.

[Guest]

Naw no trouble just typical internet forums stuff...

 

Lets see if I can explain by parable the word play I am talking about.

 

Let say I eat a glazed donut...  Then later I eat "Another" donut or a "New" donut.  Clearly the word "Another" and "New" can be used interchangeably in this case.  But it doesn't tell you if they are the "Same" donut. (Which is the question you are asking) Because "Same" could mean different things.  Option 1 Is is literally exactly the same?  Well no it was eaten at a different time, different place and even by a slightly different person (minimum difference +1 donut).  Option 2 Do we mean just the same type...  Like glazed vs chocolate frosted vs sprinkles?... That is quiet a valid question that is not answered with the words "Another" or "New".  Option 3.  The farthest away would be by "Same" did I really mean food to eat, because if I meant that then I clearly could get away with a sandwich and chips.  This last one fails to really because it is clear we are talking about donuts but this is the Internet and communication can be very difficult, so we cover it to just in case.

 

So you are asking does the Book of Mormon represent a New different covenant or the Same covenant?  And that depend on what it take for you too define it as "different." And to whom are you talking about? First of all let make clear that option three is off the table.  The Old and New Testament is a record of covenant people. The Book of Mormon is a record of a covenant people.  The LDS consider themselves a covenant people.  How much differences do you need to call it "different" covenant?  That is the question.  The Old and New seem different enough because of the Law of Moses and all that.  But we LDS say that the core was in both (aka both were donuts)  The Book of Mormon people brought the Old Convent (including the Law of Moses) with them to there new home.  Then Christ visited them after he finished his work and established his church among them  (Book of Mormon Spoiler alert :) )  To me that means that the Book of Mormon people where under the Same Covenant.  They were in a different location, they had local prophets so there scriptural record was a bit different.  Is that enough to make it a different covenant?  That is your call, but I say no.

 

Then we get to the LDS people.  We claim to be a covenant people.  We are in a different location, we have local prophets and we have the Book of Mormon so our scriptural record is different.  We have temple which seem to be a type and shadow call back to the Old covenant although it is also different.  Is it enough to be a "Different" Covenant in your mind?  I have no issues with either way personally.  You could say that the Old was glazed that the New is Chocolate frosted.  The Book of Mormon people followed that.  That would make the LDS church either Chocolate frosted or sprinkled depending on how much differences you think should be allowed.  We do know that God said it was a New and Everlasting Covenant when he made it with us.  But the New part of that could mean NEW to us and/or reNewed rather then different (or it could really mean different).

 

And see... that's why I told you... it is so much easier if I would just tell you that what she's asking is if it is an éclair not a donut... for which there is only one answer... it's a donut, instead of having to go through the gyriatrics of trying to cover all the possibilities of a different kind of donut that serve only to confuse somebody who doesn't yet know that it's a donut... and moreover, that donuts can come with sprinkles.

 

Line upon line...

Edited January 13, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

And see... that's why I told you... it is so much easier if I would just tell you that what she's asking is if it is an éclair not a donut... for which there is only one answer... it's a donut, instead of having to go through the gyriatrics of trying to cover all the possibilities of a different kind of donut that serve only to confuse somebody who doesn't yet know that it's a donut... and moreover, that donuts can come with sprinkles.

 

Line upon line...

 

And if you do that then neither this Mormon boy nor that Catholic girl learn how to talk to each other... We instead are force to rely on a third party with out learning why.

[Laniston]

Can we maybe not talk about donuts? I'm trying to lose weight and this thread is filling up with carbs.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Laniston

[Guest]

Ultimately, both sides tend to agree that we are saved only through the merits of Christ. Further, both sides will generally agree that a person who is living a sinful life does not have faith, which is really what James appears to have been getting at when he said that "faith without works is dead." In fact, the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation issued a joint statement a few years back which basically amounted to saying "We basically agree on this one." Here's a particularly interesting excerpt:

 

"Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration."

 

I attended a Born Again Church last Christmas Eve and the pastor gave a sermon on sola fide which was beautiful in its simplicity.  He made an example of the Tibetan Monks from the Brad Pitt movie... he said because of their faith, they are living the way they are living (he mentioned how they moved the earthworms one by one), so that if a monk would have allowed Brad Pitt to build the theater without taking the worms into consideration, Brad Pitt would have suspicions that he's really a monk.

 

 

Now, there still are some issues on the subjects of sacraments, purgatory, and its cousin indulgences. That being said, for the most part the justification issue has been laid to rest.

 

Yes, and one can appreciate the confusion that Martin Luther found himself in when he saw the misuse of indulgences in his day which led to the debate.  But he truly was not trying to depart from the faith - he simply pointed out practices that were not true to the faith that it might be corrected... and they were corrected.

[Guest]

And if you do that then neither this Mormon boy nor that Catholic girl learn how to talk to each other... We instead are force to rely on a third party with out learning why.

 

I explained why.  Copiously.

 

Okay, this is my last response on this matter.

[Guest]

Can we maybe not talk about donuts? I'm trying to lose weight and this thread is filling up with carbs.

 

Par for the course... they made me read pages and pages of posts about Sherbert....

[estradling75]

I explained why.  Copiously.

 

Okay, this is my last response on this matter.

 

And how many people learn simply because someone gave them a lecture?  Vs. Learning because they got in an worked it for themselves...

 

And Lanison sorry about the donut use... maybe I should not think up examples when hungry  :)

[Laniston]

Par for the course... they made me read pages and pages of posts about Sherbert....

I avoided that one!

 

Oh but I should add something to the thread. 

 

First, Claire, it's great you are reading the Book of Mormon.  I was around 6 when my mother joined the lds church so I do not understand what it is like reading the Book of Mormon through the lense of another faith.  My mother would know, she grew up Anglican.  The only memories I have of going to the Anglican church are of being really bored and more than a little annoyed that everyone got to have a wafer snack except me. 

 

It wasn't until I was 25 that I served a mission and needed to appreciate that what seemed so simple and obvious to me about the Book of Mormon wasn't quite so easy for those new to it.  Still, getting people to even open the Book of Mormon on their own and read it seemed way more difficult than I thought it should be so I applaud you.

 

The Book of Mormon is my favourite book.  Beyond the doctrine, which is supremely satisfying, I often find myself daydreaming about the implications of the Book of Mormon. For example, the idea of a separate colony of Israelites living on another continent, who were living the law of Moses while at the same time looking forward to the day Christ would come, knowing Him by name.  Christianity existing somewhere else besides the middle east and long before the generally accepted history of Christianity originating in the first century AD.   Not only this 600BC -421AD group, but an earlier group from Tower of Babel times who were also Christian.  The Nephite civilization who recorded the Book of Mormon events had in their possession actual written records of people who came to the Americas around the time of the Tower of Babel's destruction, and we get a summary of that record from the book of Ether.  Genesis we have, but that is written by Moses.  To have actual written accounts from people living at the time of the Tower of Babel is incredible to me.

 

To know that the Nephites had with them what amounts to the Old Testament (called the Plates of Brass - includes our old testament up to Jeremiah, since they left Jerusalem in 600BC, along with other writings mentioned, like those of Zenos and Zenock, which were apparently lost since they are not included in what we have today in our old testament), which they quote from often, but has direct references to Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.   The Book of Mormon proves that the ancient Israelites knew not only that their messiah would come, but what His name would be. 

 

I have heard enough time people arguing that the Bible is a man-made fabrication, but that argument crumbles away when the same "man-made" ideas are in another ancient book written thousands of miles away on another continent accross the ocean.  Coincidence could never account for how well the Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible support each other and confirm each other's testimonies. 

 

It saddens me when the Book of Mormon is casually dismissed, as it often is, when the reality is the Book of Mormon is of earthshaking significance.  So I am grateful you are reading it and taking it seriously.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Laniston