A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[Stephen168]

For the LDS, all ordinances performed by proper authority are valid ordinances. A confirmed member of the CoJCoLDS is still confirmed if the Elder who confirmed him is an unrepentant sinner in open rebellion against God (for example he is in a sexual relationship with his mistress and has no remorse or desire/intent to terminate this relationship).

How would it be possible for the Mormon Church to lose “authority?”

 

[RebeccaJ]

The gift of infallibility is not among the “gifts of the Spirit.” The best explanation of it I have heard is that it comes via a logical progression as to why God would necessarily provide it. I will say that unlike the “gifts of the Spirit” in Catholic and LDS speak, the “gift of infallibility” is not predicated upon being in a state of sanctifying grace. I hadn’t put this together before, but it is interesting!

For the LDS, all ordinances performed by proper authority are valid ordinances. A confirmed member of the CoJCoLDS is still confirmed if the Elder who confirmed him is an unrepentant sinner in open rebellion against God (for example he is in a sexual relationship with his mistress and has no remorse or desire/intent to terminate this relationship).
The ability to “hear” God call one to help a family in ones ward however is linked to being in a right relationship with God.

I would not expect that many Catholic thinkers have called “primacy … a gift of the Holy Spirit.”
With that source of my confusion at your terms out of the way, I concur with the term “jurisdiction.” This is a very solid parallel (even equivalency) between the CLAIMS of the Catholic Church and the CLAIMS of the CoJCoLDS. Also equivalent is the keys source at Christ though Peter.

Clearly it is the Catholic position that the “keys” could not be lost. It is the LDS position that they were lost.
LDS and Catholics both agree that the “keys” are not a set of notched metal, a papal throne (called the chair of Peter), or some other artifact.

My question to you is, “Did Clement know that he possessed the ‘keys’”
I think you just answered in the previous post.
My follow up question will be, “Could the ‘keys’ be passed through Clement if he had no concept of possessing the keys?”

The methods of selecting the Pope has CHANGED over time. Other things change.
But:
Could the ‘keys’ be passed through Clement if he had no concept of possessing the keys?"
Charity, TOm

Tom, you cannot separate the gifts of the Holy Spirit from the office. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure why you think Clement did not know he was the successor to Peter. As Bishop of Rome, he would be well aware what seat he was installed to. The seat of Peter. Not even the East would make a claim that the seat of Peter has not continued.

If you are claiming the keys given to St. Peter are not particular to the seat of Rome, well, you’d make a good Orthodox Catholic. Which, isn’t an insult.

 

[TOmNossor]

I have always loved when Mormons, in attempts to deflect, compare Popes and “prophets”.

Popes do not claim to have face to face conversations with God, as prophets have. So, when you compare, you either admit prophets are not really prophets, or you claim Popes are…which is it?
I can feel the love!
The Catholic Church claims that the Pope is the earthly leader of Christ’s church. The CoJCoLDS claims that the Prophet is the earthly leader of Christ’s church. Both are not correct.

“Face to Face Conversations” with God are not NECESSARILY part of the call of the CoJCoLDS prophet, but supernatural public revelation is.

The prophet like the Old Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth and like the New Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth CLAIM to receive supernatural public revelation for the guidance of God’s church.
The Pope unlike the Old Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth and unlike the New Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth does not CLAIM to receive supernatural public revelation for the guidance of God’s church.

In addition to this, the Bible does not teach any simplistic form of infallibility for the Old Testament leaders or the New Testament leaders. The CoJCoLDS likewise does not make any claims of infallibility.
The Pope makes a non-simplistic claim of infallibility that is also not present in any form in the Old or New Testament.

So, I reject the authority of the Pope and I accept the authority of the President of the CoJCoLDS.

I (unlike you in my observation of you) try to weigh the claims made by the Catholic Church against the data available in history. It is my perception that you are much more interested in saying the prophet does not meet TexanKnight’s expectation of what a prophet should be so I will offer quick quips about lying and loving and … that is enough.

This does not feel right or good to me, so if you do not know how you might come across to me I just want to tell you. Hope that helps.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, you cannot separate the gifts of the Holy Spirit from the office. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure why you think Clement did not know he was the successor to Peter. As Bishop of Rome, he would be well aware what seat he was installed to. The seat of Peter. Not even the East would make a claim that the seat of Peter has not continued.

If you are claiming the keys given to St. Peter are not particular to the seat of Rome, well, you’d make a good Orthodox Catholic. Which, isn’t an insult.

As I already said, the keys are held by the Church, the Pope is given the authority to exercise. Could Clement exercise this authority, as he did, without knowing what he was exercising. Certainly, it is possible, as the Holy Spirit guided him in his office. But the use of this authority would only provide evidence that the Clement was guided to exercise his authority.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My question to you is, “Did Clement know that he possessed the ‘keys’”
I think you just answered in the previous post.
My follow up question will be, “Could the ‘keys’ be passed through Clement if he had no concept of possessing the keys?”

To answer this directly, so you don’t think I am sidestepping.

As I already said, the keys are held by the Church, the Pope is given the authority to exercise those keys. Could Clement exercise this authority, as he did, without knowing what he was exercising. Certainly, it is possible, as the Holy Spirit guided him in his office. But the use of this authority would only provide evidence that the Clement was guided to exercise his authority.

The methods of selecting the Pope has CHANGED over time. Other things change.
But:
Could the ‘keys’ be passed through Clement if he had no concept of possessing the keys?"
Charity, TOm

Yes, the keys are held by the Church, whether they are exercised or not, or acknowledged or not. Clement doesn’t pass the keys, they are passed in the office.

This is Newman’s point, that the keys were there, but are not explicitly described as being exercised by the successor to Peter. “Dormant” is the word he uses. The development of the papacy being an outward, explicit, usage.

What I’m saying is, it is obvious Clement did exercise authority over another church, which shows the keys were being exercised. Whether or not this is described as an explicit understanding of the gifts he was given, is a good question to muse on I suppose, but it doesn’t change the fact the he was guided to exercise his authority. Which, is evidence for the existence of the authority, which we call, the authority give to Peter.

As for the how the pope is installed changing, it too developed, and its development too is seen as the Bishops, as a whole, being guided by the Holy Spirit.

All your arguments come from a position that the Holy Spirit is absent from Christ’s Church. Of course, his is not the Catholic position, or even supported by evidence. In other words, I think you work pretty hard to explain away the obvious.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, all Sacraments bestow grace. Until you understand that, I don’t think you can understand that primacy is indeed a charism, which is exercised in an office. I suggest you read

Lumen Gentium, particularly chapter 3.

I think it is also important you come to an understanding of communion and unity.
I went straight there.
The first thing I read was,

the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers, who are endowed with sacred power,

It was your statement that ordination did not bestow a Godly power that I was confused by.
I expect you agree with the document you linked me to and perhaps I mostly misunderstood what you were saying.
I agree that in Catholic thought all sacraments are a bestowal of supernatural grace including holy orders.
As I have looked closer, I think my balking at “chrasm of primacy” was a gap in my knowledge. I am sorry.
I think primacy is associated with communion and unity. In fact, it is one of my thoughts that orthopraxy within the CoJCoLDS is the primary mark and it is associated with communion with the President of the Church.

I reject the idea that Clement, of all people, would not understand. As I’ve said I think three times now, Clement exercised the authority of primacy, if he didn’t know he held primacy, what do you think he was thinking?

I do not believe he exercised the authority of primacy. I do plan to explain eventually.

Could I believe that the authority of the Papacy developed and believe that Clement had no idea he was Pope nor Linus/Cletus. And still be a Catholic accepting that this was a valid development from the deposit of faith?

Note: This is different than saying, “I do not think 1st Clement was an exercise of Papal authority, but Clement had a reason for speaking as he did that could be the tender sensibilities of the Corinthian Church or the persecution all around him in Rome or … And Clement did know he was Pope even though I do not see evidence for this.”

Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Tom…

As it stands I have way too much to do this time with Christmas coming, to the point of taking today off…and caring for a sick animal this last night.

But just going through your comments, what is missing is the movement of the Holy Spirit and the problem of not recognizing the Holy Spirit the main mover in the Church. Ours is not based on the thoughts of men.

Our Church is based on Jesus Christ. We draw our life from the Lord. The Holy Spirit teaches and guides us through those He has chosen.

The Aaronite priesthood ended when the Jews turned to idolatry of the Golden Calf…actually an extension of themselves…making the Calf God do what they want…in so many words, their apostasy and making themselves gods.

Moses came down from Mt Sinai and threw the tablets to the ground because of this turning away from God. Only the Levites remained faithful, and from then on they would be the only priests and furthermore, only one high priest enter the sanctuary of the forthcoming temple to sprinkle blood of sacrificed animals on the altar.

Then the temple of Jerusalem would be brought down, and the Temple of Christ, the Living Temple, would now be our new temple, the kingdom of God within, the life of Christ within us, nurtured by Him, Logos, with the Eucharist, He forgiving and absolving us in the sacrament of confession, strengthening us with His Holy Spirit at Confirmation, those He choses for Holy Orders to represent His ministery to us, and so on.

In Jesus, the Levite priesthood ended. No more trumpet calls, no more temple to do sacrifice. Without the daily sacrifice of bloody animals and the Temple in Israel, there was no more Levite sacrifice. Reality attests to this in Jerusalem today.

So Jesus does not end. He is alive. It is a matter of each individual at a time, turning to HIm and being faithful to Him, being fallen, and being restored to Him, as well as His foretelling that we would always have the chaff with the wheat…those that fall away.

So the Aaronite priesthood, the Levite priesthood, the Temple in Jerusalem have passed away 2,000 years ago, and now we have the Kingdom of Christ and His Catholic Church is the new sacrament, the living out of the New Testament.

Have you read Butler’s book of the Saints???

The Church is the continuation of the Bible now in every day practice.

Of course, the earliest church did not designate or have the formulation of titles…such as the papacy or bishop of Rome, but these designations came…but what is true and always there was the seat of Peter, and that in disputes, Rome was the place to settle them.

The Mormon religion of thought is very different, even opposite of what it was at its beginning…Joseph Smith had no temple back then. It took time to settle down and institutionalize and build.

If the Mormon religion could do that, then all the more effective and enduring the universal Christian church could do the same!! The universal Christian church was many times underground or terribly persecuted for 300 years. How does its beginning compare to Mormonism’s???

Why can’t the Christ and the apostles set things down right…as Scriptures say, He came at the right time, the apostles were chosen before they were born…this said in Acts…

But somehow Joseph Smith and ‘Moroni’ say it isn’t.

Why do you put faith in a man and not in Jesus Christ Who is God?

You cannot either say the Holy Trinity’s concept and manner of Personhood is like a carnate human person either.

The Personhood of God is not like the individual, finite, human being.

And so what kind of god do you think you will become?

Will you as a god some day, create another planet with other people?..and if they fail, then they will need a savior and redeemer…will you be able to create another Jesus Christ to save your future fallen creatures on your own sphere as a god?..Or will you create them without free will, robots…Strepford…

The universal church, the Orthodox Catholic Church, with its different traditions of looking at Truth…be it dialectic, mystical, emotional…is authentic because they bring us into the one same True Christ. The Latin Church is intellectual, the Eastern Church is mystical…speaking the same truths but in different ways.

When Mormonism says authentic and enduring Christianity is an abomination and has corrupted its creeds, that is an irrational and unscholarly and uncharitable claim, with absolutely no documentation to support any claim apostasy. Such a sweeping statement also reflects ignorance, no offense to you, but Mormonism in this puts itself on a level of a cult…mind control…indoctrinating its young and poor, indigenous peoples overseas in Mormon missions.

Doesn’t go well with me as a testimony to integrity of faith, belief, and practice.

And…how much is Mormonism copying the Universal Church??? I think alot. There are so many ways and nuances of our Church that seem to be echoed but deflected now in Mormonism, I think partly due to former Catholics. This is another issue also revealing a lack of integrity of belief regarding ongoing changes of manner of speech and thought, manner of presenting its own Mormon history, and rechanging its manner beliefs, aka bait and switch.

The bottom line with Protestants and Restorationists, as I call those American religions coming out of the 1800’s, is not accepting Christ’s authority in our chosen Holy Orders.

We are witness to the Priesthood of Melchizedek…the perpetual daily sacrifice long awaited and prophesized by Melchizedek…in the Daily Mass…ordinary bread and wine made into the Eucharist.

The daily Mass has been said every day for 2,000 years.

People have to use their God given reason and His grace to find Truth.

 

[TOmNossor]

To answer this directly, so you don’t think I am sidestepping.

As I already said, the keys are held by the Church, the Pope is given the authority to exercise those keys. Could Clement exercise this authority, as he did, without knowing what he was exercising. Certainly, it is possible, as the Holy Spirit guided him in his office. But the use of this authority would only provide evidence that the Clement was guided to exercise his authority.
Yes, the keys are held by the Church, whether they are exercised or not, or acknowledged or not. Clement doesn’t pass the keys, they are passed in the office.
This is Newman’s point, that the keys were there, but are not explicitly described as being exercised by the successor to Peter. “Dormant” is the word he uses. The development of the papacy being an outward, explicit, usage.

What I’m saying is, it is obvious Clement did exercise authority over another church, which shows the keys were being exercised. Whether or not this is described as an explicit understanding of the gifts he was given, is a good question to muse on I suppose, but it doesn’t change the fact the he was guided to exercise his authority. Which, is evidence for the existence of the authority, which we call, the authority give to Peter.

As for the how the pope is installed changing, it too developed, and its development too is seen as the Bishops, as a whole, being guided by the Holy Spirit.

All your arguments come from a position that the Holy Spirit is absent from Christ’s Church. Of course, his is not the Catholic position, or even supported by evidence. In other words, I think you work pretty hard to explain away the obvious.

I understand. I do not believe other Catholics on this thread have said this (at least not yet), but …
Since the “charism of primacy” (I still don’t like that too much) is associated with the office of the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of Peter, it is not absolutely necessary for the Bishop of Rome to have an understanding of his primacy. Over time as the Holy Spirit works in His Church, the Bishop of Rome and the rest of the church comes to realize what the deposit of faith was from the Apostles in the beginning. This is a valid development of the truths from the Apostles that becomes DEFINED not invented.

I think the above is a weight to be lifted by Newman’s theory. It is in my observation a weight typically denied by Catholics. This is certainly due in part to the idea that 1st Clement is obviously an exercise of Papal Authority. I will try to get to why I think it was not eventually.

Okay, TOm, I have retrieved John Henry Newman’s “An Essay On The Development of Christian Doctrine” off the shelf.

What did he demand?

Newman’s theory is predicated upon the idea that you can see development throughout Catholic history. When people tell me that the pre-Nicene orthodoxy was not subordinationalism or that Linus/Cletus/Clement were monoepiscopal Bishops of Rome who exercised primacy (in a way congruent with the times and level of persecution present) I hear,
“If that which I just claimed (insert Trinity non-develop or Papacy non-develop) is not true, Catholicism is not true.”
So, I try to demonstrate why the non-develop position is wrong.

In another world, the Maxim of St Vincent de Lerins could simplistically explain the Christian (Catholic) Church. St. John the Apostle said that Christ was co-equal with God the Father and that they were one substance/essence or … St. Peter explained his primacy and we have a document from Clement that talks about how he was the head of God’s church on earth. Even Ignatius in Antioch spoke about both of these truths. In this world, a man like Joseph Smith claiming that somehow there was an Apostasy would take a whole different trajectory.

But we do not live in that world. Either the Catholic Church is a valid development of the apostolic faith or it is not. The Maxim of St. Vincent does not explain the teachings of the Catholic Church in this world.

I hope that answers what I am saying.
Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

The pope, I prefer Holy Father, the Latin people call him ‘Papa’…‘pope’ makes me think when England through the Puritans banned Christmas for 20 years because it was too Catholic…sigh…

The Pope is not the Lone Ranger.

We look to the Pope in communion with bishops in communion with him who likewise represent each local diocese…us, the believers in communion with them.

The Holy Father has thousands of advisors, I remember John Paul II saying that. The correction of his role was done at the Council of Trent where before, he was limited in the number he had.

The Church is as a Living Sacrament. It is not in the head.

When we are in the Church, we are in communion with the Lord that is actualize in His ministers. Our focus is on God Who is Author of Life.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, the Church is human and divine. In all you say and post you are denying the divine aspect, which is Jesus Christ. This is where Catholic thought, teaching, doctrines, dogma, practices, offices, worship…everything, begins.

I have yet to figure out where Mormons begin, since when Mormons speak about and of the Catholic Church, they are everywhere, all over the map, but never centered where we are centered: Jesus Christ.

Your statements still convey to me that you are a Mormon apologist, using Catholic words at CAF to springboard your twisted understanding of Catholic faith.

I’m loathe to be used in that manner, so will be signing off your threads.

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is with us through the ages, and here in our present time, be with you in the coming Christmas season.

Rebecca

 

[TexanKnight]

The answer to this question is actually NO. I will try to outline the priesthood similarities and differences within the CoJCoLDS and the within the Catholic Church as I understand. Did you see me say that I think you misused the term “charism” am I wrong?

And finally, either “Keys” are a Catholic and a LDS term that is used fairly similarly as I suggest OR it is not. I think that is a point we finally get to in your post. Of course I might have misunderstood you AND Butler, Dalgreen, and Hess in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.
The Catholic Bishop has “the fullness of holy orders.” There are three orders of the priesthood in Catholicism, Deacon, Priest, and Bishop.
I would say there are two orders of priesthood within the CoJCoLDS, the Aaronic and the “Melchizedek Priesthood” which is actually, “The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.” And of course Christ is “the Great High Priest.”

There are three orders within the Catholic Church: Deacons, Priests, and Bishops.
There are two orders within the CoJCoLDS: “Melchizedek Priesthood” which is actually, “The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.” and the “Aaronic Preisthood.”
Like Catholicism it is appropriate for LDS to speak of the fullness within the higher order. It is true that there really is only one priesthood in the CoJCoLDS the Aaronic being a subset of the Melchizedek.

I would say that Catholics receive the sacrament of “holy orders” and are ordained a deacon, then ordained a priest, then ordained a bishop. This is similar to LDS who are ordained into the “Aaronic Priesthood” and into the “Melchizedek Priesthood.”

I would say one of the biggest differences is that within the two “levels” of priesthood in the CoJCoLDS we “ordain” to offices. Deacon, Teacher, Priest & Elder, High Priest, Seventy, Apostle. I am at the moment not aware of a solid parallel.

Now, in Catholicism folks are “installed” into a specific position. The Bishop of Gallup or the Archbishop of Sante Fe are “installed” into their office. The Pope is also “installed” into his office as the Bishop of Rome. LDS speak of being “set apart” for various callings, like the Bishop of xyz ward or the President of the Church.

Catholicism has the cardinalate and it is the cardinalate that chooses the next Bishop or Rome/Pope. This is DIFFERENT than any other Bishopric.
LDS have general authorities which have authority worldwide instead of locally like a Bishop.
I think there are enough differences that there is not a great way to draw a parallel here.

The ordination does consecrate the man to God, but the ordained priest within Catholicism can consecrate at the mass. His ability (or power or …) to do this is because “he acts in the Person of Christ,” but as much as some individual might WANT to consecrate at the mass they cannot in a Catholic framework do this unless they have the level of holy orders possessed by the priest.
For the “the fullness of holy orders” the Catholic bishop has additionally powers/abilities/… not possessed by the Catholic priest.
So, have I misunderstood your point or have I misunderstood Catholic teachings?

I would not call the power/ability of the Bishop in his office as Bishop a “gift of the Holy Spirit” and neither would the CCC:
The Bishop is ordained to the fullness and has additional authority than he previously lacked. He may be either moral or immoral, but his ordination gives him additional “abilities” beyond that of the priest. The priest may be moral or immoral, but he has additional abilities beyond that of a deacon. These “abilities” are all Christ’s work of course, but they are not predicated upon being in a state of sanctifying grace.
Cont …

neither is being ordained anything in the LDS Church. Heck, Joseph was having affairs left and right. I knew LDS Bishops who had affairs…etc.

 

[TexanKnight]

I can feel the love!

Good. Sometimes people who are being corrected cannot feel it

The Catholic Church claims that the Pope is the earthly leader of Christ’s church. The CoJCoLDS claims that the Prophet is the earthly leader of Christ’s church. Both are not correct.

That is true. The LDS is wrong…as you know, but are not willing to admit

“Face to Face Conversations” with God are not NECESSARILY part of the call of the CoJCoLDS prophet, but supernatural public revelation is.

May not be necessary, but Spencer W. Kimball said they ALL do…and “walk the halls” together

The prophet like the Old Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth and like the New Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth CLAIM to receive supernatural public revelation for the guidance of God’s church.

God is not stupid. He knew there would folks like Joseph Smith, James Jones, Mohammed, etc. that claimed to have revelations. So, revelation like that ceased after Christ. He fullfilled it. Therefore, it would be harder for people to be fooled…usually

The Pope unlike the Old Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth and unlike the New Testament human leaders of God’s church on earth does not CLAIM to receive supernatural public revelation for the guidance of God’s church.

Yet you try to compare the Pope with LDS prophets who claim they do. Odd.

In addition to this, the Bible does not teach any simplistic form of infallibility for the Old Testament leaders or the New Testament leaders. The CoJCoLDS likewise does not make any claims of infallibility.

Who are you trying to kid? When the prophet speaks…that is it. Ask Brigham.

The Pope makes a non-simplistic claim of infallibility that is also not present in any form in the Old or New Testament.

So? We do not claim the Bible is the end all. I thought you did not either. But, since you are acting like you do…where is Book of Mormon in the Bible?

So, I reject the authority of the Pope and I accept the authority of the President of the CoJCoLDS.

lol…the authority that God says yes to polygamy…then no? No to blacks…then yes? The LDS god who was once a sinful human? The Prophet who used his authority to get folks to build him houses? The LDS prophet who had 9 versions of first vision? The one who, to be true, has a Jesus who had to be a liar?

But that’s ok…people rejected the pope and accepted James Jones too…kool aide, anyone?

I (unlike you in my observation of you) try to weigh the claims made by the Catholic Church against the data available in history. It is my perception that you are much more interested in saying the prophet does not meet TexanKnight’s expectation of what a prophet should be so I will offer quick quips about lying and loving and … that is enough.

Is it? Perhaps I do. Perhaps I want the true prophet to to not be an adulterer, liar, ego maniac, abuser, killer, etc. Have I set my goals too high?

I, too, weight history. Both the Catholic Church AND the LDs Church. You are not the only learned person here.

This does not feel right or good to me, so if you do not know how you might come across to me I just want to tell you. Hope that helps.

That is ok. I have been told worse by Mormons. Heck, some tried to kidnap my kids, so you are mild. The thing is…I don;t really care how you feel about me. I answer to God.

Be blessed

Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

Tom,

If you cannot perceive the Holy Trinity at work in the Church, then is it because in Mormonism, the point is not the Holy Trinity at work in the Church…but men becoming gods…

If so, this is spiritual blindness.

 

[kimg901]

Of course I believe what the popes say is true. Especially when they are speaking for the church (The Holy Spirit is guiding them) If they are talking about everyday stuff that has nothing to do with the church then no.

 

[SteveVH]

It just occurs to me that the entire discussion on the priesthood is really somewhat absurd when one considers that Mormon “priests” do not do the one thing that all priests do and have done since there were priests, and that is to offer sacrifice. It is the primary function of a priest.

Catholic priests, all over the world, offer on a daily basis the one holy sacrifice of Christ; an eternal sacrifice to the Father for the sins of the world; a saving sacrifice by which we are fed the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. To have the power to concecrate bread and wine is a most amazing thing. Through the priest’s offering of the sacrifice of Christ comes the source and summit of our faith, the Eucharist. The priesthood, precisely because of the power to offer sacrifice, is the life blood of the Church.

Mormon “priests” do nothing of the sort, nor do they have the power to do anything of the sort. Offering sacrifice, the primary function of any priest, is not even considered in this so-called priesthood. My point is that the LDS have no understanding of what it actually means to be a priest so it makes it rather pointless to even be having this discussion.

The priesthood is alive and well in the Catholic Church and has been since Pentecost.

 

[KathleenGee]

Agree about the issue of the priesthood.

The other is that when Mormonism and its beliefs and practices, it was so so radically different from the universal Catholic Church, that there are no documents mirroring Mormonism prior to its inception. No paper trail, no artifacts, and a totally different story.

Truth has its way of enduring. There are no ideas, thoughts, claims or practices of Mormonism documented prior to Joseph Smith’s religion.

 

[Jerusha]

There are no ideas, thoughts, claims or practices of Mormonism documented prior to Joseph Smith’s religion.

LOL Except in Masonry and the Gnostic religions.

 

[Porknpie]

LOL Except in Masonry and the Gnostic religions.

So Jesus didn’t teach the apostles any secret handshakes?

 

[Jerusha]

That is the point.

 

[TexanKnight]

So Jesus didn’t teach the apostles any secret handshakes?

or teach them to vow to kills themselves and each other?

“I will suffer my life to be taken…”