T
twopekinguys
Guest
I forget, what is the bit about shaking hands with angels or spirits?
- Status
B
batman1973
Guest
Dunno, but I want some of that Hawai’ian beer. Pay-Lay-Ale
P
PaulDupre
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
Ok, I have to ask…did JS shake Moroni’s hand…putting him to his own test? Somehow, I can feel, the answer is no.
The same with JS meeting Peter, James, John, etc…
If the secret handshakes really worked and was not made up, you would think he would have written about it…
Did he test any of them as the bible says to do?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Thanks Paul,
Now do you know, is there any reference to JS shaking hands with whomever he saw in the first vision?
T
TexanKnight
Guest
nope…and no secret phrases…and no vows to kill each other…
unless there is a few more versions of the First Vision that the 9 or so we already know about…can;t be too certain when there are so many delicious versions to choose from
H
Horatius
Guest
To be fair, D&C 129 was revealed in 1843, well after Moroni’s visits, the First Vision, and Joseph Smith’s encounters with Biblical figures.
B
batman1973
Guest
That is true. However, Latter Day (and Latter-day) teachings hold that Joseph Smith, Jr. was an ardent bible student. So how could he not have remembered these: “Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world…” (1 John 4:1 DRA) and " Friends, though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him!" (Gal. 1:8 KNOX) It seems somehow ol Holy Joe missed them
T
TOmNossor
Guest
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.
Hello again.
I thought I would just acknowledge a couple of posts before I put up a little as to why I do not think Clement was exercising Papal Authority (at least not in any conscious way).
I am absolutely denying the “divine” aspect within the Catholic Church at least so far as it is the mark of God’s church developing with unbroken authority infallibly. If I thought the Catholic Church was God’s church on earth, I would be Catholic.
I try very hard to understand the claims of the Catholic Church so one of the things I can do is to judge the Catholic Church based on her self claims. The Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins is a self-claim, but so is Newman’s development theory.
Can you not acknowledge that I would have every reason to say the following, "Rebecca, the CoJCoLDS is human and divine. In all you say and post you are denying the divine aspect, which is Jesus Christ. This is where LDS thought, teaching, doctrines, common consent, practices, offices, worship…everything, begins.
I have yet to figure out where Catholics begin, since when Catholics speak about and of the CoJCoLDS, they are everywhere, all over the map, but never center where we are center: Jesus Christ. If you Catholics here at Catholic answers would just acknowledge that Jesus Christ is at the head of the CoJCoLDS we could really begin a good dialogue.
I hope my reproduction of what you said changing very little other than the Catholic/Mormon makes my point. Or maybe I missed your point.
I’m loathe to be used in that manner, so will be signing off your threads.
I am a Mormon apologist. I try to use the BEST understanding of Catholicism I can find to answer the question of the this thread “A date for the ‘Great Apostasy.’”
I am being quite serious when I say that Catholics speak of the history of the early church like the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins explains Catholic dogma and Newman’s development theory is there just to say God is with us. I do not think that is a good read of the history.
As I told Kathleen, I am not here to steal Catholic truth and weave it into Mormonism.
I am trying to explain my church.
I would suggest to you that there is a lot more uncharitable characterization of my church from Catholics here than there is uncharitable characterization of Catholicism from me.
And to add to this, Mormonism could be nothing but “sugar and spice and everything nice” and still Catholicism could be true. Catholicism on the other hand must be apostate in some way for Mormonism to be true. In other words, to explain my religion I have to explain why I do not think yours is what you claim it to be. If you could prove yours was what it claimed to be you would have no need to attack Mormonism. But, Patrick Madrid, Isaiah Bennett, and most posters here reproduce the same attacks Protestants created on Mormonism. Certainly Mormons reproduce the same attacks on Catholicism, Protestants created; but I hope I do less of that.
I truly mean no ill will when I suggest to TexanKnight that “I feel the love.” I will however say there is a difference between the dialogue from you and Kathleen as compared to what I “feel” from some others here.
So Merry Christmas to you, Kathleen, and FabiusMaximus, Kimg901, Lax16, Jerusha, RebeccaJ, Pablope, and TexanKnight surely too (and everyone else here).
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
KathleenGee,
I want to acknowledge your love for Christ and the Church you see Him in. I do not know how to respond to such love. Part of me feels that I have the same love for Christ and the Church I see Him in.
Another part of me recognizes that I cannot give to you my love for Christ and His Church. I cannot impart upon you the pure love (and light) that flows into me on occasion from God when I worship Him in very LDS ways. It will be a part of me that I cannot share or even explain.
As such, I focus on the things that we can all discuss. How does the Vatican I definition of Papal Infallibility relate to Honorius or John XII? How does “Adieu” relate to the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. I focus much more on the Catholic side because I think if anyone wanted to know the LDS side they would do what I did to learn about all the anti-Catholic **** I waded through almost 10 years ago. It only takes about 1 month to learn that “call no man Father,” “Catholics worship saints,” and 95%+ of other things are just as easy to explain as “Adieu.”
After my above efforts about 10 years ago I found this (at least I remember it being after):
“One connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label “Christian” to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church—with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDS Church—as to its “non-Christian” status—were equally flawed.”
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts and Merry Christmas. I will try to learn more of what Catholicism is, but I will also try to answer the question, “When was the apostasy?”
Charity, TOm
I want to acknowledge your love for Christ and the Church you see Him in. I do not know how to respond to such love. Part of me feels that I have the same love for Christ and the Church I see Him in.
Another part of me recognizes that I cannot give to you my love for Christ and His Church. I cannot impart upon you the pure love (and light) that flows into me on occasion from God when I worship Him in very LDS ways. It will be a part of me that I cannot share or even explain.
As such, I focus on the things that we can all discuss. How does the Vatican I definition of Papal Infallibility relate to Honorius or John XII? How does “Adieu” relate to the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. I focus much more on the Catholic side because I think if anyone wanted to know the LDS side they would do what I did to learn about all the anti-Catholic **** I waded through almost 10 years ago. It only takes about 1 month to learn that “call no man Father,” “Catholics worship saints,” and 95%+ of other things are just as easy to explain as “Adieu.”
After my above efforts about 10 years ago I found this (at least I remember it being after):
“One connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label “Christian” to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church—with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDS Church—as to its “non-Christian” status—were equally flawed.”
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts and Merry Christmas. I will try to learn more of what Catholicism is, but I will also try to answer the question, “When was the apostasy?”
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
From Robert Eno: Rise of the Papacy:
So, I thought I would start with this.
There is at least another Catholic scholar who specifically points out the linkage between Corinth and Rome having nothing to do with ecclesiastic responsibility to help explain why Corinth might write to Rome and Rome might write to Corinth.
Later (may make some quick responses, but will wait until I have some time to add more), I will offer some of my thoughts (quotes from the letter) when I read the letter for the first time about 9-10 years ago. I expected the Pope to think he was the Pope and to find that the apostasy was due to corruption of doctrines or bad behaviors or …, so when I found that I didn’t think the man writing 1st Clement even knew he was Pope I was surprised.
Merry Christmas all.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Batman1973 and Horatius,
Do you believe that the “angel” Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, but was really and evil spirit and not from God?
Charity, TOm
B
batman1973
Guest
That would be correct. The truth TOm, is that The teachings of the Latter Day Saint denominations are clearly different from historical Christianity. They teach a foreign gospel. There’s no pre-exsistance, No three levels of heaven, no temple works, no baptism for the dead, no eternal families, no man becoming gods. I may not agree theologically with the CC on many things, but, they do have antiquity. They’ve been around since Pentecost. And, as picky as they are about Traditions, they would have kept any and all of said Mormon teachings if they were indeed taught by the ancient church.
K
kimg901
Guest
I was listening to I.H radio and something was said that make me think. A writing from our last pope, John Paul where he said “It should not matter what religion we are. As long as we really believe in Christ with all our hearts, we will be saved” This is in response to what I asked Tom and he asked me back. Now, its not church teachings but its something that touched me very deep. Lets throw out religion and focus on Christ and you get an over whelming feeling of love. Some of you may think im wrong for my thinking but we are all just human. And Merry Christmas to all of you 
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Tom, there isn’t any such thing as a great apostasy. But even if I ever believed there was, which I haven’t, your church leaders now teach that there are some truths more important than others. What your leaders taught, as restored truth, are now called opinion and not necessary to salvation.
So, when I look at these new claims, what is important and what is necessary for salvation…the Mormon church has nothing that every Christian religion hasn’t always had. Which is Jesus Christ. This makes Smith’s claim that there are no "true"churches, completely false. The ideas of a great apostasy and priesthood authority are meaningless, if/when you say, the only important truth is salvation.
When it comes to “authority”’, authority resides in Jesus Christ, and thus, cannot be lost. Spending hours and days and years trying to prove something that never happened, seems like a sad waste of time. In context of modern Mormonism, I don’t even know why you would, since a human authority is not necessary for salvation. The only thing necessary for salvation is Jesus Christ.
All Mormon claims fall flat. I can’t see one reason why a person would choose Mormonism over Catholicism or even Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Presbyterianism.
So, when I look at these new claims, what is important and what is necessary for salvation…the Mormon church has nothing that every Christian religion hasn’t always had. Which is Jesus Christ. This makes Smith’s claim that there are no "true"churches, completely false. The ideas of a great apostasy and priesthood authority are meaningless, if/when you say, the only important truth is salvation.
When it comes to “authority”’, authority resides in Jesus Christ, and thus, cannot be lost. Spending hours and days and years trying to prove something that never happened, seems like a sad waste of time. In context of modern Mormonism, I don’t even know why you would, since a human authority is not necessary for salvation. The only thing necessary for salvation is Jesus Christ.
All Mormon claims fall flat. I can’t see one reason why a person would choose Mormonism over Catholicism or even Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Presbyterianism.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Tom, to continue that thought, the logical question is, why be Catholic? I am Christian because of Jesus Christ, I am Catholic because of the Sacraments, and the communion of saints is one of the more beautiful doctrines of Catholicism.
So authority becomes important because of the sacraments, but Mormons reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it therefore doesn’t have the Sacraments.
I realize the is a Catholic centric view, which is not the one I was born into, being a BIC Mormon. It took me a lifetime to find God.
At any rate, to say you have"holy envy" of the Eucharist, I suspect is more along the lines of the Mormon tendency to covet being a god, than anything. Harsh judgement perhaps, but that is what I see.
So authority becomes important because of the sacraments, but Mormons reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it therefore doesn’t have the Sacraments.
I realize the is a Catholic centric view, which is not the one I was born into, being a BIC Mormon. It took me a lifetime to find God.
At any rate, to say you have"holy envy" of the Eucharist, I suspect is more along the lines of the Mormon tendency to covet being a god, than anything. Harsh judgement perhaps, but that is what I see.
P
Porknpie
Guest
H
Horatius
Guest
No, I believe he didn’t see anything at all. My post was just a reaction to the snark coming from the Catholics on this thread.
H
Horatius
Guest
TOm, you know more about Catholicism, and are more charitable about it, than pretty much any LDS I’ve met. Thank you for trying to understand Catholicism on its own terms.
You keep saying Clement didn’t know he was pope. What do you mean by “pope”? And what should he have included in the letter that would show that he knew he was a pope?
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, Tom…you did not ask me…but I will weigh in:
1). The revelation goes contrary to the revelation to Paul…as he recounts in Gal 2:
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
From this passage…a revelation will not contradict what has been revealed…or will not cause dissent or to establish one’s own religion…so the only conclusion is it is not from God.
2). Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Who ordained JS prior to him going out to establish the LDS? Following this biblical account, one has to be ordained and sent before going out preaching…or establishing one’s own religion.
3). from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Who approved JS new teachings…physically gave apostolic approval?
- Status