Another question to Former Mormons (and others).

[TOmNossor]

Some quick responses concerning Mary, Apostasy, Bible and Change (just cause).

The reformers didn’t depart far from Catholicism and Protestantism has been drifting and fracturing ever since. Sola Scriptura (or perhaps ONLY Scripture being a more modern version) was an idea but not a plan. It has not been a good plan IMO. The perpetual virginity of Mary is present in the Reformers because they didn’t follow even Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions farther more ONLY Scripture (a term I use to describe the position conservative protestants use to describe their free floating brethren).

The Bible was canonized by the same folks that codified the Catholic authority (a developed but not original authority). It would be difficult to explain how absolute perfection was attained by those who canonized the Bible and claimed authority and complete failure was experiences as the claimants of this authority developed and codified the authority.
I believe the Bible is sufficient, even wonderful, but not a witness to God’s hand in the canonization process (or God’s authority possessed by those who canonized). The books of the Bible are from God, but some might be better left out and other might be better included. What we have is sufficient for God’s purposes and really quite wonderful even God breathed.

Vatican I specifically claims that supernatural public revelation is not present within the office of the Pope or within the modern Catholic Church. And yet we all believe it was present within the ancient church. When LDS say revelation is absent if they mean personal revelation outside the CoJCoLDS is gone, they are wrong. If they mean that God does not guide leaders of non-LDS churches/congregations, they are wrong. But if they mean that the authority present within the authors of scripture to receive supernatural public revelation is absent outside the CoJCoLDS they are correct and Catholics agree with them.

Now, in the presence of supernatural public revelation, woman could receive the priesthood in the CoJCoLDS (may or may not happen and will not happen tomorrow, but it would not fundamentally change the internal consistency of the CoJCoLDS). Woman cannot receive the priesthood in the Catholic Church. I remember having this conversation with my father who taught RCIA for a very liberal Catholic Parish. He said that in time woman would have the priesthood. I told him that would be the most obvious CHANGE that totally invalidated Catholic truth claims.

There is evidence that early Christianity viewed ordinances in a more covenantal way like the CoJCoLDS rather than the less covenantal and more sacramental way Catholicism does.

I see the apostasy as a loss of authority. I have looked for the apostasy and this is where I find it most clearly. Peter possessed authority that was not passed to the Bishop of Rome. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome for 25 years. Peter and Paul’s death in Rome (an early argument for the importance of the Roman See) did not confer primacy upon the Bishop of Rome. Apostles and Bishops existed simultaneously in the early church with Apostles having more global traveling authority and Bishops being local authorities.

When the presence of Apostles ceased over time Bishops declared (or God guided) the development of more apostolic like authority. The authority of the Roman pontiff similarly developed either through human or divine means. I wonder if anyone here has read the three books I always recommend. From Apostles to Bishop by Catholic Father Sullivan, The Rise of the Papacy by Catholic scholar Robert Eno and Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by LDS scholar Hugh Nibley. They deal with the same data and offer different conclusions, but they present a radically different picture than I see continued in the documents and ideas at CA.

Deification was never lost.

I solid Catholic position IMO.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Vatican I specifically claims that supernatural public revelation is not present within the office of the Pope or within the modern Catholic Church. And yet we all believe it was present within the ancient church. When LDS say revelation is absent if they mean personal revelation outside the CoJCoLDS is gone, they are wrong. If they mean that God does not guide leaders of non-LDS churches/congregations, they are wrong. But if they mean that the authority present within the authors of scripture to receive supernatural public revelation is absent outside the CoJCoLDS they are correct and Catholics agree with them.

Right. Jesus is the WORD OF GOD, fully revealed. What do you think He left out? Why would you believe anyone who claimed He did leave something out and needed to be supernaturally revealed nearly 2000 years later???

We trust that Jesus is God’s Word fully and perfectly revealed, and that He didn’t leave anything out. We seek to understand what God has revealed. We don’t seek innovation and invention to change what has been revealed to something that suits our personal tastes.

Mormonism claims that Jesus organized a Church and that organization requires an authority. The argument then becomes, the organization of the Catholic Church, and others, doesn’t mirror the Mormon Church that came along 1800 years later, so therefore, the authority is gone.

Please look again. Jesus founded a Church, He did not organize a Church. Organization came later, by those who Jesus authorized when He founded His Church on them. Of course, the successors to the Apostles that Jesus founded His Church on, had and still have the authority to organize, reorganize, rebuild, etc. You have no evidence that this authority was lost. Organizing the Canon is under the same authority that organized the Church.

Nibley approaches authority as a Mormon does, as you are doing. Catholics approach authority as a Catholic does, and that is, the continuity of authority remains.

Of course it is covenantal. How many times have Catholics pointed out to Mormon and others on this forum, that Jesus promised to remain with us until the end of the age, and that the gates of hell could not tear down His Church. This is His covenant with us. YOU have to explain that covenant away in order to be a Mormon.

Or, you have to view a covenant with God as something that God releases Himself from, depending on the righteousness of humans. Neither Catholicism or Judaism has this understanding of covenants with God. God is ever true to His covenants, and is not dependent on anyone or anything.

Jesus has many names in the New Testament, one of them if The Rock. A rock does not budge and is not swayed. Our dependence is on Him, and not on any particular human or groups of humans. The Church existing is entirely reliant on the will of God, and Jesus, who is God, promised to be with His Church to the end of the age.

If are going to have faith in something, why not have faith in Him?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;12121874:

That is not being very honest. No one has EVER said that Catholicism was not based on Spirituality. In fact, I find more Spirituality in Mass than I ever found in the LDS sterile Sacrament/Board Meetings, or the temple ceremonies when you vow to kill each other… What we HAVE said, is that one cannot SOLELY base it on a good feeling. God gave us intellect and reason. We should use it. When one actually uses reason, Mormonism fails mightily.

Of course I also said:

And unlike Newman, it seems to me the common mantra here at Catholic Answers is that the purely intellectual path will lead to Catholicism (when it does, the more thoughtful Catholics will absolutely acknowledge that there must be more to Catholicism than this of course).

But, it was not my intention to say that Catholicism lacks robust spirituality. Instead my statement was Catholicism especially at CA, emphasizes the path to Catholicism is through study of history and doctrine.
I believe seeking God’s will through the Spirit is a valid way of knowing. I believe calling it “mere feelings” is wrongheaded.
But, to the extent I can I try to weigh these issues intellectually and Mormonism succeeds mightily.

It is really uncalled for to judge the level of “spiritual conversion” in Catholicism by this or any other debate/discussion board. The nature of the board is going to attract those who enjoy the intellectual side of religion and want to discuss and debate it. It is also less likely to attract those who want to share personal spiritual experiences with others.

I think the “nature of the board” is a very valuable correction. I see the same on LDS boards. Remember, this guide to the apologist: “if you stop praying then your religion is more of a hobby.”

Now, it was not my intention to jugey the “level of ‘spiritual conversion’” for any individual on or off this board. As I mention above, I think the emphasis upon finding the truth of Catholicism through the study of history is less Biblical and less positive than the emphasis within the CoJCoLDS of finding the truth through asking God and seeking spiritual confirmation.

Perhaps my self-selected exposure to the intellectual side of religion has left me with a false impression about how one BECOMES a Catholic.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Since people are more than just their intellect I can’t imagine that non-intellectual reasons don’t come into play, whether one is even aware of it or not. Even personality can come into play and lend it’s own color to the judgement of a belief or practice.

It would seem such bifurcation would be hard.
Good point.
Charity, TOm

 

[Denise1957]

As I mention above, I think the emphasis upon finding the truth of Catholicism through the study of history is less Biblical and less positive than the emphasis within the CoJCoLDS of finding the truth through asking God and seeking spiritual confirmation.

But isn’t the LDS way (or your branch of the LDS) of finding truth through asking God and seeking spiritual confirmation rather subjective? Or, for all of those who have used this method, do they all arrive at the same truth?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Vatican I specifically claims that supernatural public revelation is not present within the office of the Pope or within the modern Catholic Church. And yet we all believe it was present within the ancient church. When LDS say revelation is absent if they mean personal revelation outside the CoJCoLDS is gone, they are wrong. If they mean that God does not guide leaders of non-LDS churches/congregations, they are wrong. But if they mean that the authority present within the authors of scripture to receive supernatural public revelation is absent outside the CoJCoLDS they are correct and Catholics agree with them.

Right. Jesus is the WORD OF GOD, fully revealed. What do you think He left out? Why would you believe anyone who claimed He did leave something out and needed to be supernaturally revealed nearly 2000 years later???

We trust that Jesus is God’s Word fully and perfectly revealed, and that He didn’t leave anything out. We seek to understand what God has revealed. We don’t seek innovation and invention to change what has been revealed to something that suits our personal tastes.
My statement was in response to LivingWaters who claimed that LDS erroneously claim that revelation ceased in the churches outside the CoJCoLDS. I was explaining how this LDS claim is true. I am glad you agree with me that it is true IN THE WAY I claimed it was true.

I think you were part of my thread on the fate of unbaptized babies. This is innovation and invention from an organization that claims such cannot happen.

Now to your point that it is fine because Christ is the completion of revelation:
I submit that Peter (the one we both claim is at the head of our priesthood line after Christ) claimed to resolve the dietary question through the reception of a vision. This was post Christ’s 40 day ministry and after Christ had returned bodily to heaven.
I submit that most if not all the New Testament was written after Christ’s ascension by church leaders.

And then I assert that the successors of those leaders are LDS who claim to have the ability to do both of these and not Catholic Popes who claim to lack the ability to do both of these.

You could be right that the ability to do these is no longer needed, but it was needed for the VERY early church. The theory that it was no longer needed only emerged when it was no longer extant. And folks like Tertullian left the Catholic Church claiming that it should be present.
Charity, TOm

 

[Denise1957]

And folks like Tertullian left the Catholic Church claiming that it should be present.

I have to wonder if Tertullian’s montanist views have a few things in common the the LDS religion.

 

[garyo49]

Gary,
I am unsure if you misunderstood me or you just wanted to post the above.
My point is that listing the reasons Mormonism is false would help me as much as the Boetner List would help Karl Keating. There is nothing in either list that we have not seen multiple times.

I do not desire a shouting or some other type of match.

Intellectually I want to explore the answer.
I can say that my pride has a small desire that continued faith in my church not be explicitly or implicitly referred to as “idiocy.” At the same time my persecution complex celebrates such things.

Anyway, I hope that is clear enough.

Oh, and “my religion is not the religion of …,” oh never mind waste of time.
Charity, TOm

Show me a doctrine or teaching that didn’t come from the mouth or pen of Smith. You can say, well, they were revelations received of God. But, who would believe that? You could say, well he had authority given him through the priesthood, but who would believe that? All of the revelations pertaining to the priesthood, example the appearances of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John that were supposedly received in 1829 and should have logically been in the 1833 Book of Commandments, but weren’t. They were interpolated into revelations already in the 1833 Book of Commandments in the 1835 edition of the D and C. They weren’t put in as revelations standing on their own, but were stuffed into the middle of existing revelations. Mormon apologists say that he had the right to rewrite them to make them more understandable or readable. Maybe so, but if they were received from God wouldn’t they already be understandable or readable? I don’t remember hearing about Moses having to make the Ten Commandments more understandable or readable. I also think that God wouldn’t have waited for years to let Smith know they were confusing. These sections that were changed had hundreds of words added and/or deleted. The doctrine in these sections were completely new, not just a rewrite.

Check it out here:

utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm

utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech3.htm

 

[RebeccaJ]

My statement was in response to LivingWaters who claimed that LDS erroneously claim that revelation ceased in the churches outside the CoJCoLDS. I was explaining how this LDS claim is true. I am glad you agree with me that it is true IN THE WAY I claimed it was true.

I think you were part of my thread on the fate of unbaptized babies. This is innovation and invention from an organization that claims such cannot happen.

Now to your point that it is fine because Christ is the completion of revelation:
I submit that Peter (the one we both claim is at the head of our priesthood line after Christ) claimed to resolve the dietary question through the reception of a vision. This was post Christ’s 40 day ministry and after Christ had returned bodily to heaven.
I submit that most if not all the New Testament was written after Christ’s ascension by church leaders.

And then I assert that the successors of those leaders are LDS who claim to have the ability to do both of these and not Catholic Popes who claim to lack the ability to do both of these.

You could be right that the ability to do these is no longer needed, but it was needed for the VERY early church. The theory that it was no longer needed only emerged when it was no longer extant. And folks like Tertullian left the Catholic Church claiming that it should be present.
Charity, TOm

Yes, we continue to believe that the Church, and its leaders, are led by revelation.

As I said, the Church seeks to understand Revelation. Jesus revealed himself for all people, not any one group. Peter had a reminder of this in a vision. It was not new information, such as, polygamy is required for entrance to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom, but ok, never mind, now it isn’t.

Jesus taught that marriage is between one man and one woman, as it was in the beginning. So-called “revelation” that contradicts Jesus is not revelation, it is innovation.

Prayer, guidance of the Holy Spirit, these are foundational. Visions are tested as to whether or not they align to the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Guidance from God doesn’t add to Him, as He is the fullness of God’s Word. If/when visions don’t align to Christ, they aren’t considered to pass the test. The visions of Joseph Smith fall into that category.

 

[KendraM]

Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[TOmNossor]

Mormonism claims that Jesus organized

a Church and that organization requires an authority. The argument then becomes, the organization of the Catholic Church, and others, doesn’t mirror the Mormon Church that came along 1800 years later, so therefore, the authority is gone.
Please look again. Jesus founded a Church, He did not organize a Church. Organization came later, by those who Jesus authorized when He founded His Church on them. Of course, the successors to the Apostles that Jesus founded His Church on, had and still have the authority to organize, reorganize, rebuild, etc. You have no evidence that this authority was lost. Organizing the Canon is under the same authority that organized the Church.
Perhaps it is quibbling, but the LDS acknowledges that there is no magical organization. Instead they look at the scripture (and now we look at history) and claim that the church has Apostles, Bishop, Deacons, … Were there Protestants dialoguing here we could talk about the interchangeability of the word for Bishop and Elder AND how the word Priest in Hebrew and Greek didn’t refer to early Christian leaders, but LDS and Catholics respond somewhat similarly to these valid Protestant criticisms.
History teaches that the Apostle was not equal to the Bishop and the Bishop was not equal to the Deacon. LDS claim that this ancient structure should exist and does not exist in non-LDS Christianity.
It is perhaps possible that the Vicar of Christ, Peter, could have directed the Apostles to established a single non-apostolic office for the lesser priesthood. But the idea that the office of Overseer (Bishop)/Elder (Priest-Presbyter) should declare that the Apostles were no longer needed is something that LDS rightly point to.
And as I pointed out, the Catholic Bishop does not possess or claim to possess the same charism (or whatever the proper term is) the Apostle possess. They cannot receive supernatural public revelation. They cannot write scripture. They are different by their own admissions.

Nibley approaches authority as a Mormon does, as you are doing. Catholics approach authority as a Catholic does, and that is, the continuity of authority remains.

The “continuity of authority” is largely a conclusion. The “continuity of authority” within Catholicism consists of a ordination chain that leads back to someone who claimed to be a Overseer/Elder and likely was ordained by an Apostle. The only place were Peter selects a successor is an invented document from the 3rd or 4th century purported to be from Clement of Rome (but no scholar thinks it is from Clement of Rome).

Of course it is covenantal. How many times have Catholics pointed out to Mormon and others on this forum, that Jesus promised to remain with us until the end of the age, and that the gates of hell could not tear down His Church. This is His covenant with us. YOU have to explain that covenant away in order to be a Mormon.

I have never seen the “tear down” translation of Matthew 16:18.
That being said, death (not Satan) does not prevail (what you called “tear down”) against Christ’s church. I do not think any LDS view of this scripture is radically better than the Catholic view. I think the Catholic view is also not radically better than the LDS views. Death does not prevail after Christ died for our sins. This was not part of the apostasy. My favorite way is to say that Christ prevailed over death through resurrection. God’s church prevailed through restoration.

But I was actually referring to the change from a covenantal way of looking at what Catholics refer to as the 7 sacraments verses a sacramental way of looking at them. Here is the essay from which I draw my thoughts here:
publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=11

I think this is a good avenue of exploration presented by Reynolds here and they can be linked with loss of supernatural authority to lead the entire church that Peter once possessed, but I think looking at what Peter possess and what emerged years later within the Papacy is the most clear evidence of an apostasy.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps it is quibbling, but the LDS acknowledges that there is no magical organization. Instead they look at the scripture (and now we look at history) and claim that the church has Apostles, Bishop, Deacons, … Were there Protestants dialoguing here we could talk about the interchangeability of the word for Bishop and Elder AND how the word Priest in Hebrew and Greek didn’t refer to early Christian leaders, but LDS and Catholics respond somewhat similarly to these valid Protestant criticisms.
History teaches that the Apostle was not equal to the Bishop and the Bishop was not equal to the Deacon. LDS claim that this ancient structure should exist and does not exist in non-LDS Christianity.
It is perhaps possible that the Vicar of Christ, Peter, could have directed the Apostles to established a single non-apostolic office for the lesser priesthood. But the idea that the office of Overseer (Bishop)/Elder (Priest-Presbyter) should declare that the Apostles were no longer needed is something that LDS rightly point to.
And as I pointed out, the Catholic Bishop does not possess or claim to possess the same charism (or whatever the proper term is) the Apostle possess. They cannot receive supernatural public revelation. They cannot write scripture. They are different by their own admissions.

The “continuity of authority” is largely a conclusion. The “continuity of authority” within Catholicism consists of a ordination chain that leads back to someone who claimed to be a Overseer/Elder and likely was ordained by an Apostle. The only place were Peter selects a successor is an invented document from the 3rd or 4th century purported to be from Clement of Rome (but no scholar thinks it is from Clement of Rome).

I have never seen the “tear down” translation of Matthew 16:18.
That being said, death (not Satan) does not prevail (what you called “tear down”) against Christ’s church. I do not think any LDS view of this scripture is radically better than the Catholic view. I think the Catholic view is also not radically better than the LDS views. Death does not prevail after Christ died for our sins. This was not part of the apostasy. My favorite way is to say that Christ prevailed over death through resurrection. God’s church prevailed through restoration.

But I was actually referring to the change from a covenantal way of looking at what Catholics refer to as the 7 sacraments verses a sacramental way of looking at them. Here is the essay from which I draw my thoughts here:
publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=11

I think this is a good avenue of exploration presented by Reynolds here and they can be linked with loss of supernatural authority to lead the entire church that Peter once possessed, but I think looking at what Peter possess and what emerged years later within the Papacy is the most clear evidence of an apostasy.
Charity, TOm

I don’t know where you think Catholic Bishops came from then? Do you think someone just said, “Hey, look at me, I’m a Bishop?”, and everyone went, “Yay, we have a Bishop!”?

The documentation is the living Church.

Perhaps you should attend Mass at the Easter Vigil, where you can renew your Baptismal promises so you can remember your covenant with God. We call them promises, you call them covenants.

I could go through each Sacrament and give you the promises/covenant in each of them. Being that we just celebrated Corpus Christi, the covenant in the Eucharist is spelled out very clearly in John 6.

All Sacraments are expressions and dimensions of the New Covenant, who IS Jesus Christ. He is the New and Everlasting Covenant. Not Mormon temple marriage.

I encourage you to explore Catholic covenantal theology.

And yes, I’ve heard the resurrection/comparison before. Problem is, Mormonism teaches multiple apostasies and restorations, so you must be talking about reincarnation. Not restoration.

It is Jesus who has restored all things, during HIs life, ministry, death and resurrection. He wasn’t talking about or referencing Joseph Smith.

 

[Denise1957]

The only place were Peter selects a successor is an invented document from the 3rd or 4th century purported to be from Clement of Rome (but no scholar thinks it is from Clement of Rome)

Not true. Here’s a resource from Catholic Answers which gives more insight:

catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors

 

[TOmNossor]

Not true. Here’s a resource from Catholic Answers which gives more insight:

catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
I have read all those.
Tertullian and Irenaeus disagree as to who was the first Bishop of Rome (the Roman church for a long time taught Clement was first Bishop of Rome or the immediate successor of the Apostles). And Tertullian (before he became a Montanist) claimed that the Bishop of Rome was usurping Peter’s power by claiming some primacy.
Irenaeus also is not talking about Peterine authority in any way. Your quote makes that obvious in that it uses the plural of apostle. It is a latter view that Peter’s authority is possess uniquely in the Bishop of Rome.
And I (like Nibley and Sullivan) acknowledge the office of episcopate was likely passed form Apostles to Bishops (or from co-workers to Bishops). It is just that the Apostles had a different function than Bishops until the Bishops grew into the void left by the absence of Apostles.
Charity, TOm

 

[Denise1957]

I have read all those.
Tertullian and Irenaeus disagree as to who was the first Bishop of Rome (the Roman church for a long time taught Clement was first Bishop of Rome or the immediate successor of the Apostles). And Tertullian (before he became a Montanist) claimed that the Bishop of Rome was usurping Peter’s power by claiming some primacy.
Irenaeus also is not talking about Peterine authority in any way. Your quote makes that obvious in that it uses the plural of apostle. It is a latter view that Peter’s authority is possess uniquely in the Bishop of Rome.
And I (like Nibley and Sullivan) acknowledge the office of episcopate was likely passed form Apostles to Bishops (or from co-workers to Bishops). It is just that the Apostles had a different function than Bishops until the Bishops grew into the void left by the absence of Apostles.
Charity, TOm

It’s not my quote. It’s quoted from Catholic Answers, which are quoted from proper sources. You are deliberately promoting a falsehood regarding the Catholic faith.

 

[TOmNossor]

Show me a doctrine or teaching that didn’t come from the mouth or pen of Smith.

Jesus is the Christ did not come ORIGINALLY from the mouth or pen of Joseph Smith.

I think I have participated in the movement of this thread far afield of what it once was.

A little has been clarified for me here.

First, nobody is pure intellect. Regardless of how much I try to disconnect aspects of my personality, spirituality, environment, … from my intellectual weighing of the truth claims of Mormonism I cannot be certain that I have succeeded and made a purely intellectual judgment.

The converse is true of course as much as critics on this thread claim that merely thinking about the issues leads to “fails mightily” and “idiots” being true believers is not something that they can know is purely there intellectual assessment of the issues because they like me have personality, spirituality, an environment, …

Elsewhere I have found methodological aspects that might influence the result.
I also think Newman has some interesting insights.

Anyway, I will read responses. Charity, TOm

 

[Denise1957]

Jesus is the Christ did not come ORIGINALLY from the mouth or pen of Joseph Smith.

I think I have participated in the movement of this thread far afield of what it once was.

A little has been clarified for me here.

First, nobody is pure intellect. Regardless of how much I try to disconnect aspects of my personality, spirituality, environment, … from my intellectual weighing of the truth claims of Mormonism I cannot be certain that I have succeeded and made a purely intellectual judgment.

The converse is true of course as much as critics on this thread claim that merely thinking about the issues leads to “fails mightily” and “idiots” being true believers is not something that they can know is purely there intellectual assessment of the issues because they like me have personality, spirituality, an environment, …

Elsewhere I have found methodological aspects that might influence the result.
I also think Newman has some interesting insights.

Anyway, I will read responses. Charity, TOm

What astonishes me is that an obviously intelligent person such as yourself has spent so much time trying to refute the Catholic faith in order to prove that his own religion is true. You’ll notice that the Catholic Church does not have to refute other faiths in order to prove its claims. Jesus never said that we should occupy ourselves in this pursuit - of continually looking for the error of others (or other faiths). It isn’t healthy.

 

[KathleenGee]

Tom, in all honesty, I do not understand knowing your intelligence, why you do not challenge Mormon historical beliefs or study the consistency of faith in ancient Christianity.

 

[andrewstx]

The apostacy/restoration dichotomy is impossible to accept. It is based on not history or true scripture but on the 18th century ideas of the Campbellites. In fact Sidney Rigdon who almost became President after Smith was originally a Campbellite at the beginning.

I was raised in the accapella southern sect the so called “churches of Christ” and the similarities between the two groups are interesting.

To begin with they both have baptism of believers only, by submersion for the forgiveness of sin. Both have the Lord’s Supper each Sunday and only Sunday. The only difference is that LDS call it THE sacrament. What became of the other six?

Both do it the same. First a prayer over the bread which is passed to the seated congregation, and then the same for the tap water/grape juice. It is done and over in less than ten minutes. Both do it seated which is from 18th century Protestantism, and no restoration of anything.

How can anything be called a “restoration” when it never existed to be “restored” in the first place? Top secret temple rites, polygamy, marriage ‘for time and eternity’ baptism ‘for the dead’. None of those things could have been ‘restored’ because they never existed before Joseph Smith invented them.

 

[KathleenGee]

Right on , Andrew!

They cannot even figure it out when the loss even happened…so sorry for them. Really. If anything it makes me think of St. Paul’s writings and about people in the latter days…I think of people with itching ears wanting to believe in anything…but the truth of the Crucified Lord.