Conversation with a Mormon

[Eucharisted]

So…how badly did I screw up?

woundedimmortal: have you ever heard of the Great Apostasy theory?
Nick: Is it the theory that the Catholic Church apostosized early on, or the theory that the Catholic Church will apostosize later on?
woundedimmortal: early on
Nick: I’ve heard of it, but don’t believe it. It lacks historical evidence, for example, historical records, archeological evidence, etc.
woundedimmortal: The way I’ve heard it explained is that the Apostles were killed off before they could ordain other Apostles leaving only Bishops
woundedimmortal: so therefore the Catholic Church couldn’t possibly have the fullness of the gospel bc they have no living Apostles
woundedimmortal: like something was lost
Nick: In the Epistle to Timothy, I believe, the Apostle calls Timothy a bishop, and bishops are the successors of the Apostles. But not many people believe this, because they don’t realize the Bible literally comes from Tradition - meaning, without Tradition, you can’t understand the Bible. I can give an example, if you want.
woundedimmortal: sure
Nick: You know how in the gospels Jesus commands us to eat and drink His flesh and blood?
woundedimmortal: literially?
Nick: (You can symbolically, if you wish) Well, there is nothing in the Bible that tells you how to eat and drink His flesh and blood. Now, if God gave us the Bible to teach us how to worship Him, then why would He not tell us how to worship Him? Look back at the Books of Exodus, Numbers, Deutromany: In these books, God explicitly tells the Israelites how to worship Him, right down to how they ough to purify themselves. Now why didn’t God do this again for His Church? It seems He’s left us hanging - unless He’s given us something else. And that something is Tradition. Just as the Jews had the Oral Torah, the Church has Oral Scripture - i.e., Tradition. And it is tradition which tells us how to celebrate the Mass, how to eat Jesus, and it is Tradition that tells us about the bishops.
woundedimmortal: so Nick what is the tradition about the Bishops
Nick: It is that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Just as the Father sent Jesus, so too He sends the Apostles, and so too they sent the bishops.
woundedimmortal: why’d the 11 need to ordain other Apostles then?
Nick: No, they ordained bishops, not apostles.
Nick: They ordained bishops as their successors, so the Church could continue to be governed after their death.
woundedimmortal: they ordainied Matthais, and Paul, plus others who are mentioned in the Bible to be Apostles before they died
woundedimmortal: why did they do that?
Nick: Matthais was chosen by the Lord, not the Apostles. They cast lots, God chose him. They had to have 12 Apostles. As for Paul, I don’t think he was ordained; I think his title of Apostle is symbolic, just like Mary Magadelen’s title ‘Apostle to the Apostles’ is symbolic.
Nick: “Apostle” means someone sent. Hence, Jesus is called an Apostle, because He was sent by God. And the Apostles are sent by Him. And Paul is sent to the Gentiles. And Mary Magdalen was sent to tell the Apostles that Jesus is risen.
woundedimmortal: what about Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Andronicus and Junia who are also mentioned in the Bible
woundedimmortal: …as apostles
Nick: Only Paul and the twelve have the office of Apostle, which is different from the symbolic title of “Apostle to the Gentles” and “Apostle to the Apostles.” They were given the office by Jesus.
Nick: And it was the same Jesus who chose Matthais to replace Judas when the eleven cast lots.
**woundedimmortal: **thanks for answering my questions, do you have any questions of me and Mormonism?
Nick: You’re welcome Jason I just have one: Where did the name Mormon come from?
woundedimmortal: It is the name of the ‘put together’er’ of the Book of Mormon he was the second to last writer of the Book
Nick: Ah, ok. Thanks for the answer
Nick: You don’t mind if I share our conversion with my friends, do you?
woundedimmortal: no you can
Nick: Thank you very much

 

[LDSGuy]

So…how badly did I screw up?

woundedimmortal: have you ever heard of the Great Apostasy theory?
Nick: Is it the theory that the Catholic Church apostosized early on, or the theory that the Catholic Church will apostosize later on?
woundedimmortal: early on
Nick: I’ve heard of it, but don’t believe it. It lacks historical evidence, for example, historical records, archeological evidence, etc.
woundedimmortal: The way I’ve heard it explained is that the Apostles were killed off before they could ordain other Apostles leaving only Bishops
woundedimmortal: so therefore the Catholic Church couldn’t possibly have the fullness of the gospel bc they have no living Apostles
woundedimmortal: like something was lost
Nick: In the Epistle to Timothy, I believe, the Apostle calls Timothy a bishop, and bishops are the successors of the Apostles. But not many people believe this, because they don’t realize the Bible literally comes from Tradition - meaning, without Tradition, you can’t understand the Bible. I can give an example, if you want.
woundedimmortal: sure
Nick: You know how in the gospels Jesus commands us to eat and drink His flesh and blood?
woundedimmortal: literially?
Nick: (You can symbolically, if you wish) Well, there is nothing in the Bible that tells you how to eat and drink His flesh and blood. Now, if God gave us the Bible to teach us how to worship Him, then why would He not tell us how to worship Him? Look back at the Books of Exodus, Numbers, Deutromany: In these books, God explicitly tells the Israelites how to worship Him, right down to how they ough to purify themselves. Now why didn’t God do this again for His Church? It seems He’s left us hanging - unless He’s given us something else. And that something is Tradition. Just as the Jews had the Oral Torah, the Church has Oral Scripture - i.e., Tradition. And it is tradition which tells us how to celebrate the Mass, how to eat Jesus, and it is Tradition that tells us about the bishops.
woundedimmortal: so Nick what is the tradition about the Bishops
Nick: It is that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Just as the Father sent Jesus, so too He sends the Apostles, and so too they sent the bishops.
woundedimmortal: why’d the 11 need to ordain other Apostles then?
Nick: No, they ordained bishops, not apostles.
Nick: They ordained bishops as their successors, so the Church could continue to be governed after their death.
woundedimmortal: they ordainied Matthais, and Paul, plus others who are mentioned in the Bible to be Apostles before they died
woundedimmortal: why did they do that?
Nick: Matthais was chosen by the Lord, not the Apostles. They cast lots, God chose him. They had to have 12 Apostles. As for Paul, I don’t think he was ordained; I think his title of Apostle is symbolic, just like Mary Magadelen’s title ‘Apostle to the Apostles’ is symbolic.
Nick: “Apostle” means someone sent. Hence, Jesus is called an Apostle, because He was sent by God. And the Apostles are sent by Him. And Paul is sent to the Gentiles. And Mary Magdalen was sent to tell the Apostles that Jesus is risen.
woundedimmortal: what about Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Andronicus and Junia who are also mentioned in the Bible
woundedimmortal: …as apostles
Nick: Only Paul and the twelve have the office of Apostle, which is different from the symbolic title of “Apostle to the Gentles” and “Apostle to the Apostles.” They were given the office by Jesus.
Nick: And it was the same Jesus who chose Matthais to replace Judas when the eleven cast lots.
**woundedimmortal: **thanks for answering my questions, do you have any questions of me and Mormonism?
Nick: You’re welcome Jason I just have one: Where did the name Mormon come from?
woundedimmortal: It is the name of the ‘put together’er’ of the Book of Mormon he was the second to last writer of the Book
Nick: Ah, ok. Thanks for the answer
Nick: You don’t mind if I share our conversion with my friends, do you?
woundedimmortal: no you can
Nick: Thank you very much

the Orthodox Church believes that the Catholic Church is in apostasy from the original Church that Christ founded. This is nothing new to Latter-day Saints.

 

[dzheremi]

How rude of you, LDSGuy, to speak for Orthodoxy when there are many practicioners of it here to speak for themselves. As I have read here from some of those posters, the position of Orthodoxy regarding the Catholic Church is something more akin to “we don’t concern ourselves with others; we know where salvation is, and that is what we concern ourselves with.” So I’m afraid it is the Mormons who throw around terms like “apostacy”, and the non-Christian character of Mormonism is something that is recognized by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

 

[LDSGuy]

How rude of you, LDSGuy, to speak for Orthodoxy when there are many practicioners of it here to speak for themselves. As I have read here from some of those posters, the position of Orthodoxy regarding the Catholic Church is something more akin to “we don’t concern ourselves with others; we know where salvation is, and that is what we concern ourselves with.” So I’m afraid it is the Mormons who throw around terms like “apostacy”, and the non-Christian character of Mormonism is something that is recognized by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

Unfortunately, just because you claim that I am being “rude” by saying what the Orthodox Church believes does not make it so. I agree that the Orthodox Church says that they know where salvation and the Truth is, and they do not worry much about where it is not, however the Orthodox Church knows that the Catholic Church has departed from what they see as the one, catholic, and apostolic Church, the Church that continues original Christianity, which is the Orthodox Church, and not the Catholic Church. Therefore, in the Orthodox Church’s eyes, the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ. I have studied religion objectively as a student at a major [Catholic] university, and therefore I am not just stating my opinion, but just the fact of what Orthodox Christians believe as to where or what Church has the fullness of Truth.

Also, if I take your stance, how rude of posters on here to speak for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when there are Latter-day Saints to speak for themselves. I personally do not believe this, but you are claiming that we should if your statement is not limited to the Orthodox Church.

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx

 

[dzheremi]

Unfortunately, just because you claim that I am being “rude” by saying what the Orthodox Church believes does not make it so. I agree that the Orthodox Church says that they know where salvation and the Truth is, and they do not worry much about where it is not, however the Orthodox Church knows that the Catholic Church has departed from what they see as the one, catholic, and apostolic Church, the Church that continues original Christianity, which is the Orthodox Church, and not the Catholic Church. Therefore, in the Orthodox Church’s eyes, the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ.

This is not what we are talking about. I am objecting to your equating of the LDS position of “the Great Apostasy” with the Orthodox disagreements with Catholicism. Of course the Orthodox Church believes that the Catholic Church has departed from its truth, but this does not substantiate any claim of a “Great Apostasy”.

Also, if I take your stance, how rude of posters on here to speak for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when there are Latter-day Saints to speak for themselves. I personally do not believe this, but you are claiming that we should if your statement is not limited to the Orthodox Church.

My statement is most definitely not limited to just the Orthodox. All discussions I have gotten into about Mormonism on this board have been with actual Mormons, who have not been shy in sharing their doctrines with me. This is the best way to discuss things.

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx

oca.org/QA.asp?ID=196&SID=3

oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3

 

[Jerusha]

If there were no apostasy, there would be no justification for the Book of Mormon as scripture. Therefore, they teach the apostasy, but don’t exactly know what it was or when it happened, because without it they could not have the BOM as scripture. Ever heard of circular reasoning?

The only way they could have the BOM as valuable literature would be to say that all peoples have the right to their own histories, which are sacred to those peoples. Except for the fact that very little of the BOM has any relationship with pre-Columbian Native American oral legend. :banghead:

Therefore, the best way of approaching the “apostasy” issue is by attacking the teachings and “history” contained in the BOM.

 

[Jerusha]

Beware of question and answer formats, such as what is contained in Alma 18:16-35. It is nothing more than a chess-game. You need to get ahead of them.

 

[JLFuller]

There is an intersting book by Bart Ehrman, a secular biblical scholar, that corrects the view expressed above of how the Church evolved from the first century Church begun by Christ into the later dominant religious view. He makes his point without favor to any particular religious tradition. The book is called Misquoting Jesus. Dr. Ehrman is a professor at the U of North Carolina in the religion dept. He has other books that really get under the skin of a lot of religious people who have a particular point of view to protect.

 

[JLFuller]

Beware of question and answer formats, such as what is contained in Alma 18:16-35. It is nothing more than a chess-game. You need to get ahead of them.

I want to thank you Jerusa for bring to the attention of so many people just how significant The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is in the religion discussion. I think we get more interest because of you and others who who sling mud at us than by all the polite and responsible posters put together. I know I get much more interest when I respond to the nasty people politley than I do responding to the polite people. You do us a great service and I want to publicly thank you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

He has other books that really get under the skin of a lot of religious people who have a particular point of view to protect.

Which as far as I can tell, is how Mormons determine truth. If it undermines truth, it must be true.

:hypno:

 

[Jerusha]

You are welcome. I don’t mind your discomfort. I’m just trying to get you to think.

 

[JLFuller]

You are welcome. I don’t mind your discomfort. I’m just trying to get you to think.

I understand Jerusha. It is the intellect that saves us according to your way of thinking. Man did not convert me to Christ’s Church and man cannot dissuade from believing.

Jerusa, let me speak plainly. There is no way on God’s green earth that the Catholics didn’t screw things up. You just have to look at the middle ages, the terror, death, genocide, torture and wars that the Catholics spawned. These were not just some renegade priests that did this. It was Roman Catholic Church practice and policy for hundreds of years. It was done at the behest of hundreds of cardinals and priests and dozens of popes. That my friend is Satanic and a blind imbecile can recognize it. There is absolutley zero chance that Christ had anything to do with organizing and directing the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry you can’t see it. It doesn’t take much thinking to recognize how hollow your prounouncements are about any religious doctrine matters. I appologize for offendng you but you just won’t let it alone no matter how respectful I try to be.

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, but the Catholic Church has learned from its errors. LDS just seems to fix the superficial errors (polygamy, and alcohol come to mind) and persevere with the deeper ones. Whitewashing LDS history is a major fault. We admit to ours. Why don’t you fix your own church, before you try to prostelytize to us?

 

[aquabatix]

Part of what you wrote is true. There were very abominable practices that went on in the middle ages that men did under the name of the church. But the thing is, these were the actions of misguided men, not God or of His Church. The validity of the sacraments has NEVER changed and NEVER will. Men are human, no matter how high their office. The fundamental difference here is that Christ set up the Catholic Church and it has and will be passed on. None of the actions your referring to or the list of others you could find were ever a dogma of the Church. They were just actions by misguided men.

 

[dianaiad]

So…how badly did I screw up?

woundedimmortal: have you ever heard of the Great Apostasy theory?
Nick: Is it the theory that the Catholic Church apostosized early on, or the theory that the Catholic Church will apostosize later on?
woundedimmortal: early on
Nick: I’ve heard of it, but don’t believe it. It lacks historical evidence, for example, historical records, archeological evidence, etc.
woundedimmortal: The way I’ve heard it explained is that the Apostles were killed off before they could ordain other Apostles leaving only Bishops
woundedimmortal: so therefore the Catholic Church couldn’t possibly have the fullness of the gospel bc they have no living Apostles
woundedimmortal: like something was lost
Nick: In the Epistle to Timothy, I believe, the Apostle calls Timothy a bishop, and bishops are the successors of the Apostles. But not many people believe this, because they don’t realize the Bible literally comes from Tradition - meaning, without Tradition, you can’t understand the Bible. I can give an example, if you want.
woundedimmortal: sure
Nick: You know how in the gospels Jesus commands us to eat and drink His flesh and blood?
woundedimmortal: literially?
Nick: (You can symbolically, if you wish) Well, there is nothing in the Bible that tells you how to eat and drink His flesh and blood. Now, if God gave us the Bible to teach us how to worship Him, then why would He not tell us how to worship Him? Look back at the Books of Exodus, Numbers, Deutromany: In these books, God explicitly tells the Israelites how to worship Him, right down to how they ough to purify themselves. Now why didn’t God do this again for His Church? It seems He’s left us hanging - unless He’s given us something else. And that something is Tradition. Just as the Jews had the Oral Torah, the Church has Oral Scripture - i.e., Tradition. And it is tradition which tells us how to celebrate the Mass, how to eat Jesus, and it is Tradition that tells us about the bishops.
woundedimmortal: so Nick what is the tradition about the Bishops
Nick: It is that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Just as the Father sent Jesus, so too He sends the Apostles, and so too they sent the bishops.
woundedimmortal: why’d the 11 need to ordain other Apostles then?
Nick: No, they ordained bishops, not apostles.
Nick: They ordained bishops as their successors, so the Church could continue to be governed after their death.
woundedimmortal: they ordainied Matthais, and Paul, plus others who are mentioned in the Bible to be Apostles before they died
woundedimmortal: why did they do that?
Nick: Matthais was chosen by the Lord, not the Apostles. They cast lots, God chose him. They had to have 12 Apostles. As for Paul, I don’t think he was ordained; I think his title of Apostle is symbolic, just like Mary Magadelen’s title ‘Apostle to the Apostles’ is symbolic.
Nick: “Apostle” means someone sent. Hence, Jesus is called an Apostle, because He was sent by God. And the Apostles are sent by Him. And Paul is sent to the Gentiles. And Mary Magdalen was sent to tell the Apostles that Jesus is risen.
woundedimmortal: what about Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Andronicus and Junia who are also mentioned in the Bible
woundedimmortal: …as apostles
Nick: Only Paul and the twelve have the office of Apostle, which is different from the symbolic title of “Apostle to the Gentles” and “Apostle to the Apostles.” They were given the office by Jesus.
Nick: And it was the same Jesus who chose Matthais to replace Judas when the eleven cast lots.
**woundedimmortal: **thanks for answering my questions, do you have any questions of me and Mormonism?
Nick: You’re welcome Jason I just have one: Where did the name Mormon come from?
woundedimmortal: It is the name of the ‘put together’er’ of the Book of Mormon he was the second to last writer of the Book
Nick: Ah, ok. Thanks for the answer
Nick: You don’t mind if I share our conversion with my friends, do you?
woundedimmortal: no you can
Nick: Thank you very much

Your conversation is all very Platonic.

You know, the way Plato would have Socrates have conversations with some straight man whose conversation and responses were scripted in order to make Socrates look good?

Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it does look as if you elided some of ‘woundedimmortal’s’ comments.

What was it you were attempting to do, exactly?

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, but the Catholic Church has learned from its errors. LDS just seems to fix the superficial errors (polygamy, and alcohol come to mind) and persevere with the deeper ones. Whitewashing LDS history is a major fault. We admit to ours. Why don’t you fix your own church, before you try to prostelytize to us?

Let me get this straight: you admit to your history and claim to have learned from your errors, and this learning from those errors makes everything just peachy now.

Even though those errors resulted, quite literally, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people; deaths that were quite often intentionally horrific.

But it’s OK now, because you admit that you did it, and have learned from it.

But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though it has done nothing to any where near the level that the Catholics have, are (insert any one of the very insulting and derogatory names you have used) because of the things that we used to do (like polygamy) but that we no longer do.

I think that’s a fairly accurate description of your position, is it not?

Wanna think about that a little bit?

 

[Jerusha]

If one were to develop a formula wich would take into account time and number of persons involved, I would suspect, based on my research, that LDS has been responsible directly and indirectly for more suffering on earth.

 

[Eucharisted]

Your conversation is all very Platonic.

You know, the way Plato would have Socrates have conversations with some straight man whose conversation and responses were scripted in order to make Socrates look good?

Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it does look as if you elided some of ‘woundedimmortal’s’ comments.

What was it you were attempting to do, exactly?

We simply had a conversation. He had questions, I answered them. But I’m a terrible Catholic, so I didn’t answer properly. But I tried to use Mormon theology to help Jason understand Catholic theology. Because I just wanted to tell him the truth, not try to correct his beliefs or lead him to Catholicism. I am not God, so I cannot do that. But I can ask God to convert him, and I know He always answers our prayers.

 

[sweetnay]

Dianaiad, we’re talking doctrine versus actions of sinful men in the name of the Church. Polygamy, blacks denial of priesthood were doctrinal and taught by your prophets–there has never been a reversal of dogma in the Catholic Church. The things that happened in the middle ages were never DOCTRINE but sinful men. Wherever humans are involved there will ALWAYS be sin and don’t use the example of “limbo” as dogma reversal because that never was DOGMA but a THEORY as we have no direct revelation on that topic and won’t make one up conveniently.

 

[Stephen168]

There is an intersting book by Bart Ehrman, a secular biblical scholar, that corrects the view expressed above of how the Church evolved from the first century Church begun by Christ into the later dominant religious view. He makes his point without favor to any particular religious tradition. The book is called Misquoting Jesus. Dr. Ehrman is a professor at the U of North Carolina in the religion dept. He has other books that really get under the skin of a lot of religious people who have a particular point of view to protect.

Bart Ehrman graduated from an anti-Catholic college, so I can see why you might like him. They fired a philosophy professor for converting to Catholicism. I listened to a 12 hour lecture series of his called Jesus to Constantine. I only found him factual incorrect once but his reasoning and the facts he left out were interesting. He has even made up a word for what seems to me to be his need to avoid calling the early church Catholic.