Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I accept the Bible 100%.

Then where is the authority that has been passed down. Did you get your authority from Apostolic succession just like the bible shows. Were you taught in the true light of Scripture with Oral and Written scripture. If so where did you obtain this oral Tradition that is only in the hands of the CC,

Do you have the authority through the power of Jesus Christ to absolve me from my sins? Do you have all of the Sacraments that are shown throughout the bible. The true Church of Jesus Christ must have all of these sacraments. Do you have them. And do claim to have the power to forgive me of my sins? Yes or no?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Exactly my point! This is why I will never understand LDS Churches - there is no excuse for the whole book of mormon. It is pointless. The bible speaks all. And if you go looking for any other person than christ to lead you to god, I think you are not a true christian. The mormons in a nut shell!

“I noticed you said you were a Protestant and you know that Mormons aren’t Christian. Knowing that, why would you consider going with your friend to a Mormon temple? If you’re wanting to look into other Christian faiths, check out the Catholic church. Seriously. We have different rites and Churches that can appeal to all types of personal preferences. ”

Well, cheeky, cheeky! …I did go to a protestant church but I love the catholic churches and cathedrals. I stopped going to my protestant church because I had a few problems with the ministers. More or less every lunch time I go into this catholic church for pray (light a candle) and I even wear the rosarys. I suppose you could say I prefer the catholic stuff! Ignore the mormons for now (their ignorant fools), enlighten me about catholics! I really want to know - how does a protestant become a catholic?

Hi Zundrah,

As a former Protestant (in my case Episcopalian) who is now a Catholic, I would be happy to answer your question about how a protestant can become a Catholic.

Simply telephone or visit a local Catholic parish and inquire as to how you might join their RCIA class. This is a class for adults who wish to become full members of the Catholic Church. It can often have a range of individuals ~ all the way from those who have never been baptized or whose baptisms are considered invalid, to previously baptized Protestants, whose baptisms are recognized as valid, to Catholics who never completed confirmation and want to be in full communion.

Once in an RCIA class you will begin a course of study that will culminate with confirmation at a future Easter Vigil. It can be a long process, depending on the policies of the individual parish, but it starts with you. God Bless!

 

[pickguard1]

I don’t use the term relativism at all, but I do believe that following a fulness of truth is an objective necessity for exaltation, and following the truth of believing in Christ and confessing Christ and asking for His grace are necessary for Him to provide that grace to be rescued from our fallen natures and from the pains of Hell, but He will not provide “more grace” than the person asks for and lives for. Again, every person will get what they live for and what they deep-down desire. I believe there is more truth in the universe that we don’t know than there is truth that we do now know. I don’t know how else to answer your question.

I guess maybe my question was posed incorrectly. Do you believe that there is the possibility of eternal damnation?

 

[pickguard1]

I disagree. I think it was suppression, and I think Wycliff and Tyndale did a marvelous and wonderful and supremely difficult work that I will admire forever. I disagree that “binding and loosing” had to do with the authority of your church to suppress the Bible’s translation and printing.

If the Church had no authority to protect the faithful translation of the scriptures, She had no authority at all - it doesn’t make sense for Christ to grant His Church authority over superfluous things and not the most important things.

 

[pickguard1]

What does this mean in Tobit 6:18, when Raphael tells Tobias to marry Sarah?

“But do not be afraid, for she was set apart for you before the world existed. You will save her, and she will go with you. And I suppose that you will have children by her, who will take the place of brothers for you. So do not worry.” When Tobiah heard Raphael say that she was his kinswoman, of his own family’s lineage, he fell deeply in love with her, and his heart became set on her.

I’m not sure this is a correct quote from that verse Here is what I got form the Douay for Tobit 6:18 "But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her. " Is your quote corect? or is it from a different verse?

In any regard, whereever your quote comes from, it follows that if God is all-knowing that theoretically, if ANYONE will be married to another, those people were set aside for eachother, as far as the knowledge of God is concerned. This passage doesn’t mean that Sara was created before the world was created, but that God has knowledge of everything. Tobias still had the exercise of his free will to marry Sara.

 

[pickguard1]

Peter isn’t the rock. Christ is the rock, the sure foundation stone, the stone the builders rejected. Peter said that himself. He didn’t call himself the rock. He called Christ the cornerstone. I’ve already quoted the Biblical texts about this.

Christ didn’t break any promise, of course. Never has, never will.

I already posted how Peter IS the rock in Matthew. Jesus didn’t change his own name to “Rock”, He changed Simon’s name to Rock.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Um, with all due respect, I think the answer is clearly “none”.

If you are around enough Mormons long enough, as I have been, you will find that most blindly accept what they are told at church, don’t really think about any of it too deeply, and can repeat things back word for word so precisely that it almost seems like there’s some kind of brainwashing going on. Some have additional training, but it’s not in logic, it is in confronting those who bring up certain troublesome topics and facts.

I see that here on CAF.

Mormons are lovely people individually, and many are right there to help you out whenever there’s a need. I find most of them kind, amazingly generous and good-hearted. I have many friends that are Mormons, we just don’t talk about religion because were I to do so, and be honest about it, I’d have to say that I think Mormonism is nuts and that would be hurtful to them. So I don’t.

Agreed. Infact, you reminded me of a wonderful woman who was Mormon for whom I worked while in college. She always had a very gentle and soft voice. And was very helpful. She did me a very kind favor once that I will never forget. Should I ever have employees (boyfriend and I have started a software company) I will remember her and her kindness.

Indeed, no matter how anyone spins it, the Mormon view of “apostasy” and “restoration” is not just a direct insult to the Catholic Church it is a direct and grave insult to God. This is supposed to be the same God that they supposedly hold in such high regard. It’s extremely offensive.

Completely agreed. Everytime I see Finrock trying to “break down” what I said to “prove” me wrong it still just doesn’t work - he actually continues to prove MY point. The logic of Mormonism is that if any of their basic tenants, especially the “Great Apostasy,” is broken down, poof, there goes their whole cult. (Yes, I believe mormonism is a cult.) I believe I have said this before - don’t remember the thread.

It’s tough to have to give up old beliefs, very tough, so the mind, clamped shut to the truth since it cannot relieve itself of its lies, struggles to hold on to its dillusionment with rationalization and twisted logic. I personally believe they are so sorely misled. I love the zeal that many have for Mormonism, unfortunately it is directed in the wrong way.

BTW, this last paragraph of yours reminded me of something I either read or heard. Something about if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit it cannot be forgiven … I see Mormonism as blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Especially when I read about what they believe on their own sites, their source.

 

[pickguard1]

Perhaps that is true for you. I just don’t get the feeling that it is for others as I read all the comments about “sacred tradition” and “early fathers” and “catchisms”. Sorry.

I would still reiterate that following Tradition, and the early followers is not simply believing something told to you by someone you trust, but rather, having recieved the truth, and verifying it, makes those sources more trustworthy. I was told at a young age that 2 plus 2equals four, by people I trusted. They were right. I have verified it for myself. I do not believe that 2 plus 2 equals four because they said so, but because they were telling me the truth. The fact that they didn’t lie to me makes it easier for me to accept that other thigns they tell me are are also the truth, i.e. 4 plus 4 equals 8 and so on. But I still verify it on my own account.

 

[rinnie]

I already posted how Peter IS the rock in Matthew. Jesus didn’t change his own name to “Rock”, He changed Simon’s name to Rock.

Amen. And he changed Abram to Abraham in the O.T. which means Father which means rock. Jesus is the Rock. The ones that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone of our Faith Jesus Christ. So Jesus is the Rock. the Father. Then he gives Abraham the name Rock, Abraham was our Father in the O.T. Now we move over to the N.T. Peter, which translates to Rock which translates to Papa, Father, Pope. See it all fits. It has to! That is why the Pope is the leader of the RCC. He holds the keys to the kingdom. He feeds the sheep. That is what the bible says and that is our faith.

Now where does the bible say Joseph Smith. Where does Joseph Smith translate to Pope. Where does Joseph smith translate to Father? Where does JS translate to rock. It don’t.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Amen. And he changed Abram to Abraham in the O.T. which means Father which means rock. Jesus is the Rock. The ones that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone of our Faith Jesus Christ. So Jesus is the Rock. the Father. Then he gives Abraham the name Rock, Abraham was our Father in the O.T. Now we move over to the N.T. Peter, which translates to Rock which translates to Papa, Father, Pope. See it all fits. It has to! That is why the Pope is the leader of the RCC. He holds the keys to the kingdom. He feeds the sheep. That is what the bible says and that is our faith.

Now where does the bible say Joseph Smith. Where does Joseph Smith translate to Pope. Where does Joseph smith translate to Father? Where does JS translate to rock. It don’t.

Exactly! Not to mention, Jesus as the cornerstone is what holds everything together.

ParkerD tried to twist what I said about Peter being the rock upon which Jesus built his church by using a DIFFERENT term in the same post, “cornerstone.”

This is the only thing I learned about masonry (brick building.) You need a solid foundation on which to build a house. Then there is the “cornerstone” of an arch that holds the arch together and makes it sturdy. This is why Jesus is the cornerstone. It’s amazing how people simply take things and switch them around.

Joseph Smith, as has been admitted to by ParkerD in this thread, tought contradictory things. Now, ParkerD is fine with that. I assume he purchased a house on swamp land since he’s fine with not having a solid foundation?

This is yes another reason why Mormonism is false.

 

[pickguard1]

CJ,
Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic. I want to reason further on the spirit of man, for I am dwelling on the spirit and body of man–on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose I cut it in two; as the Lord lives, because it has a beginning, it would have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation who say that man had a beginning prove that he must have an end. If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

There are several major flaws with this logic. Immortality has nothing to do with whether something has a beginning or not. It is a statement regarding our concept of time - that is, it is a statement that says that something will never end. That something has a beginning doesn’t mean that it MUST have an end. Otherwise, God has no power to create something and then sustain it into eternity. Clearly he does have this power. So it is false to assume that if a spirit is created it must of necessity have an end. The fact that man has an end is not due to the fact that man had a beginning, but because that is how God created us. God created the angels, and surely you don’t believe they will have an end? Furthermore it would be very bold indeed to claim that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all - if not, He is not God. For God created all things. The final sentence is the fruit of this faulty logic. It is the result of applying the rules of time to God. God did not create Himself, or He is not God. God is immortal in the sense that he will have no end, but He also had no beginning, because He is outside the boundaries of time, which He created. Since we are in the boundaries of time and had a beginning we can dimly understand what it might mean to have no end, but it is virtually impossible for us to understand what it means to have no beginning. This is why there is no word, nor will there probably ever be one, which adequately expresses this concept.

 

[pickguard1]

That viewpoint causes a problem–for if there were no prophets, prophecy or revelation after the birth of Jesus Christ, then how come we know about HIm?

I mean, we’d have to throw out anything written about Him, and certainly Paul’s adventure on the road to Damascus is trashed, as is the book of…what is that title again…Oh, yeah…“Revelation.”

You are correct - I think that what he meant (or should mean) is that revelation ended with the closing of the Canon - that is once the Apocolypse John (Revelation) was written. That is the Catholic teaching.

 

[pickguard1]

God was instrumental in inspiring the text of the Bible, I believe. I think the King James is translated sufficiently well to be considered the “right one” as far as English. One can know by the Spirit of revelation. If everyone who received the gospel had kept the Spirit of revelation, they would not have been “blindly grasping at a vague and ambiguous picture of early Christianity.” One of the major points of the writings of the apostles is to get the Spirit of revelation and keep it.

Christ taught that He would send the Holy Ghost to be with and guide the members of His church. The apostles totally understood this. I don’t think they felt abandoned at all.

I think the apostasy was allowed to happen for a good ultimate purpose, but it was also allowed to happen because the people then living allowed it to happen. It was a gradual falling away, not a sudden event. Christ does not override agency, ever.

The King James version and English aside (since they didn’t exist for several centuries after the original writing of the Bible) How was it known that ANY translations were correct? What is the “Spirit of revelation”? Does one need to have a personal revelation from God that confirms your version of the Bible is correct? I find that argument highly offensive. If we can all figure it out on our own (whether the Bible is right or not) what need is there for teachers at all ("Go out and teach all nations…)? How did King James know the texts he was using were correct? There HAS to be an earthly authority for this and there IS. The Catholic Church. It’s not a matter of pride or self-riteousness, it’s an acceptance of Jesus’ love for us that he gave us an institution that can always be relied upon.

 

[pickguard1]

Christ said “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” and He was clearly referring to Adam and Eve. If it’s good enough for Him to cite them as an example, I think it’s good enough for me. Rebekah was told, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions.”

Yes, “let not MAN put asunder.” This is an abrogation of the law of divorce. He didn’t say what God has joined together God will not put asunder. He said there will be no marriage in heaven. Whether he was referencing Adam and Eve or not, (and I dont’ see the need to assume that he was - but it’s irrelevant) the plain fact of the matter is that there is nowhere in the bible that supports the idea that there is married life in heaven. The Bible explicitly states the opposite.

 

[pickguard1]

I love King James Bible English. I also love Shakespearean English. I love the play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw, and the delightful way that it illustrates how important proper language is in elevating humankind.

I also have a fondness for older and archaic forms of English. My problems lie not in the form of the language, but in the mistranslations.

 

[rinnie]

Exactly! Not to mention, Jesus as the cornerstone is what holds everything together.

ParkerD tried to twist what I said about Peter being the rock upon which Jesus built his church by using a DIFFERENT term in the same post, “cornerstone.”

This is the only thing I learned about masonry (brick building.) You need a solid foundation on which to build a house. Then there is the “cornerstone” of an arch that holds the arch together and makes it sturdy. This is why Jesus is the cornerstone. It’s amazing how people simply take things and switch them around.

Joseph Smith, as has been admitted to by ParkerD in this thread, tought contradictory things. Now, ParkerD is fine with that. I assume he purchased a house on swamp land since he’s fine with not having a solid foundation?

This is yes another reason why Mormonism is false.

Spot on. And why Am I always ignored on the authority question, And who gave JS the authority to forgive sins. No one. Thats why he didn’t. Who gave Jesus the authority. We know who gave it to him he told us. All authority has come from the Father. Where did the Church get the authority again simple. All authority of heaven and earth has been given to me, and I now give it to you. Go and baptise in the Name of the Father, SOn Holy Spirit and teach all I have given you. But JS did was the opposite of what scripture. He was self-proclaimed. Why did Jesus come as the son and not the Father. Another clue to show JS was a fraud, Jesus said that if he revealed who he was no one would listen to him. That is why he came as the Son to glorify the Father. Look how all the strange towns believed Jesus was the Christ. But his own town rejected him. Saying is that not the Son if Mary and Joseph. Oh we could go on for hours could we not. But I must get back to the work of this world now Gotta go back to work for awhile. So hold down the fort! Keep up the good work.

 

[pickguard1]

Sorry for all my successive posts about stuff from a while ago - I was away from my computer for the weekend. Also, sorry for misspellings and poor grammar.

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon rinnie! How has your day been?

Even though your post isn’t addressed to me specifically, I am going to take the liberty of responding. I hope that you do not mind.

Then where is the authority that has been passed down. Did you get your authority from Apostolic succession just like the bible shows. Were you taught in the true light of Scripture with Oral and Written scripture. If so where did you obtain this oral Tradition that is only in the hands of the CC,

Do you have the authority through the power of Jesus Christ to absolve me from my sins? Do you have all of the Sacraments that are shown throughout the bible. The true Church of Jesus Christ must have all of these sacraments. Do you have them. And do claim to have the power to forgive me of my sins? Yes or no?

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith received his priesthood authority from Peter, James and John, who conferred it upon Joseph by the laying on of hands as resurrected beings. So, perhaps not in the same way as Catholics believe in Apostolic succession, we do believe in Apostolic succession.

We believe in both a written cannon of scripture and in the words of those we believe to be prophets and apostles. In that sense, we do believe both in the written and oral scriptures.

Mormons do not believe in the absolution of sin in the way Catholics do. Although we do believe that a prophet, a stake president, or a bishop can know through revelation if a person has been forgiven by God for their sins. However, we believe that forgiveness can only be given by God, and a priesthood leader can only know God’s will rather than decree forgiveness. In a similar vein, we also believe that through the proper priesthood authority and keys a person can have their “calling and election” made sure. This means that they are guaranteed eternal life.

Mormons do believe we have all necessary sacraments or ordinances required for salvation.

Thanks for your questions.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[pickguard1]

Mormons do not believe in the absolution of sin in the way Catholics do. Although we do believe that a prophet, a stake president, or a bishop can know through revelation if a person has been forgiven by God for their sins. However, we believe that forgiveness can only be given by the God, and a priesthood leader can only know God’s will rather than decree forgiveness. In a similar vein, we also believe that through the proper priesthood authority and keys a person can have their “calling and election” made sure. This means that they are guaranteed eternal life.

How is this belief reconciled with Christ’s words to His Apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain are retained?”

 

[rinnie]

Good afternoon rinnie! How has your day been?

Even though your post isn’t addressed to me specifically, I am going to take the liberty of responding. I hope that you do not mind.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith received his priesthood authority from Peter, James and John, who conferred it upon Joseph by the laying on of hands as resurrected beings. So, perhaps not in the same way as Catholics believe in Apostolic succession, we do believe in Apostolic succession.

We believe in both a written cannon of scripture and in the words of those we believe to be prophets and apostles. In that sense, we do believe both in the written and oral scriptures.

Mormons do not believe in the absolution of sin in the way Catholics do. Although we do believe that a prophet, a stake president, or a bishop can know through revelation if a person has been forgiven by God for their sins. However, we believe that forgiveness can only be given by God, and a priesthood leader can only know God’s will rather than decree forgiveness. In a similar vein, we also believe that through the proper priesthood authority and keys a person can have their “calling and election” made sure. This means that they are guaranteed eternal life.

Mormons do believe we have all necessary sacraments or ordinances required for salvation.

Thanks for your questions.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Okay lets start here, if we are from the same Church and the same teachings why do you not believe that same way we do?

Next question you said that Joseph Smith got his authority by Apostolic Succession. Then is he not ordained with Holy orders. That by the way us proof of Apostolic Succession.

Now here is my favorite. But I can’t quite understand it, but is this what you are saying. You do not believe in the sacrament of Penance. Because you do not believe that a Priest has the Power to forgive sin, only God can, But now here is the best even though you don’t have the power of the Holy Spriit to give absolution, because you believe that only God can, but you believe that your leader has the will of God. Is that not what you said? Unbelievable,

Now here is my very favorite part, you have the guarantee of eternal life. Now what happens to the final judgement thats written in the bible. Did you throw that book out or what? Because first for sins you claim your leader knows the will of the Father. Thats priceless, Because only the Father knows Gods will. Even the Pope has never claimed to know the will of the Father. Even the Apostles never claimed to know the will of the Father.

Now everthing you just said again does not line up with one word of scripture, Why is that.

A priest has never claimed to offer forgiveness by his own. He has always worked by the Power of the Holy Spirit working through him. He has never said that he knows what Gods will is. If a Priest does or does not give absolution has nothing to do with what his will is.

Now again what about the final judgement. What is that. Because you don’t seem to have that.He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. Now if you are guaranteed of eternal life, why would Jesus come again to judge the living and the dead?