Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[RebeccaJ]

This unwillingness to accept a Mormon’s word for what that Mormon believes.

That is insulting in the extreme. I don’t do that to you.

Which mormon? You, or who? Brigham Young? Orson Pratt?

I accept that you believe as you do. I am also aware of what your church leaders have taught. That mormons cannot answer this somehow becomes an insult against you. Go figure.

Indeed, I am responsible only for my own behavior. I’m not ashamed of mine, y’know. I haven’t attacked your beliefs, or told YOU that you don’t really believe what you claim you do.

Yes, I know, you are very fond of telling us how much of a high road person you are.

That doesn’t surprise me, Rebecca. People have a problem seeing their own faults.

LIke this. High road indeed, and always looking down from that high road and ready to pronounce everyone as beneath you.

I haven’t seen any Mormons do that, though. I certainly have not.

Eh? You need to do some searches. Zerinus has some doozies.

I’m sorry, Rebecca, but that is an untruth. Defending one’s beliefs the way I have been doing…that is, correcting errors about what they actually ARE, is not proselytizing. It is simply correcting erroneous information.

I never said you were proseltying.

I have also told you what happens when Mormons ask someone else what their beliefs are; we don’t get told. Most of us gave up a considerably long time ago.

I find this hard to believe.

What we ARE told is “well, Mormons believe this or that and we don’t…and you aren’t Christian/you’re going to hell.”

I have never said any such thing in my life.

Given that most of the time we don’t believe whatever it is we are accused of believing, the whole conversation ends up going south.

You don’t believe it. I accept that. I can go to MADB this very minute and find a mormon who does. You still have not addressed the issue. Mormons have these beliefs because it is your church who taught them. You think that “anti-mormons” just made this stuff up, when the truth is, it is your church that has taught it. You may not believe it now. Your church may have backed on the teachings. It doesn’t change the fact that they are still around and there are still mormons who believe AND teach them.

For instance:

Rebecca. what do you believe about, say…the need for baptism

**1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

and who does it?

**1256 **The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a nonbaptized person, with the required intention, can baptize , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Baptism Why is it so important to baptize an infant that you will accept one performed by a Mormon nurse baptizing a baby who is in immediate danger of death?

**1261 **As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. **All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. **

…and yes, an LDS nurse will do this for the parents if the child is in that desperate a situation, even though he or she does not believe that the infant is in need of such. And yes, I am well aware that such an action does indeed ‘count’ in your faith.

It only is valid if the person doing the baptizing has the same intent as that of the Church. As the Church has ruled that LDS baptisms are invalid, I would not think that a baptism performed by an LDS person is valid.

However, the Church recognizes the intent and would consider this a “baptism of desire”. The desire being that of the parents. The same for an adult catechumen who died before being baptized.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Which mormon? You, or who? Brigham Young? Orson Pratt?

I accept that you believe as you do. I am also aware of what your church leaders have taught. That mormons cannot answer this somehow becomes an insult against you. Go figure.

Yes, I know, you are very fond of telling us how much of a high road person you are.

LIke this. High road indeed, and always looking down from that high road and ready to pronounce everyone as beneath you.

Eh? You need to do some searches. Zerinus has some doozies.

I never said you were proseltying.

I find this hard to believe.

I have never said any such thing in my life.

You don’t believe it. I accept that. I can go to MADB this very minute and find a mormon who does. You still have not addressed the issue. Mormons have these beliefs because it is your church who taught them. You think that “anti-mormons” just made this stuff up, when the truth is, it is your church that has taught it. You may not believe it now. Your church may have backed on the teachings. It doesn’t change the fact that they are still around and there are still mormons who believe AND teach them.

**1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

**1256 **The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a nonbaptized person, with the required intention, can baptize , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

**1261 **As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. **All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. **

It only is valid if the person doing the baptizing has the same intent as that of the Church. As the Church has ruled that LDS baptisms are invalid, I would not think that a baptism performed by an LDS person is valid.

However, the Church recognizes the intent and would consider this a “baptism of desire”. The desire being that of the parents. The same for an adult catechumen who died before being baptized.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
Proverbs 18:

 

[RebeccaJ]

You don’t understand a bit of what I believe.

He “never” was a man in time. There is not a time he was not God. Speculatively and on faith, I believe he progressed from being like us. If we can become like Him, how did he get to be as he is?

God is God, and has never been “like us”.

If you believe he was like us then you must believe he was human and also had a god.

I don’t know how you can make a statement like this without having your head explode.

It is a linguistic paradox and I have said it many times before.

It is not a paradox. It is about as illogical as it gets.

Seriously-- just take it as far as theosis. Just take it as far as Mary has progressed — She progressed from totally human to where she is today right? So that means that humans can at least to attain to where Mary is. And using your terminology, we can partake in the divine nature. Why would it not work “backwards” if not forwards?

Wow, you are very confused. There isn’t a Christian on the planet who believes we progress to godhood. Mary is not divine. She is in the presence of God, which is a direct knowledge of God. ie, one that does not require faith.

God sharing of Himself with us is like putting a hot poker into a fire. The metal will become very hot, glow, and put out heat. But it is not the fire itself. The poker has not progressed from being iron to being the flame.

But it is not doctrine, just as the virgin birth IS doctrine.

Your church has backed off of it as a doctrine.

Brigham Young and Joseph Smith taught it as doctrine. Both having made statements that everything they taught was doctrine.

 

[PaulDupre]

"MEgus:

Who did he kill?

PaulDupre:

While in Carthage Jail, Joseph had 2 pistols and a few bottles of wine smuggled in to him and his brother Hyram. They spent the evening drinking and singing. When the mob stormed the jail, Joseph shot and killed 2 of the men and wounded at least one other. He wound have killed more but his gun jammed.

And you know this how?

Please cite your sources.

Here is the passage from History of the Church. It is the statement of President John Taylor, who was in the Carthage jail with Joseph and Hyrum Smith when the mob attacked:

"Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, ‘Would any of you like to have this?’ Brother Joseph immediately replied, ‘Yes, give it to me,’ whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket… I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs… (Hyrum was shot in the face and was killed instantly, John Taylor continued)

I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died." (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 100, 102 & 103)"

Not exactly “like a lamb to the slaughter”, eh?

 

[MEgus]

John 6 Unless you eat the flesh (original Greek text uses the word TORGO= to eat or gnaw on flesh) and drink the blood of the son of man you have no life in you. Mormons and most Protestants believe that Christ was talking metaphorically. A symbolic presence. The question is then why did His listening Jewish audience leave him. Would they even have left Him if He were talking symbolically? Jesus never called them back.He could read their minds and He knew what they were thinking. Instead He asked his Apostles: “Are you going to leave me too?”

Then for the 3rd time He repeated; " He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will not die… Jesus said what He meant and He meant what He said…

Now wait a minute. You told me we can’t use the Greek Bible.

Only the Aramaic allowed. Please give us the quotes in Aramaic.

MEgus

 

[Arandur]

Now wait a minute. You told me we can’t use the Greek Bible.

Only the Aramaic allowed. Please give us the quotes in Aramaic.

MEgus

I doubt he said that. You’re referring to the discussion about Peter and the Aramaic term for “rock?”

Here you must consider a few things. The Gospels were written in an original language (hence the reference to Greek). They were designed to convey their meaning through this language (answered by the movement of the Spirit of course, but that’s beside the point of this discussion). So Greek is the original language of the text, which should mean a lot to you since Smith taught that so much depended on “translating correctly.”

Would you agree that the Gospel writers, particularly when recounting Jesus’ longer speeches and parables, likely did not write word for word accounts (translating into Greek), but probably paraphrased (lead by the Spirit to be preserved from error in this paraphrasing)?

If so, we can still rely soundly on the original Greek, at least.

There is a difference with a few of the Lord’s words, though. Sometimes we do know exactly what Jesus said. The reason that we go to the Aramaic when referring to Peter is that Jesus and the Apostles called him “Cepha.” We know that “Peter” is a translation of the original, and that “Cepha” was what was used. In the other speeches, we have no such assurance of literal Aramaic words, only trust in the Divine Inspiration of the Gospel writers to proclaim the Truth through the written Gospels. But since we know that Simon was called “Cepha,” you cannot claim that the meaning was intentionally changed in the Gospel of Matthew with his Greek translation of “cepha/Cepha” to “petra/petros.”

So your comment isn’t an effective dodge What do you think about the content of Alan’s quote, about the strong language used for “eat?”

Moreover, I’ve long been puzzled by the justification some make in saying that “eating” should mean “studying,” “having faith in,” or “having relationship with” (alternate variations that I have heard to explain the “symbolism” of the Lord’s words). With as often as eating, drinking, flesh, and blood are spoken of, I just haven’t yet seen anyone present to me a Scripture that makes the connection between those simple, graphic, plain (and precious, to borrow a phrase ) words and some vague non-physical thing. After all, the Eucharistic meal is a transformation and fulfillment of the Passover meal, which was very literal and physical. Jews believed that by partaking of that meal, they took part in a very real way in the actual, original Passover. Catholics believe that in the Eucharistic meal, we take part in a very real way in the actual, original Last Supper. Seems pretty plain to me who’s following God’s design.

 

[MEgus]

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
Proverbs 18:

Thanks Bill, I think you have hit it right on the head there.

Does that mean you are now willing to accept that we do not believe God had Sex with Mary?

Or do you want to keep expressing your opinion?

MEgus

 

[Grace_Angel]

I Just Was Talking To Two Mormon That Said They Are The True Church Of Jesus Christ , What Do You Think About This Statement

They had just taken their “Mormonate pills” for the morning.
So dont worry.
The Chrust which Jesus Christ has founded is the One Holy Catholy and Apostolic Church. (The four marks of the Church) And this church under the headship of “Peter”
Just turf outside and into garbage bin all the codswollop that those two young men in their black trousers and white shirts dished out to you.
Spend as much time as you spent with them with a real catholic person, a good priest, theologian and listen to what they have to say.
Please its all rubbish that Mormon is true church. Its a sect.
GraceAngel.

 

[MEgus]

I doubt he said that. You’re referring to the discussion about Peter and the Aramaic term for “rock?”

Here you must consider a few things. The Gospels were written in an original language (hence the reference to Greek). They were designed to convey their meaning through this language (answered by the movement of the Spirit of course, but that’s beside the point of this discussion). So Greek is the original language of the text, which should mean a lot to you since Smith taught that so much depended on “translating correctly.”

Would you agree that the Gospel writers, particularly when recounting Jesus’ longer speeches and parables, likely did not write word for word accounts (translating into Greek), but probably paraphrased (lead by the Spirit to be preserved from error in this paraphrasing)?

If so, we can still rely soundly on the original Greek, at least.

There is a difference with a few of the Lord’s words, though. Sometimes we do know exactly what Jesus said. The reason that we go to the Aramaic when referring to Peter is that Jesus and the Apostles called him “Cepha.” We know that “Peter” is a translation of the original, and that “Cepha” was what was used. In the other speeches, we have no such assurance of literal Aramaic words, only trust in the Divine Inspiration of the Gospel writers to proclaim the Truth through the written Gospels. But since we know that Simon was called “Cepha,” you cannot claim that the meaning was intentionally changed in the Gospel of Matthew with his Greek translation of “cepha/Cepha” to “petra/petros.”

So your comment isn’t an effective dodge What do you think about the content of Alan’s quote, about the strong language used for “eat?”

Moreover, I’ve long been puzzled by the justification some make in saying that “eating” should mean “studying,” “having faith in,” or “having relationship with” (alternate variations that I have heard to explain the “symbolism” of the Lord’s words). With as often as eating, drinking, flesh, and blood are spoken of, I just haven’t yet seen anyone present to me a Scripture that makes the connection between those simple, graphic, plain (and precious, to borrow a phrase ) words and some vague non-physical thing. After all, the Eucharistic meal is a transformation and fulfillment of the Passover meal, which was very literal and physical. Jews believed that by partaking of that meal, they took part in a very real way in the actual, original Passover. Catholics believe that in the Eucharistic meal, we take part in a very real way in the actual, original Last Supper. Seems pretty plain to me who’s following God’s design.

Christ was talking about his Atonement. About washing ourselves in his blood. About the very real sacrifice in the flesh that he was going to make for us. And only by doing so, and turning everything we are over to him, can we be cleansed. Again, it’s all about the atonement.

As to the Greek, no one has answered me yet on how one determined in the Aramaic the difference between a little rock (gravel) and a huge rock (mountain) if there were no differences and just the same word. How can one know the intents of the speaker if we do not know?

MEgus

 

[RebeccaJ]

How many more quotes would you like? Let’s see, they limit the length of these threads to 1000 posts, but they usually look for an excuse to stop them around 750, so if I posted 30 a day…

Please read this including all comments. They are so incredibly blasphemous, I’m not posting any of it here.

 

[alanjeddy]

Now wait a minute. You told me we can’t use the Greek Bible.

Only the Aramaic allowed. Please give us the quotes in Aramaic.

MEgus

That’s your best apologetic response??? Your only come back?
No one could ever accuse you of having persuasive debating skills. O that’s right I almost forgot, any similarities between Christian orthodoxy ( Do you even know what that word means MEgus) and mormonism are purely coincidental. What a pathetic response.

 

[alanjeddy]

" And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-20

In this passage St Peter is promised primacy over the whole church, a primacy which Jesus will confer on him after His resurection, as we learn in the gospel of St John, Jn21:15-18. This supreme authority is given to Peter for the benefit of the church. Because the church has to last until the end of time, this authority will be passed on to Peter’s successors down through salvation history. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the successor of Peter.

Read this again Megus and in your response give me something eloquent and persuasive for a change. Stop being so boring.

 

[Stephen168]

Please read this including all comments.

Was that real or a Monty Python skit? If it was real, it was additional insight into how Mormons reason.

 

[alanjeddy]

John 6 Unless you eat the flesh (original Greek text uses the word TORGO= to eat or gnaw on flesh) and drink the blood of the son of man you have no life in you. Mormons and most Protestants believe that Christ was talking metaphorically. A symbolic presence. The question is then why did His listening Jewish audience leave him. Would they even have left Him if He were talking symbolically? Jesus never called them back.He could read their minds and He knew what they were thinking. Instead He asked his Apostles: “Are you going to leave me too?”

Then for the 3rd time He repeated; " He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will not die… Jesus said what He meant and He meant what He said…

Hey MEgus I am going to give you another chance to showcase your eloquent, most persuasive apologetic debating skills ok? Prove to me that Jesus was speaking symbolically about His real presence.

 

[alanjeddy]

Please read this including all comments. They are so incredibly blasphemous, I’m not posting any of it here.

Wow what blasphemy!!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Was that real or a Monty Python skit? If it was real, it was additional insight into how Mormons reason.

As far as I know it is real. I agree, it is telling.

"Critics of the Church of course love this scandalous nugget (some conflating it with the Adam-God Doctrine to have Adam having sexual intercourse with Mary). It is a commonplace in anti-Mormon literature and websites. And since on its face it appears blasphemous, we have a tendency to recoil from it, to be (overly?) defensive about it, and increasingly to reject it. My usual tack when asked about it is to point out that the idea is not now and never was doctrine; it was a speculation. It is not binding on anyone, and in fact my impression is that it has become very much a minority view in the Church, and that most Mormons do not accept this characterization of the physical generation of the mortal Jesus.

I will confess, however, that I actually like this idea."

I find it interesting that no one calls him on this confessed deception.

 

[why_me]

Here is the passage from History of the Church. It is the statement of President John Taylor, who was in the Carthage jail with Joseph and Hyrum Smith when the mob attacked:

Not exactly “like a lamb to the slaughter”, eh?

Have you ever taken a lamb to slaughter? They tend to do a lot bleating and bahing. Not one lamb goes peaceful. Put yourself in JS’s place and please tell what you would do.

His brother is shot in cold blood in the face and now his own life is threatened. He took a ‘gun’ and attempted to defend himself against a mob. Yes, Joseph Smith went to the slaughter house with a small bah.

 

[MEgus]

Read this again Megus and in your response give me something eloquent and persuasive for a change. Stop being so boring.

OK Alan, lets start with Genesis 1

26¶ And God said, Let** us** make man in** our image, after our** likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Seems pretty simple to me.

MEgus (Let the twist begin)

 

[Stephen168]

I know it could never be the ‘True’ Church because it was started 1800 years after the earthly ministry of Christ and it was started with characteristics never found in Christianity:

A Leader who claims to receive new revelation from God for the whole Church.
The Aaronic Priesthood
The Melchizedek Priesthood
Polygamy

And there is no Eucharist as Christ taught it and the first Christians understood it.

 

[alanjeddy]

John 6 Unless you eat the flesh (original Greek text uses the word TORGO= to eat or gnaw on flesh) and drink the blood of the son of man you have no life in you. Mormons and most Protestants believe that Christ was talking metaphorically. A symbolic presence. The question is then why did His listening Jewish audience leave him. Would they even have left Him if He were talking symbolically? Jesus never called them back.He could read their minds and He knew what they were thinking. Instead He asked his Apostles: “Are you going to leave me too?”

Then for the 3rd time He repeated; " He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will not die… Jesus said what He meant and He meant what He said…