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

[MEgus]

James, Before I go on to the next question, I also wanted to point out one more thing. In verse 18, you pointed out things quite right, but you left one thing out.

18 And I say also unto thee, (That is Simon Bar Jonah) That thou (That is Simon Bar Jonah)art Peter(Petros in Greek, Kepha in Aramaic which means rock), and upon this rockKepha I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The last part, and upon this rock, in the Greek, it it Petra, a different word than Petros, which is the word always used for Peter in the Greek New Testament.

And while both are the Aramaic “rock”, in the Greek, one, Petros, is “little stone” or a “Stone that can be moved”, and the other is Petra, is “a large massive rock, a large boulder, or a foundation stone.”

This again indicates that the “ONE” who the Church would be built upon was God, our Rock, our Petra, our foundation stone. The one sure Rock upon which we must build or we will fall.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

On page 8 it says this.
“…The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority - including the keys to direct and recieve revelation for the Church - was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings”. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost."

This passsage raises a number of issues and questions.
Why was the priesthood withdrawn with the death of the apostles?
The pamphlet doesn’t say.
Since Jesus knew that His second coming would not be within the lifetime of the Apostles, why are the Apostles successors not granted the same rights as the original Apostles to teach and govern the Church under the protection of Jesus Christ as He promised?

Another good question James. And I shall try to answer it.

You asked why are the Apostles successors not granted the same rights as the original Apostles to teach and govern the Church under the protection of Jesus Christ as He promised?

The answer is, they were. At least they were as long as there were Apostles.

Apostles hold the keys to the Priesthood. They have the authority to give parts of these to those in the Church. For instance, a Bishop holds the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood. As such, they could ordain priests, teachers, and deacons, but not other Bishops. That was a key the Apostles held.

Now, how many Apostles do we have listed in the New Testament? If there were to only be the original 12, then they would not have called Matthias. But, they did. He was called to replace Judas after he was fallen.

Now, we do not have a full account of things that transpired in the Church after this time, but we do know that there were at least 12 more Apostles called as Apostles to replace others as they were martyred. This shows us a pattern of continuing Apostleship.

As long as there were Apostles in the Church, who held the keys to bind on earth and in heaven, there was revelation from God to the Church. When circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced and given these priesthood keys, then there was an apostasy.

So, to answer your question, “Why was the priesthood withdrawn with the death of the apostles?”, it is simply that no other had the authority to ordain future leaders. Without this authority, the priesthood was lost. Only with the continuation of Apostles could priesthood authority remain.

MEgus

 

[mark_a]

Mormons always say that, regardless of what the religion of the person they’re talking to is.

I have no problem with that, of course they believe it’s so called “true.”

Now having said that, I have a serious problem with them calling the Catholic Church the “Great and Abominable Church.” Or denying blacks to hold the priesthood up until the 70’s, and saying that their dark skin is from a “curse.”

Also-rans really aren’t bright enough to come up with anything better than the original, so it is up to them to call into question their predicessors. And their so-called prophets, Joseph Smith and Muhammed, seem to me to be cut from the same mold. Plus they allow themselves plenty of extra wives, clearly against the teachings of Jesus.

 

[C2M2C]

The last part, and upon this rock, in the Greek, it it Petra, a different word than Petros, which is the word always used for Peter in the Greek New Testament.

And while both are the Aramaic “rock”, in the Greek, one, Petros, is “little stone” or a “Stone that can be moved”, and the other is Petra, is "a large massive rock, a large boulder, or a foundation stone."MEgus

Author John Salza states in “The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith”

“It cannot be reconciled with Jesus’ threefold blessing of Peter in Mathew 16:18-19”

He goes on to say that after Jesus blesses Simon for having received divine Revelation, changes his name to Peter, then gives him the keys to the kingdom, why would Jesus then diminish Peter by calling him “small pebble”?

Besides Jesus spoke Aramaic and used the word kepha which means “massive stone”. Petros was used in the Greek translation to emphasize the masculine noun of Peter not to describe him a a small pebble.

dianaid, your lack of response to the question posed by JRKH is what disturbs me. In stead of the sarcastic, contemptuous remarks and claiming you know what the outcome will be; where are the responses? Show me why I should be Mormon? MEgus is the first person here to propose a well thought out answer. It’s because of the lack of an honest, intellectual, thoughtful, non “faith promoting” answer that has lead me and MANY others from M2C.

C2M2C

 

[C2M2C]

As long as there were Apostles in the Church, who held the keys to bind on earth and in heaven, there was revelation from God to the Church. When circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced and given these priesthood keys, then there was an apostasy.

MEgus

Thanks MEgus. My questions is how do you know that “circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced”. We know for a fact that apostolic succession did in fact continue to occur for another 2,000 years.

MEgus, with all due respect, this is where my problem lies. Maybe you do have an answer, and I will be happy to see it, but in most cases LDS apologists respond to these types of things, like “circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced” with no proof or evidence. I’m not saying that is what you are doing, but all too often that is what occurs, and, again, my reason for M2C. I get answers in Catholicism that are beyond speculation & conjecture. With all due respect to MF and the other Mormons here, when I first learned “the truth” I found guys like MF here whom I had dialog with but refused to actually answer the questions. It was that continued response that lead me away from the church and back to the “Faith of my fathers” to quote a famous Mormon.

C2M2C

 

[MelanieAnne]

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

Mormons are not Christian AT ALL. They have simply adopted the lingo to further their cause and to make themselves more easily accepted. In no sense are they “Christian” in the traditional understanding of the word.

Mormonism is the outgrowth of the Book of Mormon, itself a work of fiction with some plagiarism from the Bible mixed in. Sometimes I wonder if it was simply an elaborate practical joke that somehow grew beyond all expectations. Then, when its founders realized what a ‘cash cow’ it had become, they just hung on for the ride! It’s hardly a secret that the upper crust of Mormonism became very rich people!

 

[block]

Your opinion is noted.

You are incorrect about when the 'church was started." It was officially organized on April 6, 1830. If the rest of the information you gleaned from wherever you looked this up is as sloppy about facts as that, you might want to go to a different source to find out about the church.

lds.org, for instance.

Up to you, of course.

As well, our claim isn’t that Jesus 'waited that long to start he church" (sic). It is that He organized HIs church while He was on the earth in mortal life; that there was an apostasy and the priesthood authority was lost, and He 'waited that long" to RESTORE IT.

Now you are quite welcome to your opinion about whether or not you think He would have ‘waited that long,’ but that’s irrelevant. He either did, or didn’t. I’m not going to dictate to Him what he should have done instead.

Diana

Ummmm, what?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Could you present a post that is perhaps positive? You seem to seek out and highlight the negative.

After reading a lot of posts, and even interacting with more than a few Mormons, even in a secular context outside of this forum, I am coming to believe that Mormons are reflexively negative, believing themselves to be needing to be constantly on the defensive for EVERYTHING. Not just their faith.

It’s just an observation, supported merely by anecdotal experience, but there you are. It’s just weird how Mormons personalize and get defensive about every little thing. Even when it isn’t directed at them personally. What’s that all about? Has their religion, or the public rejection of it, affected their minds?

 

[MelanieAnne]

OK, I am coming late into this conversation, but I hope I can give some insight.

First off, I’d like to answer the topic of this thread. “Could The Mormon Church Be The “true Church” Of Christ”?

There are really only two possibilities when it comes to the true Church of Christ. One, either the Catholic Church is the true Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Church.

There are no other possibilities.

Either the Church continued to exist from the time Christ restored it to the earth, or it fell into Apostasy and was restored by revelation from God as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. All other churches fall by the wayside since they came out of the other church and would have no authority.

So, with that basis, we can begin to discuss from there.

MEgus

I find your name instructive because the capitalized letters spell ME



It would seem that you have embraced a faith that is all about YOU and becoming a GOD. How very interesting.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Thanks MEgus. My questions is how do you know that “circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced”. We know for a fact that apostolic succession did in fact continue to occur for another 2,000 years.

MEgus, with all due respect, this is where my problem lies. Maybe you do have an answer, and I will be happy to see it, but in most cases LDS apologists respond to these types of things, like “circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced” with no proof or evidence. I’m not saying that is what you are doing, but all too often that is what occurs, and, again, my reason for M2C. I get answers in Catholicism that are beyond speculation & conjecture. With all due respect to MF and the other Mormons here, when I first learned “the truth” I found guys like MF here whom I had dialog with but refused to actually answer the questions. It was that continued response that lead me away from the church and back to the “Faith of my fathers” to quote a famous Mormon.

C2M2C

1. LDS CLAIM THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST HAVE TODAY TWELVE APOSTLES.

. Thus the Mormons argue that since their church today alone has twelve apostles,-- what does the 12 apostle have to do with anything do they said they come from the first apostles and if so how

 

[dianaiad]

After reading a lot of posts, and even interacting with more than a few Mormons, even in a secular context outside of this forum, I am coming to believe that Mormons are reflexively negative, believing themselves to be needing to be constantly on the defensive for EVERYTHING. Not just their faith.

I think that we seem to be defensive, Melanie, because people like you think that stuff like this:
"MelanieAnne:

Mormons are not Christian AT ALL. They have simply adopted the lingo to further their cause and to make themselves more easily accepted. In no sense are they “Christian” in the traditional understanding of the word.

Is supposed to be warm fuzzy huggy welcoming. I’m sorry, sweetie, but if you substitute “Catholic” for “Mormon” in the above paragraph, I think you can see why the people on the receiving end of such…stuff…would be a tad 'defensive,"

In fact, I know people who would PUT “Catholic” instead of 'Mormon" in that paragraph and think it was just dandy. Plenty of anti-Catholic sites and folks around.

It’s just an observation, supported merely by anecdotal experience, but there you are.

Yep, there you are…

It’s just weird how Mormons personalize and get defensive about every little thing. Even when it isn’t directed at them personally. What’s that all about? Has their religion, or the public rejection of it, affected their minds?

I dunno, MelanieAnne, how do you feel when you get stuff like the above aimed at you?

 

[dianaiad]

Mormons always say that, regardless of what the religion of the person they’re talking to is.

Of course we do, because since we believe that, it doesn’t matter what the other person’s religion is. If it ain’t ours…

What, you want us to say that we belong to the ‘true Church’ to everybody but Catholics? If we could do that, we’d BE Catholics!

I have no problem with that, of course they believe it’s so called “true.”

Now having said that, I have a serious problem with them calling the Catholic Church the “Great and Abominable Church.” Or denying blacks to hold the priesthood up until the 70’s, and saying that their dark skin is from a “curse.”

I would suggest watching the dvd titled “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon” it’s done in good taste, out of love for Mormons, and it really gives so many reasons why the BoM is false.

I knew it was false long before I decided to become Catholic.

I would suggest doing nothing of the sort, because quite frankly I have never seen a publication, DVD or any other sort of thing done for the express purpose of ‘proving’ Mormonism wrong that was done 'out of love for Mormons."

Never happens.

Ever.

You want to show your love for Mormons?

Here’s how: pretend that you don’t know we are Mormons. Just teach what you believe to be true, and don’t worry about what you think we believe.

Simple.

Then, I think, Mormons just MIGHT be less ‘defensive.’ They’d learn more, too.

 

[JRKH]

James, Before I go on to the next question, I also wanted to point out one more thing. In verse 18, you pointed out things quite right, but you left one thing out.

The last part, and upon this rock, in the Greek, it it Petra, a different word than Petros, which is the word always used for Peter in the Greek New Testament.

And while both are the Aramaic “rock”, in the Greek, one, Petros, is “little stone” or a “Stone that can be moved”, and the other is Petra, is “a large massive rock, a large boulder, or a foundation stone.”

This again indicates that the “ONE” who the Church would be built upon was God, our Rock, our Petra, our foundation stone. The one sure Rock upon which we must build or we will fall.

MEgus

The Greek argument simply doesn’t hold up.
Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, and there is no distinction in Aramaic between large ans small Rock it is safe to assume that Jesus used the word Kepha in both places. The Greek uses the two different words for grammatical reasons if undertand correctly.
But Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore Rock means Rock and the grammatical issues from the Greek do not come into play.
Jesus named Simon “Rock” - Kepha or Cephas as it is rendered elswhere in the Bible.

Don’t feel bad though because this is a common error.

Also:
Thanks for your prayers.
She is home now and we’re doing OK. - So far

Peace
James

 

[MelanieAnne]

You don’t get it Diane & you’re not going to.“get it” Drunks don’t get it when they’re drunk either. Not that I’m saying you’re a drunk, because I’m not. I’m just saying that, under the circumstances, you can’t “get it”. It has nothing to do with "trading places.

It doesn’t happen to me, but then, I’m not I’m not Mormon.

THANKS BE TO GOD!

You have to actually exit the Mormon mindset to “get it”. Good luck!

 

[mfbukowski]

. With all due respect to MF and the other Mormons here, when I first learned “the truth” I found guys like MF here whom I had dialog with but refused to actually answer the questions. It was that continued response that lead me away from the church and back to the “Faith of my fathers” to quote a famous Mormon.

C2M2C

I answered them, repeatedly, but you did not like the answers and did not want to listen. God Bless you. You have made your decision. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”. I am still here and we could try again if you like. But I think you still will not like the answers

 

[JRKH]

Another good question James. And I shall try to answer it.

You asked why are the Apostles successors not granted the same rights as the original Apostles to teach and govern the Church under the protection of Jesus Christ as He promised?

The answer is, they were. At least they were as long as there were Apostles.

Apostles hold the keys to the Priesthood. They have the authority to give parts of these to those in the Church. For instance, a Bishop holds the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood. As such, they could ordain priests, teachers, and deacons, but not other Bishops. That was a key the Apostles held.

Now, how many Apostles do we have listed in the New Testament? If there were to only be the original 12, then they would not have called Matthias. But, they did. He was called to replace Judas after he was fallen.

Now, we do not have a full account of things that transpired in the Church after this time, but we do know that there were at least 12 more Apostles called as Apostles to replace others as they were martyred. This shows us a pattern of continuing Apostleship.

Could you site the source for two items above from either Biblical or Antinicene Fathers. One is the Idea of Early Church Bishops - Those ordained by the Apostles having anything other than Full Apostlic Authority.
Second is the names of the 12 additional apostles you mentioned.

As long as there were Apostles in the Church, who held the keys to bind on earth and in heaven, there was revelation from God to the Church. When circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced and given these priesthood keys, then there was an apostasy.

OK you’ll have to explain this one further. The Apostles ordained men to recieve the Holy Spirit. They were given the same authority as the Apostles had recieved. How do we know this? Because of the power to bind and loose. Catholic Bishops, within their jurisdictions, have complete authority subject only to the Bishop of Rome. This is the way Christ ordained it, this is the way the Apostles taugth it, and therefore this is the way it was bound in heaven and on earth from the beginning.
I’m sorry I’m not explaining this too well but I hope you see what I mean.

So, to answer your question, “Why was the priesthood withdrawn with the death of the apostles?”, it is simply that no other had the authority to ordain future leaders. Without this authority, the priesthood was lost. Only with the continuation of Apostles could priesthood authority remain.

MEgus

The idea that the Apostles would not leave a valid authority after them is simply not credible without valid sourse material to back it up. It’s a nice theory but evidence is going to be needed.

peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Thanks MEgus. My questions is how do you know that “circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced”. We know for a fact that apostolic succession did in fact continue to occur for another 2,000 years.

MEgus, with all due respect, this is where my problem lies. Maybe you do have an answer, and I will be happy to see it, but in most cases LDS apologists respond to these types of things, like “circumstances happened and the Apostles were no longer replaced” with no proof or evidence. I’m not saying that is what you are doing, but all too often that is what occurs, and, again, my reason for M2C. I get answers in Catholicism that are beyond speculation & conjecture. With all due respect to MF and the other Mormons here, when I first learned “the truth” I found guys like MF here whom I had dialog with but refused to actually answer the questions. It was that continued response that lead me away from the church and back to the “Faith of my fathers” to quote a famous Mormon.

C2M2C

C2,
Glad to see you here.
Now that my Dear Wife is home fromt he hospital I won’t be able to put the time and thought into my responses that I would like. MEgus is giving good answers but naturally we are going to need further discussion. I will be looking forward to you and he having a chat.

Peace
James

 

[kyria]

In 1829, Joseph Smith recieved the same priesthood authority that Jesus Christ had given to His Apostles…Peter James and John (Three of Jesus Christ’s original Apostles) Later appeared to Joseph Smith and conferred on him the Melchizedek Priesthood, or higher priesthood.

What evidence other then this do the Mormon’s have that Joseph Smith is a true phophet? What evidence do the Mormon’s have to prove that Joseph Smith was given this priesthood?

How is Joseph Smith any different from all the others outside of Catholicism who have stood up and claimed they have been given the only sole truth? Why should I believe Joseph Smith?

 

[dianaiad]

You don’t get it Diane & you’re not going to.“get it” Drunks don’t get it when they’re drunk either. Not that I’m saying you’re a drunk, because I’m not. I’m just saying that, under the circumstances, you can’t “get it”. It has nothing to do with "trading places.

It doesn’t happen to me, but then, I’m not I’m not Mormon.

THANKS BE TO GOD!

You have to actually exit the Mormon mindset to “get it”. Good luck!

You are quire right. I do have to exit the ‘Mormon mind set’ in order to ‘get’ why it is perfectly OK to expect Mormons to not ‘get defensive’ when they are told that they are not Christian, or are told that they are stupid, misguided, delusional and other stuff.

On the other hand, I think I rather prefer the mindset that does not see that it is OK to have double standards; and that that it is not acceptable to say about other people that which you find offensive when it is said about you…

Go figure. I guess I’m just brainwashed.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons always say that, regardless of what the religion of the person they’re talking to is.

Of course we do, because since we believe that, it doesn’t matter what the other person’s religion is. If it ain’t ours…

What, you want us to say that we belong to the ‘true Church’ to everybody but Catholics? If we could do that, we’d BE Catholics!

I have no problem with that, of course they believe it’s so called “true.”

Why did you choose to split what reff said where you did? You do realize you picked out the negative and split what he said, right? Berating reff, and asking what, you’d thing we call the Catholic church the true church. When this is what he said! Of course you believe it’s true.

You seriously need better reading comprehension.