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

[Arandur]

You can read this. It would seem that if JS were a fraudster, he would need many accomplices.

lightplanet.com/mormons/priesthood/melchizedek/restoration.html

Oliver Cowdery on many occasions bore witness that he “was present with Joseph when an holy angel from God came down from heaven and conferred, or restored, the Aaronic Priesthood and…was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred on each other, by the will and commandment of God” (Anderson, p. 22).

This is more information on the website.

mfbukowski:

I myself have seen and participated in many healings after laying on of hands. There is no doubt that these keys have been restored. “It is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks after signs”. We don’t talk about such things typically.

Many sects have been started with similar “witnesses.” Heck, televangelists have thousands of “witnesses” who would swear to seeing miracles.

Further, if you want people to believe Joseph Smith, or believe in miracles that you’ve seen, then how do you discount the thousands of recorded miracles throughout every generation documented within the Catholic Church?

Whether by number, documentation, or rigor of examination, the Catholic Church certainly has everyone beat. By a huge margin.

 

[Arandur]

There are many churches in this world that have been built upon Gospel principals. And many of these churches teach many Gospel truths. And many bring people closer to God. But to BE the Lord’s true Church, there is only one requirement, and that is that it has the Authority from God to conduct the Lord’s work with that proper Authority.

In another post, I stated that there could only be two churches that could do this, the Catholics, (Just which branch is another discussion) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. For Either the Authority continued, or it was taken away and lost and had to be restored as it has been many times since it was first given to Adam.

There are more options.

Protestants and evangelicals claim that we misinterpret “authority.” As a Catholic, I certainly think that their argument is incorrect, and in fact pretty weak. But it is an argument, and one in my opinion with more merit than the idea that the full Gospel and Christian church was established first with Adam.

The other options on authority come from various other directions, such as Jews and even Redeemed Jews; and Muslims, who propose essentially the same corruption and apostasy and new prophecy that Mormons claim, but take it down a different direction from there.

And even if we agree on authority, Smithians have to deal with the CoC and Remnant and Restoration branches, among others. Catholics have to deal with the Orthodox claims, and Anglicans. So even if we agree that authority is necessary, I count at least 4 Smithian options and 3 original apostolic succession options.

 

[dianaiad]

,snip to here>
Second is the names of the 12 additional apostles you mentioned.

James

I don’t have the names of twelve. However, we do know about Matthias and Paul, Andronicus and Junia (Rom.16;7) Barnabas (Acts 14;14) James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19) Silas (Acts 15:22)

Apollos might have been one, as well–in fact, probably was.

 

[alanjeddy]

My wife used to be a mormon and now she is in RCIA. My brother -in-law is an elder in the Mormon church so I learned a little about their faith while engaging in apologetic debate with the unending amount of missionaries that would come through our doors.

They believe in eternal progression, somewhat similar to the eastern religeous belief in the hypothesis of reincarnation. Mormons believe in a heaven that has varying degrees of importance. The soul is on a continuing journey of enlightenment and eventually mormons believe they can become like God and have a world of their own over which they will have dominion. They believe that Jesus had dominion only of our planet Earth.

They do not believe in One God in three devine persons. Their Trinitarian theology incorporates 3 independent beings in their Godhead.
And of course, Utah was the last state that gained statehood because of their belief in polygamy.

 

[MelanieAnne]

My wife used to be a mormon and now she is in RCIA. My brother -in-law is an elder in the Mormon church so I learned a little about their faith while engaging in apologetic debate with the unending amount of missionaries that would come through our doors.

They believe in eternal progression, somewhat similar to the eastern religeous belief in the hypothesis of reincarnation. Mormons believe in a heaven that has varying degrees of importance. The soul is on a continuing journey of enlightenment and eventually mormons believe they can become like God and have a world of their own over which they will have dominion. They believe that Jesus had dominion only of our planet Earth.

They do not believe in One God in three devine persons. Their Trinitarian theology incorporates 3 independent beings in their Godhead.
And of course, Utah was the last state that gained statehood because of their belief in polygamy.

One aspect of Mormonism that is rarely discussed is that polygamy has been “taken from the Earth” but it is still practiced, according to Mormons, in Heaven. This is a “men only” deal ~ polygamy “yes”, polyandry “no”.

Another little item that is hidden from potential converts.

 

[Arandur]

Maybe a better thought would be, why are we here? Do you think that the purpose of man was different before Christ came into the world than after he came?

Was not the purpose for man upon the earth the same from the beginning? Are we not all God’s Children?

Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?

To look at things only from our personal perspective instead of from the Eternal perspective that God looks at things takes us away from God instead of helping us get closer to him.

And, with that being said, I do not want an answer here to these, just ponder them and if someone wants to discuss further, let’s start a new topic on this. Let’s discuss here the question of the title of this discussion.

MEgus

That doesn’t answer the question that I posed against your premise, a premise upon which your claim of authority and apostasy relies.

Your questions are, IMO, irrelevant to the question I put to your premise. The purpose of our lives can remain constant while things change throughout history.

The purpose of our lives, by the way, is essentially: “God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next.” Here, in just 26 words, is the whole reason for our existence. Jesus answered the question even more briefly: “I came so that [you] might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10)."

Or, in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s words: “The human person is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord, and by doing so, to save his or her soul.
All other things on the face of the earth are created for human beings in order to help them pursue the end for which they are created.
It follows from this that one must use other created things, in so far as they help towards one’s end, and free oneself from them, in so far as they are obstacles to one’s end.”

This purpose is constant through the ages, but this constancy does not imply that our faith journeys or God’s work among His children is in any way static.

Things obviously change–we experience life through time, and God interacts with us through time. Christ’s life happened in a discrete point in time, and it mattered. If it mattered, how does that change things? Why did Jews and Christians alike believe that souls of the dead essentially waited for Christ’s death and resurrection if something did not change after that event? Why was the Incarnation special? Why was Christ’s sending of the Holy Spirit special?

If you look through history, you see distinct patterns in how God interacted with His children, to shepherd us and raise us through Salvation History. It went from Family (Noah) to Tribe (Abraham) to Nation (Israel) to Kingdom (Saul/David) to the whole World (with the welcoming of Gentiles in, finally, making the Church finally Catholic, or “universal”).

The Mormon claim of a full Christian church unchanged but for apostasies has to contend with these patterns and with its own definition of “continuing revelation” to demonstrate who it can be a complete church while changing things, and if changing things, how a complete church?

 

[Bill_Pick]

This may have been answered already, but I’d like to point out that first you have to distinguish what you mean by “Church.”

Mormons seem to believe that the full Christian church was established with Adam, and this is what was apostatized from. Mormons need to first prove this premise.

A quick question along those lines for Mormons: was there anything at all significant about Jesus coming in a particular point in time? Did he change anything with his Incarnation, death, and Resurrection? Was there any difference at all before he came and after he came?

If there was any difference, then it seems to me that the premise that the church was founded with Adam needs to at least be qualified–for something changed when Christ came. If there is no difference, then Mormons have an even more difficult case to argue for in order to demonstrate this premise, for it essentially claims that Christ’s Life meant or did nothing.

the church was started with peter not adam in 33ad get your self a christin bible and see what it has to say Jesus started a church smith started a cult---- And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church, * and the gates of the netherworld
shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. *
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[dzheremi]

I agree.
We should all join churches we disagree with. That is the true path to salvation.

Dang. I guess I better join Catholicism. I really disagree with that one.

The only problem is that this means you should be a Mormon!

Don’t be a fool. The point is not to join a Church that you disagree with from the outset, but to refrain from trying to mold the Church you are a part of to suit your own beliefs when they are at variance with what the Church believes.

 

[jim1130]

I agree.
We should all join churches we disagree with. That is the true path to salvation.

Dang. I guess I better join Catholicism. I really disagree with that one.

The only problem is that this means you should be a Mormon!

But you used to be Catholic, right? Why the change?

 

[RebeccaJ]

You could have said a lot of things, that is true.

But instead you chose an ad hominen which is obviously unfounded. D’s reading comprehension seems to be rather extraordinary to me. She has certainly had no problem taking on your phenomenal intelligence.

There. That was a compliment just as much as your ad hominen was a kind correction.

Unfounded? Ok. Still waiting for a response from Diana. But then, that is not so unusual.

 

[LUISV]

This is a great thread.
Could the LDS be the Christ’s true church? Nope. Is it Christian? Yes. Is their Chistiology and Theology in line with ours? No. But does it have to be to be called Christian. Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians. All of them were Christian.
Ecumenism is not about trying to understand the faiths of all humanity or to bring elements of those into your church. It is about being observant and respectful of all peoples. What light do they have to shed on God’s truth. Ecumenism is an opportunity to mission. It is about witnessing your faith. To witness is to proclaim it in action through your daily life. How you live, how you interact with others. People will find truth and come to faith if they see it in action. If your faith produces good people then people will want to belong. Hense the popularity of the LDS.
Does it produce good people? In my travels, yes. I have found some bad apples but the mormon lifestyle is one condusive to good social order. A few mormon leaders have gone over the edge and fostered cults ie Waco but your average run of the mill Mormon is a good person that will help you when they can. Most mormons are good witnesses to their faith. People see the fruits and ask questions. It doesn’t take much to convert some one with a weak understanding of their faith. All you need is to understand their needs. What may be the root cause for converts is not the eternal promiss of salvation but the benefits of belonging to the LDS society.

My theology will not allow me to classify the LDS as a church. But it will also not allow me to detract from Mormons that they have a sound social organisation that tries to benefit all its members.

Instead of finding out how we can birate some one for believing what they do. Mabey it is in our own best interest to ask questions that actually shed light on the LDS be it ritual or social. Then our apologists, if they see fit, can expound tenents of the Catholic faith not to counter but to enlighten the rest of us. Isn’t Apologetics for the defence of the faith? Mabey a better approach would be Catechesis. A person well grounded in truth can not be swayed. A mormon missionary is proud to tell you what he believes, heck that fact he is on a mission means he is willing to show you his faith in action. Are Catholics ready to do the same?

 

[LutheranDK]

SO WHAT ,WAS I OFF 4 TO 6 MONTHS AND WHAT IS MY OPINION ’ THAT OUR LORD STARTED HIS CHURCH IN 33AD ALMOST 1800 YEARS B4

SHOUTING doesn’t suit anyone. It only weakens your position…

politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_32.php

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Mormon Church is not considered a Christian church. This is not simply an opinion that they are false. It is a fact that they teach abberant and unchristian theology. In fact, Jesus warned us about such groups when he said in Matthew 24:24 that in the last days many false Christs and false prophets will arise and deceive many. Mormonism is exactly that, a manifestation of a false prophet: Joseph Smith, who taught all these things. The Bible does not teach that God came to another planet, or that he has a goddess wife, or that we can become gods. In fact, the Bible clearly and definitely contradicts those teachings. But, Mormon Church responds by saying that the Bible is not really trustworthy, that the true faith was lost, and that its leader, Joseph Smith, restored the so-called “true” Christian faith: god from another world, becoming gods, goddess mother, etc. Of course, the Mormon Church’s claim is not true. One question to ask the Mormon Church as a whole is why is it that it does not appoint a representative to publicly debate and answer the challenges of competent Christians who know not only the Bible, but what Mormonism teaches? Why is it that the Mormon Church refuses to have open dialogue and appoint a representative who would attempt to defend the LDS teachings from the Bible? Why does it refuse to do this? I believe it is because it doesn’t want to be made to look bad.

 

[MEgus]

Boy, you guys sure know how to welcome someone new into your group.

So far, I have read a number of things that we supposedly believe. And if we in fact believed them, I would be on your side too, but we don’t.

About the only thing I have seen stated so far that is fact is that we believe Joseph Smith was called of God to be his prophet to restore his Gospel to the earth.

It would take me years to answer all the misconceptions that you have about what it is we believe. One writer even stated that Utah was the 50th state of the Union. I’m sure Alaska and Hawaii would be interested to know that. But seriously, if a person can not get even that right, what about the rest?

Now, I ask you all one question. Did not the Savior teach us, “Do not bear false witness”?

He also told us that “By their Fruits ye shall know them”.

If the fruits of your church are that it’s members go around bearing false witness against others what does that say for your church?

I guess maybe I ought to go back to my Church where we are taught that all things good come from God and not to speak bad about others.

MEgus

 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;4754649:

You don’t get it Bukowski.

But then, you’re a Mormon, so I guess you just CAN’T?

Your intellectual prowess is overwhelming. What a great argument!

A devastating reply! I think I’m converted now. Where’s that confessional?

 

[mfbukowski]

This may have been answered already, but I’d like to point out that first you have to distinguish what you mean by “Church.”

Mormons seem to believe that the full Christian church was established with Adam, and this is what was apostatized from. Mormons need to first prove this premise.

A quick question along those lines for Mormons: was there anything at all significant about Jesus coming in a particular point in time? Did he change anything with his Incarnation, death, and Resurrection? Was there any difference at all before he came and after he came?

If there was any difference, then it seems to me that the premise that the church was founded with Adam needs to at least be qualified–for something changed when Christ came. If there is no difference, then Mormons have an even more difficult case to argue for in order to demonstrate this premise, for it essentially claims that Christ’s Life meant or did nothing.

Not at all. The difference is the Old Covenant vs the New Covenant.

Please note I did not say that “the church began with Adam”

I guess I could take this back far enough-- but did any Mormon say that here?

We believe that Adam and the OT prophets knew about and looked forward to the savior’s birth. Isaiah and all the prophets give us ample evidence of that.

The savior’s mission was just as you believe it – to atone for our sins and reverse spiritually the effects of the fall.

It is a semantic issue. If Abraham for example knew that the savior was coming, and that he was commanded to perform sacrifice as a foreshadowing of the savior (which we believe he believed) was he a member of Jesus’ church? How would you define it? Doesn’t much matter.

But that is what we believe. They knew of his mission and his purpose and looked forward to it.

 

[mfbukowski]

WOW, so many questions that totally get off the subject here.

Is this always the way things happen on this board? I guess I could try to answer all the mis-truths spoken of here, but that would just take us further and further away from the topic.

Unfortunately that is the way it is. Moves very fast and no one listens or cares. Honestly- that is the way it is. I think the only reason I stay is I am trying to get a word in edgewise in the yelling match. It’s like 40 people arguing in the same room.

I am thinking of starting a new blogsite for catholics and mormons that would have better standards for charitability and actually discuss things. The trick I think is strict control of derailing threads. No one should respond to a derailer

 

[mfbukowski]

Many sects have been started with similar “witnesses.” Heck, televangelists have thousands of “witnesses” who would swear to seeing miracles.

Further, if you want people to believe Joseph Smith, or believe in miracles that you’ve seen, then how do you discount the thousands of recorded miracles throughout every generation documented within the Catholic Church?

Whether by number, documentation, or rigor of examination, the Catholic Church certainly has everyone beat. By a huge margin.

I personally believe that such things occurr through Jesus Christ and in his name by faith. I would not dispute the general proposition that Catholics also experience miracles.

I might dispute an individual miracle, but not the general idea

 

[mfbukowski]

My wife used to be a mormon and now she is in RCIA. My brother -in-law is an elder in the Mormon church so I learned a little about their faith while engaging in apologetic debate with the unending amount of missionaries that would come through our doors.

They believe in eternal progression, somewhat similar to the eastern religeous belief in the hypothesis of reincarnation. Mormons believe in a heaven that has varying degrees of importance. The soul is on a continuing journey of enlightenment and eventually mormons believe they can become like God and have a world of their own over which they will have dominion. They believe that Jesus had dominion only of our planet Earth.

They do not believe in One God in three devine persons. Their Trinitarian theology incorporates 3 independent beings in their Godhead.
And of course, Utah was the last state that gained statehood because of their belief in polygamy.

This is a very confused conglomeration some of which we believe and most of which we don’t. I think you misunderstood the missionaries

 

[mfbukowski]

That doesn’t answer the question that I posed against your premise, a premise upon which your claim of authority and apostasy relies.

Your questions are, IMO, irrelevant to the question I put to your premise. The purpose of our lives can remain constant while things change throughout history.

The purpose of our lives, by the way, is essentially: “God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next.” Here, in just 26 words, is the whole reason for our existence. Jesus answered the question even more briefly: “I came so that [you] might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10)."

Or, in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s words: “The human person is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord, and by doing so, to save his or her soul.
All other things on the face of the earth are created for human beings in order to help them pursue the end for which they are created.
It follows from this that one must use other created things, in so far as they help towards one’s end, and free oneself from them, in so far as they are obstacles to one’s end.”

This purpose is constant through the ages, but this constancy does not imply that our faith journeys or God’s work among His children is in any way static.

Things obviously change–we experience life through time, and God interacts with us through time. Christ’s life happened in a discrete point in time, and it mattered. If it mattered, how does that change things? Why did Jews and Christians alike believe that souls of the dead essentially waited for Christ’s death and resurrection if something did not change after that event? Why was the Incarnation special? Why was Christ’s sending of the Holy Spirit special?

If you look through history, you see distinct patterns in how God interacted with His children, to shepherd us and raise us through Salvation History. It went from Family (Noah) to Tribe (Abraham) to Nation (Israel) to Kingdom (Saul/David) to the whole World (with the welcoming of Gentiles in, finally, making the Church finally Catholic, or “universal”).

The Mormon claim of a full Christian church unchanged but for apostasies has to contend with these patterns and with its own definition of “continuing revelation” to demonstrate who it can be a complete church while changing things, and if changing things, how a complete church?

I don’t know how you got the idea that we disagree on many of these points-- I think we agree on many, and I am not sure what you mean on the others.