For Mormons - How Much Do You Really Know About Joseph Smith?

[BrotherofJared]

This has already been addressed (again). Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church established by Jesus Christ. Within it, the sacraments necessary for salvation, as revealed by Jesus Christ, are found. We call all to be part of Christ’s Church, since we know that that is where salvation can be found. However, the reality is that there are some that will never hear the message of Christ’s Church in their life. So, we believe that God, who is God, in His omniscience, can judge that person and determine whether they would have accepted the fulness of the Gospel in this life if they had the opportunity to accept it. This is something that only God can know. With that being said, God has revealed the normative means of salvation, and that is why we call people to the Truth revealed by God.

Based on this reasoning, there is no need for a church at all because God will judge us on what we “would” have done had we known, I mean really “known.” yeah yeah. So why are you here talking to me? And, how will we get those saving ordinances. Certainly we lost the chance. This sounds so Protestant. You take it one step farther by saying that you don’t even really need to confess Christ with your lips as your personal savior cause, God will just know that you would have.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Well that effectively removes about 3500 years of God’s dealings with his children. Now you can just decide what to keep and what to get rid off. Since the 10 commandments are in the New Testament, then I assume you don’t have to follow those either, because they aren’t “Christian” values? That truly is picking what you want to believe and leaving the rest out. You can write your own ticket to heaven. No one can argue celestial values against such reasoning.

Huh? Are you actually reading what you responded to? Why would what I stated effectively remove 3500 years of God’s dealings with His children? That makes no sense. The Old Testament is not a Christian document. The New Testament is. However, as I stated, it is revered and held to be the word of God by Christians. The Old Testament prefigures the good news (Gospel) that we learn of in the New Testament. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament (another word for “testament” is “covenant”).

No, I don’t get to decide what to keep and what to get rid of. Joseph Smith thought he could do that actually. Indeed, LDS Bibles are missing some of the books the first Christians held to be inspired in the Old Testament, while Catholics have those books. Curiously, the New Testament canon that you regard to be the word of God was actually determined by inspired Catholics anciently.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Based on this reasoning, there is no need for a church at all because God will just on what we “would” have had we known, I mean really “known.” yeah yeah. show me that in your CCC.

This demonstrates a lack of comprehension of what was stated. There is most certainly a need for the Church, as I stated in the very post you were responding to.

 

[ffg]

And you provide equally useless links to refute the info. Amazing. But I tell you what, I’ll go see if the pages he actually quoted are correct. If they are, then; unless the Catholic church changed it’s doctrine, then either you or they are in the wrong place.

Instant replay!

I gave you a link to the CCC again here, the instruction manual for Catholicism’s teachings. Have a question? go here first

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

You provided out of context partial quotes with non-Catholic analysis trying to show Catholic Church teachings from a non-Catholic (anti-Catholic?) source.

You then expect someone to use this non-Catholic (anti-Catholic?) source as credible evidence for some kind of explanation for Catholic teaching that regardless of conclusion from the non-Catholic (anti-Catholic?) source -

Would need to be thrown against an actual credible Catholic source anyway.

Not to mention be placed in context before even trying to understand it.

Ugh. That’s too bad, I always hope for the best in debate.

To conclude, you lost me at the ‘picking on Mormon’s’ bit. I think my post history speaks for itself. (which is not often, maybe ever, in a Mormon thread)

 

[LivingWaters7]

Name one.

I already did (a few more than one), and I will await your specific evidence that these doctrines were held by the ancient Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Huh? Are you actually reading what you responded to? Why would what I stated effectively remove 3500 years of God’s dealings with His children? That makes no sense. The Old Testament is not a Christian document. The New Testament is. However, as I stated, it is revered and held to be the word of God by Christians. The Old Testament prefigures the good news (Gospel) that we learn of in the New Testament. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament (another word for “testament” is “covenant”).

Then you should have no problem with plural marriages. It is quite clearly authorized and condoned in the Old testament. But, I’m sure you’ll just dump that one cause it’s not part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I disagree with you on.)

I admit, I only read that you said the Old Testament is not Christian. Equally doesn’t make sense. Jesus said, he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not destroy them. The Old Testament is fully in tact. The shedding of blood as a sacrifice had been fulfilled in Him because he was that lamb and therefore would no longer be an acceptable sacrifice, but instead, now he requires the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. All of the teachings and doctrines are still in place. But for you, they (the Old Testament) are not Christian. Doesn’t make sense to me at all.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I already did (a few more than one), and I will await your specific evidence that these doctrines were held by the ancient Church of Jesus Christ.

I’ll look for them. But I don’t remember seeing anything specifically.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Instant replay!

I gave you a link to the CCC again here, the instruction manual for Catholicism’s teachings. Have a question? go here first

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

You provided out of context partial quotes with non-Catholic analysis trying to show Catholic Church teachings from a non-Catholic (anti-Catholic?) source.

You then expect someone to use this non-Catholic (anti-Catholic?) source as credible evidence for some kind of explanation for Catholic teaching that regardless of conclusion from the non-Catholic (anti-Catholic?) source -

Would need to be thrown against an actual credible Catholic source anyway.

Not to mention be placed in context before even trying to understand it.

Ugh. That’s too bad, I always hope for the best in debate.

To conclude, you lost me at the ‘picking on Mormon’s’ bit. I think my post history speaks for itself. (which is not often, maybe ever, in a Mormon thread)

I’m not going to read your entire CCC to find what you state is there. Put my finger right on the page where it’s suppose to be, or is that too much trouble?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Then you should have no problem with plural marriages. It is quite clearly authorized and condoned in the Old testament. But, I’m sure you’ll just dump that one cause it’s not part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I disagree with you on.)

-Point out specifically where in the Old Testament plural marriage is authorized and condoned.

-Point out specifically where the early Christians practiced plural marriage.

I admit, I only read that you said the Old Testament is not Christian. Equally doesn’t make sense. Jesus said, he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not destroy them. The Old Testament is fully in tact. The shedding of blood as a sacrifice had been fulfilled in Him because he was that lamb and therefore would no longer be an acceptable sacrifice, but instead, now he requires the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. All of the teachings and doctrines are still in place. But for you, they (the Old Testament) are not Christian. Doesn’t make sense to me at all.

Indeed, Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law and prophets. The New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant. From the above, you seem to be claiming that we should be doing all the things that were done in the Old Testament. Do you follow all the laws of the Old Testament? You say that all of the teachings and doctrines are still in place, so please do tell us how you follow all of the teachings of the Old Testament as a Mormon.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’ll look for them. But I don’t remember seeing anything specifically.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12414559&postcount=175

Provide the specific evidence asked for. Otherwise, it was all just Joseph Smith making stuff up and claiming it was “restored”.

 

[BrotherofJared]

This demonstrates a lack of comprehension of what was stated. There is most certainly a need for the Church, as I stated in the very post you were responding to.

No. There’s not sufficient evidence that there is a need for the church in your post. As soon as any church introduces that “god will know what was in your heart and let you into heaven” then that is an “out” for any person. It happens in the Mormon religion because of our work for the dead, but that’s NOT how it works (meaning the work for the dead).

Taking the “God knows what we would have done” to the next level - it is no different than saying we are pre-destined to heaven or hell. Because God knows what we would have done if he had known, then why do anything at all. Why even be born? Just kill us all as babies and then let God decide what we would have done had we known.

It’s just the entire theory of God will decide or God will know smells so much like pre-destination and if that’s the case, then there is no reason to do anything or belong to any church.

 

[ffg]

I’m not going to read your entire CCC to find what you state is there. Put my finger right on the page where it’s suppose to be, or is that too much trouble?

It has a search, go to town.

To start you off, I searched for Hell, this one best refutes your ‘well known fact’ and backs up my first post in this thread.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”.

 

[LivingWaters7]

No. There’s not sufficient evidence that there is a need for the church in your post. As soon as any church introduces that “god will know what was in your heart and let you into heaven” then that is an “out” for any person. It happens in the Mormon religion because of our work for the dead, but that’s NOT how it works (meaning the work for the dead).

Taking the “God knows what we would have done” to the next level - it is no different than saying we are pre-destined to heaven or hell. Because God knows what we would have done if he had known, then why do anything at all. Why even be born? Just kill us all as babies and then let God decide what we would have done had we known.

It’s just the entire theory of God will decide or God will know smells so much like pre-destination and if that’s the case, then there is no reason to do anything or belong to any church.

You seem to be denying that God is omniscient. Do you believe that God is all knowing?

God wants all of us to be part of His Church, the Catholic Church. It is through the sacraments of the Church that we receive grace from God. God has commanded us to go to all nations with the Gospel, and to baptize all. However, it is a simple fact that not all people will have the chance to hear the Gospel in this life. We believe that these people will not be punished for this, but instead God, in His infinite wisdom, mercy, and justice, can know if they would have accepted the Gospel if they did have that opportunity in this life. This is not an option for those that did have that opportunity. Therefore, yes, the Church is necessary and it is quite clear that the belief in invincible ignorance and baptism of desire does not change that.

 

[boomerang]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
Over and over Mormons tell us the sign of apostasy is the changing doctrine, yet they have invented many.

Name one.

How about this changing doctrine:

1. From an official LDS website: “Latter-day Saints believe…that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages.…” (Mormonnewsroom.org)
2. Joseph Smith quoted in “Times and Seasons” Vol. 3 p.358 (15th Nov. 1841): "We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father."
3. BrotherofJared quotes:** “Christ has always lived. He is Jehovah.”**

Summary:

1. Father and Son are separate beings.
2. Father and Jehovah are the same being.
3. Jehovah and Jesus are the same being.

All of the above are LDS doctrines, and all of the above are confusing and contradictory. Confusing and contradictory doctrines do not come from God. 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. "

 

[Stephen168]

Name one.

See post 141 and 175.
And it is the subject of what we’ve been talking about for the last several pages of this thread.

The Mormon Church invented doctrine never found in the Church started by Jesus Christ. The Mormon gospel is an invention not a restoration. Joseph Smith made it all up.

 

[Stephen168]

All of the above are LDS doctrines, and all of the above are confusing and contradictory. Confusing and contradictory doctrines do not come from God. 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. "

I would not say they are confusing but Mormon Doctrine is constantly changing and contradictory. They once had a book of Mormon Doctrine which they no longer use because Mormon Doctrine changed so much in 32 years that they had to throw it out. And they claim changing doctrine is a sign of the apostasy.

 

[Stephen168]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ never included the Melchizedek Priesthood

Hebrews 5:6

And even if there was such a thing; no human would qualify for the Melchizedek priesthood.

Genesis 14:18-20 A King-Priest Melchizedek appears and gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram. A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children.

Psalm 110:4 King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. A King-Priest bringing bread and wine. A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. There is no actual Melchizedek priesthood. Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.

Hebrews 7:4-10 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was a superior priesthood than the Levitical priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-14 If the Levitical priesthood was good enough, there would be no need for another priest as prophesied by King David. A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law. They were abolished because the law did not bring man into close communication with God.

Hebrews 7:20-25 Through Christ there is a better covenant because he is the eternal high priest like Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26-28 There is no need to offer sacrifices daily like the Levitical priesthood. Christ offered himself one time for all people sins forever.

John 6:31-69 Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many of his disciples leave him. The Jews gave Jesus three chances to tell them he was talking in a figurative manor but did not.

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinth 11:23-25 Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

John 1:26 Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice will take away the sin of the world.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant. This food we call Eucharist.

 

[Stephen168]

**Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?**Fora married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly,*she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

As a woman is free to marry because of the death of her husband, we are free from the law through the death of Christ. The woman is not an adulteress and we are not sinners. Therefore marriage ends at death.

 

[zaffiroborant]

In the resurrection, some will be raised to celestial glory and some to other glories. To obtain the celestial glory requires certain things which is to follow all that God ever taught, whether it be to Adam, or to Abraham or to Moses or to Elijah or to Peter. Among these things are the priesthood, marriage, baptism and families. If you cannot abide a celestial glory, you cannot live with God. Seems simple enough.

I see no support for priesthood, marriage or having a family being required for anything.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That would mean that after the original twelve were dead that there could be no more apostles and then no more church since it clearly states that in the church there are first apostles, second prophets, etc… of which, you have neither.

No it does not clearly state that there must be 12 apostles (by the way you have too many) or prophets. This is what it says:

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers

It is past tense that is used.

Joseph Smith could claim both because, he is an actual first hand witness to the resurrected Lord and he was in the company of members of the original twelve, namely, Peter, James and John.

But he doesn’t fulfill this requirement : “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us” so no he never was an apostle.