Help with debating a Mormon

[twopekinguys]

Two Pekinguys,

Here is what I had said that you commented on:

“The loss of authority happened when men lost the trust God had placed in them by taking authority on themselves. The apostle John was still alive when a bishop in Rome supposedly said, “I’m in charge now.” That is called usurping authority.”

I used the word “supposedly” deliberately. I have agreed that Linus didn’t say he was “in charge”. I have never read who first said the bishop of Rome was the head of the earthly Catholic Church, nor do I care. The usurping took place when anyone who had authority recognized by others, said a bishop of Rome should be in charge of more than the church in Rome. I take it that that happened at some point. I just don’t care when–the point is, it happened and that is how the case is presented today to the world.

It was important that the Book of Mormon be corrected back to the “original intent” of the prophets whose words were being transmitted to us. You may think that should have been a perfect, impeccable process in order to be believed. I just don’t agree. The process of correcting it worked.

The book can be read on its own. The original version was fine, also. So what if the grammar wasn’t perfect. I can think–I can understand imperfect grammar, misspelled words (a lot on this website). The “correctness” of the book had to do with the teachings, not the grammar.

A history presents a point of view at a certain point in time. That is all. It is merely an attempt to capture a point of view.

My relationships with Christ and the Father and the Holy Spirit have been greatly impacted by the reading I have done contributed to my life through what Joseph Smith did. That is exactly why his writings are important to me.

The Church in hiding thread was a response to a question from Placido, followed by other questions that led to other responses. I never led off without there first having been a question asked that led to the response. I read the feedback. It was mostly quite enjoyable, especially to find a group that was for the most part cordial.

That thread lasted far longer than I ever would have thought when I first responded. I kept looking back, and there were more questions or issues to clarify. I think it was a pretty straightforward thread.

Good evening to you both.

You just aren’t getting it.

Where did you get the information that the Bishop of Rome “supposedly” said this. You have not provided any information as to where this comes from. I think the only “supposedly” occured in your mind.

JS makes an even more boastful declaration (documented I might add), and you write it off as a transcription mistake, or stress.

Let’s see here, we have a totally unfounded statement by you that this comment “supposedly” occured. We have a written record of the JS statement. Which do you think the vast majority of people with any type of reasoning skills is going to believe. By the way, how do you pick and choose what was transcribed correctly? That seems to be a tactic that lds use anytime they can’t answer something away.

As far as usurping, no matter how you twist it, even by your own defintion(s), JS was usurping power when he made that statement. After all, we have your fictional statement, which you say is usurping, then we have JS documentend statement which goes far and above the “I am in charge” statement.

Now, about the BoM. having to be corrected back to its “original intent”. Are you saying the book that is/was supposedly the most perfect book ever written was corrupted or wrong when it was written? Or possibly the man/men handling it changed it a little too much?

Yes, your response on the church in hiding thead was a response to a response, etc.

But your response speaks for itself. You have no intentions of learning anything other than what JS, and the lds organization wants you to, and you are not open to anything outside of that. How sad for you.

So, I guess bottom line here is. You totally fabricated the statement about a Bishop of Rome saying “I am in charge.”

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I don’t know about you; but from my reading of the OP’s quote, he doesn’t reject that kind of revelation either.

The OP was looking for a way to respond to the misapplication of “revelation” to the issue of authority. As I set forth above, the latter is not dependent on the existence of the former. And as I noted, this position does not negate the claim to ongoing revelation - only that such revelations are not binding on the faithful as a whole. Again, you are not grasping my point. You seem to be restating it simply to suit your desire for an argument. I’m going to cease meeting that desire with this last post.

zerinus:

There was no “cessation of public” revelation, and you never proved that there was one. Of course there was a “cessation” after the Apostasy, because there was no authorized representative from God on earth to receive such revelation; but that does not mean that after the Restoration there should not be any.

My initial point was that Jesus was the culmination of all public revelation. You seem to reject that argument as is your right. But in rejecting it, please don’t pretend that I presented you with no argument at all. That’s just plain dishonest.

Regarding your claim that the “Great Apostacy” was the reason for an end to PR - umm, well that’s your burden.

]
That is not what I said, and you should know it.

Your position was that each book of the bible was written for that time period. If that’s the case, then my position is valid. It may be usefull, but it is not binding public revelation - if your point of view is correct. This seems entirely consistent with the LDS position of accepting the doctrines of the current Prophet even when the run counter to those of the prior Prophets. I think your position is consistent with the LDS position - that is to say it is consistently wrong.

Zerinus:

That was NOT the sole purpose of the scriptures.

I NEVER said it was the SOLE purpose of the scriptures. I said that the scriptures document God’s public revelation - and that the Scriptures show that public revelation culminates with Jesus Christ. STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POINT.

zerinus:

Who are you to say that the world does not need such divine messengers to give it such warnings, when this has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind since createion?

I’m not the one making the claim. God makes the claim through His Church. I’m only repeating it. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (protected by the Church through the ages) IS THE MESSAGE for ALL GENERATIONS. THAT is my point. Nothing your “prophets” have said since the founding (not restoration) of your religion has added to the Truths revealed by Christ and guarded by His Holy Catholic Church.

[Continued]

 

[PaulDupre]

Awesome! Well I don’t know a whole lot of RM’s who’ve left for the true faith, but there really isn’t a whole lot of RM’s where I live so …go figure I guess.
Wow…this is awesome to find others who’ve felt and traveled a similar path, its just nice not to feel alone in that aspect.

I’m an RM (Taiwan Taipei Mission 1977-1979). Statistics from the LDS Church show that nearly 50% of RMs leave the church within 2 years after returning from their missions. Serving a mission is meant primarily to strangthen the young LDS men in their faith, but now seems to be having the opposite effect.

 

[ParkerD]

You just aren’t getting it.

Where did you get the information that the Bishop of Rome “supposedly” said this. You have not provided any information as to where this comes from. I think the only “supposedly” occured in your mind.

JS makes an even more boastful declaration (documented I might add), and you write it off as a transcription mistake, or stress.

Let’s see here, we have a totally unfounded statement by you that this comment “supposedly” occured. We have a written record of the JS statement. Which do you think the vast majority of people with any type of reasoning skills is going to believe. By the way, how do you pick and choose what was transcribed correctly? That seems to be a tactic that lds use anytime they can’t answer something away.

As far as usurping, no matter how you twist it, even by your own defintion(s), JS was usurping power when he made that statement. After all, we have your fictional statement, which you say is usurping, then we have JS documentend statement which goes far and above the “I am in charge” statement.

Now, about the BoM. having to be corrected back to its “original intent”. Are you saying the book that is/was supposedly the most perfect book ever written was corrupted or wrong when it was written? Or possibly the man/men handling it changed it a little too much?

Yes, your response on the church in hiding thead was a response to a response, etc.

But your response speaks for itself. You have no intentions of learning anything other than what JS, and the lds organization wants you to, and you are not open to anything outside of that. How sad for you.

So, I guess bottom line here is. You totally fabricated the statement about a Bishop of Rome saying “I am in charge.”

The original published Book of Mormon had grammar that needed correcting. Some of the correcting was due to printer’s errors. It needn’t mean anything to you to be a “correct” book. So what if you don’t like the book? I don’t care.

As far as I’m concerned, the Holy Spirit and Christ are my most important teachers in this life, not anyone else. I do learn from others as I go, including having learned from some Catholics on this website, but the main teachers are as I said, and the Book of Mormon and the Bible allow Them to teach me, as does prayer.

My statement about the bishop of Rome saying he was in charge was not a direct quote, of course. (He wouldn’t have spoken English at the time the office became the "head of the earthly church.) Maybe no bishop of Rome ever said words to that effect. Maybe you have a church led by bishops all over the world, with equal authority. I think that would be a good idea.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Are you sure [John was the last Prophet]?

Yes, Z, I’m sure. I think we both agree that Jesus was more than merely a prophet. He was the fulfillment of what all the OT prophets prefigured. That’s why the period of public revelation ended with the Word made Flesh. What more words were left to say when God’s Word dwelt among us?

I trust in the Scriptures when they tell me:

“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” (Heb. 1:1-2)

And I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church when - in reflecting on that message from scripture - she teaches that God has said everything in his Word:

Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. (CCC 65; see also 66-67)

And it’s also noted in the Catechism that St. John of the Cross - among others - comments strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. (CCC 65, citing St. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel 2,22,3-5 in The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, tr. K. Kavanaugh, OCD, and O. Rodriguez, OCD (Washington DC:Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979),179-180:LH, OR Advent, week 2, Mon.)

I accept the teaching of Scripture, the Catholic Church, and St. John of the Cross over you or any of the self-proclaimed LDS prophets and their fundamental misunderstanding on this point.

Seriously, Z, you should think about this issue harder. My apologies if I’ve come across too harsh in my prior post. I can take only so much mis-stating of my position before I get cranky.

Peace,
Robert

 

[twopekinguys]

The original published Book of Mormon had grammar that needed correcting. Some of the correcting was due to printer’s errors. It needn’t mean anything to you to be a “correct” book. So what if you don’t like the book? I don’t care.

As far as I’m concerned, the Holy Spirit and Christ are my most important teachers in this life, not anyone else. I do learn from others as I go, including having learned from some Catholics on this website, but the main teachers are as I said, and the Book of Mormon and the Bible allow Them to teach me, as does prayer.

My statement about the bishop of Rome saying he was in charge was not a direct quote, of course. (He wouldn’t have spoken English at the time the office became the "head of the earthly church.) Maybe no bishop of Rome ever said words to that effect. Maybe you have a church led by bishops all over the world, with equal authority. I think that would be a good idea.

“Some” of the correcting due to printer’s errors. Fine, I can go with that. It still happens today. But you aren’t addressing the others.

So by saying “Maybe no Bishop of Rome ever said words to that effect”, are you saying you made it up?

I think the structure of Christ’s Church on Earth, The Roman Catholic Church, has worked just fine for 2000 years, and no false prophet, no the gates of hell have prevailed against it.

By the way, I never said I didn’t like the BoM. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I was merely stating facts. Facts that you are obviously aware of, and chose to ignore.

If you made up the statement about the Bishop of Rome, just say so. I would forgive you for saying it, and we could just move on from there.

 

[PaulDupre]

Agreed that Linus as the bishop of Rome did not say he was “in charge” at all. I think people later said the bishop of Rome was “in charge.” Why should I care to look any of that up? I just don’t care. It isn’t worth my time, at all.

Why don’t you just admit you made it up? Parker, you have a bad habit of deception - inventing history, misquoting scripture, misrepresenting the claims of the Book of Mormon - it is typical of a desperate Mormon lying for the Lord. You all seem to do it.

It shows that your religion hasn’t an honest leg to stand on.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The funny thing is, a number of the corrections in later editions actually corrected “Hebraisms” that are present in the 1830 edition, which are now corrected to fit English grammar. It’s interesting to see websites that claim some Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon that are present only in the 1830 version, which were corrected out.

But that belongs in the “Linguistics and the Book of Mormon” thread, which tanked.

 

[zerinus]

The OP was looking for a way to respond to the misapplication of “revelation” to the issue of authority. As I set forth above, the latter is not dependent on the existence of the former. And as I noted, this position does not negate the claim to ongoing revelation - only that such revelations are not binding on the faithful as a whole. Again, you are not grasping my point. You seem to be restating it simply to suit your desire for an argument. I’m going to cease meeting that desire with this last post.

My initial point was that Jesus was the culmination of all public revelation. You seem to reject that argument as is your right. But in rejecting it, please don’t pretend that I presented you with no argument at all. That’s just plain dishonest.

Regarding your claim that the “Great Apostacy” was the reason for an end to PR - umm, well that’s your burden.

Your position was that each book of the bible was written for that time period. If that’s the case, then my position is valid. It may be usefull, but it is not binding public revelation - if your point of view is correct. This seems entirely consistent with the LDS position of accepting the doctrines of the current Prophet even when the run counter to those of the prior Prophets. I think your position is consistent with the LDS position - that is to say it is consistently wrong.

I NEVER said it was the SOLE purpose of the scriptures. I said that the scriptures document God’s public revelation - and that the Scriptures show that public revelation culminates with Jesus Christ. STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POINT.

I’m not the one making the claim. God makes the claim through His Church. I’m only repeating it. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (protected by the Church through the ages) IS THE MESSAGE for ALL GENERATIONS. THAT is my point. Nothing your “prophets” have said since the founding (not restoration) of your religion has added to the Truths revealed by Christ and guarded by His Holy Catholic Church.

[Continued]

Yes, Z, I’m sure. I think we both agree that Jesus was more than merely a prophet. He was the fulfillment of what all the OT prophets prefigured. That’s why the period of public revelation ended with the Word made Flesh. What more words were left to say when God’s Word dwelt among us?

I trust in the Scriptures when they tell me:

And I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church when - in reflecting on that message from scripture - she teaches that God has said everything in his Word:

And it’s also noted in the Catechism that St. John of the Cross - among others - comments strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

I accept the teaching of Scripture, the Catholic Church, and St. John of the Cross over you or any of the self-proclaimed LDS prophets and their fundamental misunderstanding on this point.

Seriously, Z, you should think about this issue harder. My apologies if I’ve come across too harsh in my prior post. I can take only so much mis-stating of my position before I get cranky.

Peace,
Robert

Sorry Robert, your posts don’t make sense to me. I stand by what I have said.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’m an RM (Taiwan Taipei Mission 1977-1979). Statistics from the LDS Church show that nearly 50% of RMs leave the church within 2 years after returning from their missions. Serving a mission is meant primarily to strangthen the young LDS men in their faith, but now seems to be having the opposite effect.

Correction: It’s 40%, not 50%.

 

[twopekinguys]

Correction: It’s 40%, not 50%.

Wow, either way, that is an extremely high percentage.

Do we know, on average how many missionaries are out and about during a given year?

 

[ParkerD]

“Some” of the correcting due to printer’s errors. Fine, I can go with that. It still happens today. But you aren’t addressing the others.

So by saying “Maybe no Bishop of Rome ever said words to that effect”, are you saying you made it up?

I think the structure of Christ’s Church on Earth, The Roman Catholic Church, has worked just fine for 2000 years, and no false prophet, no the gates of hell have prevailed against it.

By the way, I never said I didn’t like the BoM. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I was merely stating facts. Facts that you are obviously aware of, and chose to ignore.

If you made up the statement about the Bishop of Rome, just say so. I would forgive you for saying it, and we could just move on from there.

Twopekinguys,
Sometimes in writing a point of view is expressed by the person doing the writing expressing the intent of a group of people by saying, “they said such and such”. It really doesn’t necessarily mean they said the exact words. It means they communicated an intent, or a message or an understanding that was brought into the mind of another person by whatever they may have done or said. As I said, use of the word “supposedly” was intended to express that the comment was not going to be a direct quote, but what was attributed at some point in time to the circumstance. It sounds to me from the response to that comment that there is quite a bit of uncertainty about that whole issue of when the bishop of Rome was supposedly placed “in charge”, and by whom.

 

[PaulDupre]

Wow, either way, that is an extremely high percentage.

Do we know, on average how many missionaries are out and about during a given year?

According to Mormon Times (an online LDS News Digest) they have about 55,000 full-time missionaries in the field at any given time.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
Sometimes in writing a point of view is expressed by the person doing the writing expressing the intent of a group of people by saying, “they said such and such”. It really doesn’t necessarily mean they said the exact words. It means they communicated an intent, or a message or an understanding that was brought into the mind of another person by whatever they may have done or said. As I said, use of the word “supposedly” was intended to express that the comment was not going to be a direct quote, but what was attributed at some point in time to the circumstance. It sounds to me from the response to that comment that there is quite a bit of uncertainty about that whole issue of when the bishop of Rome was supposedly placed “in charge”, and by whom.

But your intent was to deceive, and it was obvious. When you look at your post number 356, where you try to pass something from NewAdvent as your source, it reinforces your attempt at deception.

As far as communicating “intent”. Like I said earlier. The difference between the Pope (The Vicar of Christ) and JS, is the Pope doesn’t/hasn’t boasted about how great he is. Most if not all of the Popes are very humble about their election. Did you know that when a new Pope is elected, he immediately goes to what is called “The room of Tears”? Where they prayerfully contemplate what has been bestowed upon them. To my knowledge, no Pope has ever declared himself greater than Jesus like JS did.

You keep wriggling around owning up to your obviously dubious statement. Just own up to it.

The only uncertainty about when the Bishop of Rome was put in charge, is in your mind.

But good attempt at trying to twist things, and divert attention from your deception.

 

[twopekinguys]

According to Mormon Times (an online LDS News Digest) they have about 55,000 full-time missionaries in the field at any given time.

Wow, that is amazing. I know you said 40% leave within 2 years, but if we even give a margin of error of 10% in favor to the lds, making the figure 30%. That would mean approximately 16,500 of their returned missionaries leave the church within 2 years.

I am truly amazed.

 

[ParkerD]

But your intent was to deceive, and it was obvious. When you look at your post number 356, where you try to pass something from NewAdvent as your source, it reinforces you attempt at deception.

As far as communicating “intent”. Like I said earlier. The difference between the Pope (The Vicar of Christ) and JS, is the Pope doesn’t/hasn’t boasted about how great he is. Most if not all of the Popes are very humble about their election. Did you know that when a new Pope is elected, he immediately goes to what is called “The room of Tears”? Where they prayerfully contemplate what has been bestowed upon them. To my knowledge, no Pope has ever declared himself greater than Jesus like JS did.

You keep wriggling around owning up to your obviously dubious statement. Just own up to it.

The only uncertainty about when the Bishop of Rome was put in charge, was in your mind.

But good attempt at trying to twist things, and divert attention from your deception.

Twopekinguys,
Sorry if you felt deceived. I was doing what I have explained. JS didn’t say he was “greater than Jesus.” He said he had held the church together, amidst a great deal of persecution and trouble. Jesus obviously would have done better at that had He been on the earth past 34 AD. He would have done a masterful job at holding the church together.

I still don’t get when the Bishop of Rome was put in charge, nor by whom in terms of the written history.

 

[ParkerD]

Here is a better link about the origination of the idea of the Bishop of Rome leading the church, that I just looked up using Google:

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

 

[ParkerD]

Here is another link about the same subject (bishops of Rome):

cogwriter.com/sixtus.htm

I have no idea where Randy Carson came up with what he had posted. Everyone might as well disregard it. Those other sources seem more thorough about the subject.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
Sorry if you felt deceived. I was doing what I have explained. JS didn’t say he was “greater than Jesus.” He said he had held the church together, amidst a great deal of persecution and trouble. Jesus obviously would have done better at that had He been on the earth past 34 AD. He would have done a masterful job at holding the church together.

I still don’t get when the Bishop of Rome was put in charge, nor by whom in terms of the written history.

That is no apology. Nor is it an admission that you intended to deceive.

There is a difference between, “I am sorry you felt deceived”, as opposed to “I am sorry I deceived you”.

Again, JS statement (bolding mine)

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter,** nor Jesus ever did it**

Having more to boast is bragging, saying look at me, I did something our Lord and Saviour couldn’t/ didn’t do. In your terms, no, he didn’t exactly say he was greater, but his intent was clear.

As far as Apostolic succession. You are aware of it, you know how it works, it has been explained to you. Besides, your statement on the church in hiding thread clearly indicates that you aren’t interested in anything written by early church fathers. Do I need to repost your post?

 

[ParkerD]

That is no apology. Nor is it an admission that you intended to deceive.

There is a difference between, “I am sorry you felt deceived”, as opposed to “I am sorry I deceived you”.

Again, JS statement (bolding mine)

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter,** nor Jesus ever did it**

Having more to boast is bragging, saying look at me, I did something our Lord and Saviour couldn’t/ didn’t do. In your terms, no, he didn’t exactly say he was greater, but his intent was clear.

As far as Apostolic succession. You are aware of it, you know how it works, it has been explained to you. Besides, your statement on the church in hiding thread clearly indicates that you aren’t interested in anything written by early church fathers. Do I need to repost your post?

Sorry to have been misunderstood. Sorry JS offended you. He shouldn’t have said such a thing. Shame on him.

I really do appreciate your having insisted so that it would lead me to Google for more information. Those articles are really interesting. They do involve apostolic succession, but not in the way it has been explained to me by Catholics.