Is this all the CC has?

  • Thread starter Thread starter teancum79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That was some interesrting comparisons but I’m a bit lost as to the point.
 
teancum79 said:
Well thank you for putting it so kindly.
Click to expand...
It is not your fault, as that is part of being Mormon, kept ignorant and in the dark about Christian history. You go from Christ’s Resurrection to 1800 years later. And are taught nothing of went on inbetween, other than little snippets here and there that are meant to confirm your belief of an apostasy.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Which doctrines have changed?

You can find historical documents, research, books, etc from non-Catholic sources that verify Catholic historical claims. Can you do the same for Mormonism?

Pseudo-reformers like Luther almost got it right. You should read more on Luther. What were his issues? Some, if not most of them, were very valid. He never claimed the Catholic Church was not Christ’s Church. He had a list of things that bothered him, as something that people in Christ’s Church should not be doing.

The Council of Trent addressed many of them. And many more have been addressed since then. Take his list today, and tell me what reforms need to be done to address them that have already not happened.

Also, take a look at what people like St. Francis of Assisi were doing around the same time period.

It is you who is choosing to see what you want to see, in order to feed your Mormon need for apostasy. You can try to justify it all you like, but you are only going to conclude what you want to conclude. It isn’t possible for you to do otherwise, not as long as you are a Mormon.
Click to expand...
I suppose the same could be said for your being catholic.
 
teancum79 said:
I suppose the same could be said for your being catholic.
Click to expand...
There is a real difference. My first exposure to “Catholic” history had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It was in a course in early mediaeval history at The University of Michigan. We read primary sources from the second, third, fourth centuries. They WERE Catholic sources because the Church was THERE. You can learn a lot about the early Church without having the Church teach it to you.

Mormon “history” – the written record – begins in the 19th Century as a prophetic experience.
 
teancum79 said:
I suppose the same could be said for your being catholic.
Click to expand...
That would be an assumption on your part. I was raised a Mormon, left for atheism, and spent a few years researching Christianity with no intent to convert. It was an interest, like any other, wanting to know something about Christianity, as I knew nothing about it at all. Other than, what Mormonism had taught me. Which would be nothing.

I know how in the dark you are because everything I’ve ever read I had never heard before. Amazing, large, history, and I definately read more than imprimatured writings. I read all angles, on the subjects that interested me the most. And continue to read more today.

I also like to put everything I read into the context of secular history. Not necessary to understanding Christianity, but it helps me understand how Christianity fits into what was happening in the world. And for much of world history, they are tightly tied together. I find it fascinating, but I understand not everyone would.
 
I like history it was half of my undergrad minor. I also understand its limits. As for being in the “dark” there is no greater light than that of Christ and his teachings. They are (to steel from psalms) a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
 
teancum79 said:
I like history it was half of my undergrad minor. I also understand its limits. As for being in the “dark” there is no greater light than that of Christ and his teachings. They are (to steel from psalms) a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Click to expand...
Yes, history has its limits, but that doesn’t mean you throw it all out because it doesn’t agree with what you are hoping to find.

Yes, Christ is our Hope. His Love is our light. Don’t be afraid to follow Him.
 
teancum79 said:
Well I personalty don’t agree with that, but my questing is how do you know which branch is the right branch? the Orthodox history says that they came first and that the CC broke off from them. Luther and many others could (not sure if any do) claim that the CC went astray.
Click to expand...
Your question has been answered many times, including in this thread. If you tell us where you think the Catholic version of history breaks down, then we can have a discussion. 🙂 Otherwise it’s just you changing from new angle to new angle as each is refuted. 🤷
 
mercygate said:
There is a real difference. My first exposure to “Catholic” history had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It was in a course in early mediaefal history at The University of Michigan. We read primary sources from the second, third, fourth centuries. They WERE Catholic sources because the Church was THERE. You can learn a lot about the early Church without having the Church teach it to you.
Click to expand...
Yes, this - exactly! I was set on the road to conversion by an art history class, of all things, taught in a private art university which is decidedly secular. The class was about the development of philosophy in the West, and how that influenced aesthetic trends and eventually led to the Renaissance. 85% of the class was reading primary sources from the earliest period of the Church, and comparing the theories in those writings to developments in art and architecture. The professor was an atheist, so she was certainly not pushing any kind of Catholic agenda. By the end of the course, my life had been changed forever.
 
May I add that it pleases me to a certain degree that the OP said that evidence and facts is all we have? :rolleyes:
 
MarcoPolo said:
May I add that it pleases me to a certain degree that the OP said that evidence and facts is all we have? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Presumably we’re missing that amazing “burning in the bosom” which is all the Mormons have.
 
ibkc said:
Yes, this - exactly! I was set on the road to conversion by an art history class, of all things, taught in a private art university which is decidedly secular. The class was about the development of philosophy in the West, and how that influenced aesthetic trends and eventually led to the Renaissance. 85% of the class was reading primary sources from the earliest period of the Church, and comparing the theories in those writings to developments in art and architecture. The professor was an atheist, so she was certainly not pushing any kind of Catholic agenda. By the end of the course, my life had been changed forever.
Click to expand...
Man! I wonder how many of us were converted, at least in part, because of the art. My first whomp upside the knot was Westminster Abbey at age 9 – followed in my teens by the great cathedrals of Europe. I asked myself: WHAT in the world could have INSPIRED these things?
 
MarcoPolo said:
Your question has been answered many times, including in this thread. If you tell us where you think the Catholic version of history breaks down, then we can have a discussion. 🙂 Otherwise it’s just you changing from new angle to new angle as each is refuted. 🤷
Click to expand...
I think I’ve been quite clear on when I see some major changes.
 
ibkc said:
Presumably we’re missing that amazing “burning in the bosom” which is all the Mormons have.
Click to expand...
No we are not missing that either I am sure some us have had private revelation - we just dont proclaim them as dogma - and they were not reading the bumps on Peters head

Acts Of Apostles 10
44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
 
teancum79 said:
I think I’ve been quite clear on when I see some major changes.
Click to expand...
Yet, you ask what my point is when I addressed them. Short address that it was.

Mormons present Luther as some sort of savior of Christianity. While he helped instigate real reforms within Catholicism, nothing that he said or did changed Catholic doctrine. Yet, the Protestant churches have changed doctrines to suit the whims of individual humans.

You use the KJV of the Bible, which has had writings removed from it by the King’s Church. Why don’t you use a complete Bible? What authority did King Henry VIII and his successors have for making scriptural and doctrinal changes?
 
teancum79 said:
I think I’ve been quite clear on when I see some major changes.
Click to expand...
I am certainly not seeing it in this thread. I saw you threw out “major changes” in 350, but that doesn’t really give us anything to work with. Did I miss it in another post??
 
teancum79 said:
I’m trying to understand the CC better. I’ve lost count of how many people tell me that they have facts, proof and evidance that they’ve been around for 2k years. I’m trying to understand if thats the core you guys really teach as being “why we are right”.
Click to expand...
It is pretty basic.

But then you would have to accept Jesus as God (LDS don’t).

And because He is God, why would anyone want to belong to another faith community, cult, prayer group etc… other than the only one founded by God Himself?

The question should be turned around. And I ask you… is Joseph Smith all you’ve got?

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top