Is this all the CC has?

  • Thread starter Thread starter teancum79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sambos671 said:
From what I understand of history Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a shaddy character. Before he started Mormonism he was involved in all sorts of money making schemes. He participated in the begining aspects of freemasonary. Then when he came up with his religion and story about meeting the angel Morony(however you spell it) he confused the urim and thumim as a crystal that made some sort of glasses to read the book or Mormon on Gold tablets. These stones were most likely black and white and used to determin Gods direction closer to flipping a coin. He changed his story on multiple occasions and was thrown out of many towns. What should be conserning about Mormonism is how close it is to Islam in founding. I find it difficult that you stand for truth with a faith that openly claims to have
“another Testament of Jesus Christ” Anti-Christ understood by the greek would be “another” Christ instead of against. A christ replacement. Mormonism presents another christ. Not to mention archeologist have not substantiated the historical claims the book of Mormon makes about the lost tribe of Isreal or great civilization in the americas. Finally, when reading the book of mormon I’ve never received a “burning in my busom”. Mormonism is Americana religion all the way. Nothing historical or factual. It’s a shame many good people miss out on the real Jesus in this religion.😦
Click to expand...
You are welcome to your views, but facts remain even when they are disliked and misrepresented.
 
teancum79 said:
propaganda does not equal information. There are a lot of videos on you tube. Most are hard to take too seriously.
Click to expand...
Have you ever noticed they work real hard at making their temples look like rocket ships?
 
teancum79 said:
I can because it did happen. Judas leaned at Christ feet and that did not stop him for going astray.
Click to expand...
So, now the “apostasy” occurred before Jesus was even crucified? This is laughable. First, you said the apostasy occurred some time in Constantine’s era. You said you could only trust that the Apostles and those that knew them could be trusted to speak authentically from the source. Now you’ve been given the words of a man whose works contradict Joseph Smith’s claims, and who happens to have been the disciple of the Apostle John and the bishop of Antioch, appointed by Peter, and claim that *he *is the one in error, not Joseph Smith 1800 years later?

And the confusion about when the “apostasy” supposedly occurred amongst Mormons should be a source of embarrassment to you. Unlike Judas, Ignatius was ordained by Peter (conferring apostolic authority with the laying on of hands) and was also appointed bishop of Antioch by him. In fact, tradition says he was one of the children Jesus took in His arms and blessed. What does Joseph Smith have to recommend him, other than his own words?
 
teancum79 said:
I can because it did happen. Judas leaned at Christ feet and that did not stop him for going astray.
Click to expand...
However, he was not present at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples to seal the Church for Christ.
 
mercygate said:
However, he was not present at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples to seal the Church for Christ.
Click to expand...
Hi. not only that, but seems to me there is confusion about various indivuduals going apostate, and the entire Church going apostite.

There will, and always have been, individuals apostatizing. Judas obviously was one of these. That is a very different sort of situation than the claim by mormonns and some other protestant sects that Cathilic Church completely apostatized down to the last person and lost its priesthood authority.

This is the sort of fuzzy thinking charactizing the apostasy charge. They use a handful of famous individuals to infer universality upon the institution.
 
Eden said:
So, now the “apostasy” occurred before Jesus was even crucified? This is laughable. First, you said the apostasy occurred some time in Constantine’s era. You said you could only trust that the Apostles and those that knew them could be trusted to speak authentically from the source. Now you’ve been given the words of a man whose works contradict Joseph Smith’s claims, and who happens to have been the disciple of the Apostle John and the bishop of Antioch, appointed by Peter, and claim that *he *is the one in error, not Joseph Smith 1800 years later?

And the confusion about when the “apostasy” supposedly occurred amongst Mormons should be a source of embarrassment to you. Unlike Judas, Ignatius was ordained by Peter (conferring apostolic authority with the laying on of hands) and was also appointed bishop of Antioch by him. In fact, tradition says he was one of the children Jesus took in His arms and blessed. What does Joseph Smith have to recommend him, other than his own words?
Click to expand...
I was simply refuting the error of assuming that knowing a really good person makes it impossible to be in error.
 
teancum79 said:
I was simply refuting the error of assuming that knowing a really good person makes it impossible to be in error.
Click to expand...
Knowing a good person doesn’t make it impossible, but the Holy Spirit does.

What Catholics can’t understand is why Mormons would believe that God would allow the church to apostatize for 1800 years. Why on earth would I want to follow a God who is that incompetent or impotent?

Furthermore, where is the evidence that early Christians practiced endowment ceremonies, eternal marriages, or any other Mormon practices? And as I asked before, where is the endowment ceremony or the idea of eternal marriage in scripture?
 
teancum79 said:
I was simply refuting the error of assuming that knowing a really good person makes it impossible to be in error.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t just a “really good person”, he was given apostolic authority as a bishop, through the laying on of hands, directly from an Apostle chosen by Christ Himself. How in the world can you dismiss what he says so casually, when his qualifications for authority diminish the already empty claims to authority from Joseph Smith? Who has more credibility, a man chosen by an Apostle to be a bishop in the 1st century A.D. or a man in 19th century America who claimed to meet an angel and find golden plates that no one else ever saw?
 
Eden said:
He wasn’t just a “really good person”, he was given apostolic authority as a bishop, through the laying on of hands, directly from an Apostle chosen by Christ Himself. How in the world can you dismiss what he says so casually, when his qualifications for authority diminish the already empty claims to authority from Joseph Smith? Who has more credibility, a man chosen by an Apostle to be a bishop in the 1st century A.D. or a man in 19th century America who claimed to meet an angel and find golden plates that no one else ever saw?
Click to expand...
I guess the real question here is which person do you choose to believe:
A. The claims of someone from nearly 2000 years ago who claims to have divine authority with history to support him.

B The claims of someone a little less than 200 years ago who claims to have divine authority and suggests you ask God for yourself .

I’m gunna go B
 
valient_Lucy said:
Knowing a good person doesn’t make it impossible, but the Holy Spirit does.

What Catholics can’t understand is why Mormons would believe that God would allow the church to apostatize for 1800 years. Why on earth would I want to follow a God who is that incompetent or impotent?

Furthermore, where is the evidence that early Christians practiced endowment ceremonies, eternal marriages, or any other Mormon practices? And as I asked before, where is the endowment ceremony or the idea of eternal marriage in scripture?
Click to expand...
D&C has a lot Also in the Pearl of Great Price their is a statement about believe that God would yet revel many great and important things.

God is neither incompetent or impotent. He was not such when Israel was enslaved in Egypt. He was not when Christ died. He is quite able and powerful even today with each rape murder theft etc. that happens, but he allows us to make choices always has always will. Some choose to move towards God others away, but a persons or even an entire nations bad choices don’t equate to Gods inability.
 
teancum79 said:
God is neither incompetent or impotent. He was not such when Israel was enslaved in Egypt. He was not when Christ died. He is quite able and powerful even today with each rape murder theft etc. that happens, but he allows us to make choices always has always will. Some choose to move towards God others away, but a persons or even an entire nations bad choices don’t equate to Gods inability.
Click to expand...
all well and good, except that we have it on the authority of Scripture that Jesus himself promised that Satan (gates of hell) would not prevail over the Church that He established upon the person of Peter and the other Apostles. He also stated that He would be with us untiil the end of time.

A new era dawned upon the advent of the Messiah. The Church never collapsed, which is itself quite a miracle considering all that it has endured. It is still very alive and vibrant, and growing.

the bickering among the misinterpretors (separated sects, among them momrons) is what I would call the “bad choices” you make reference to.

May God bless us all.
 
teancum79 said:
I guess the real question here is which person do you choose to believe:
A. The claims of someone from nearly 2000 years ago who claims to have divine authority with history to support him.

B The claims of someone a little less than 200 years ago who claims to have divine authority and suggests you ask God for yourself .

I’m gunna go B
Click to expand...
Considering the fact that 2,000 years ago is closer to the source, and person A actually knew the Apostles John and Peter, I’m going with A. And how does choosing A exclude asking God myself?

What are person B’s qualifications again? Let’s see. American man living in 19th century America, arrested and charged with being a stone peeping and involved in other criminal activity. I’m going with B is a fraud:

Fraud revealed:

utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm
 
Eden said:
Considering the fact that 2,000 years ago is closer to the source, and person A actually knew the Apostles John and Peter, I’m going with A. And how does choosing A exclude asking God myself?

What are person B’s qualifications again? Let’s see. American man living in 19th century America, arrested and charged with being a stone peeping and involved in other criminal activity. I’m going with B is a fraud:

Fraud revealed:

utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm
Click to expand...
B was quite close to the source closer than A given that A routed though a 3rd party and B did not, but that really takes us far from the propose of this thread.

And there is nothing preventing you from asking God yourself I just don’t find many outside the LDS who promote the idea as a major theme.
 
teancum79 said:
B was quite close to the source closer than A given that A routed though a 3rd party and B did not, but that really takes us far from the propose of this thread.

And there is nothing preventing you from asking God yourself I just don’t find many outside the LDS who promote the idea as a major theme.
Click to expand...
the bible gives us jesus words as heard directly. the apostles in it learned directly from jesus during his earthly ministry.

Joseph smith gives us only his word that any of his claims are true. this is difficult as his version contradicts the bible, sometimes contradicts itself and is still subject to radical change. his life gives us little reason to consider him a trustworthy source.

Furthermore the the “ask God” is a little bit misleading. if one takes that moroni verse literally then one has to already want to believe it’s true and act as if it were true prior to “asking god”. then any feeling or thought that is positive is considered the “answer” and anything negative is also proof because it indicates the stupor of thought caused by Satan fighting to deceive you.

god already answered the question anyway in the bible. joseph smith cannot be a true prophet and the BoM cannot be true.
 
teancum79 said:
B was quite close to the source closer than A given that A routed though a 3rd party and B did not, but that really takes us far from the propose of this thread.

And there is nothing preventing you from asking God yourself I just don’t find many outside the LDS who promote the idea as a major theme.
Click to expand...
B was closer to Jesus than A? :confused:

I don’t think so. The Apostles John and Peter actually knew Jesus when He walked on the earth and they both recognized St. Ignatius of Antioch as being a bearer of the authority given to them through Christ.

Joseph Smith, Jr. is just a man who claimed to have been visited by an angel and claimed to have found golden plates. Anyone can make that kind of claim. There are a lot of loonies in the world who claim to be a prophet and to be speaking for God. Other than Smith’s claim that he was chosen by God, (witnessed by no one), what claim does he have to authority?

And of course, through prayer with God over the years, I have felt it confirmed by God that I am in His Church and, as such, I firmly believe in the truth of the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top