Joseph Smith and the Need for the Restoration

[Harpazo]

Well I knew this was going to bring the recycled garbage — but must I forget that people have issues with my church. I submit their issues are their unwilliness to see the recognition of the truth. Attacking my church and Joseph Smith are just the never ending sideshows.

Please address my points if you feel they are in error.

We know the truth when we see it and do not change it to terminate political pressure. The Orthodox could have changed the faith when they were persecuted by the Romans, or the Muslims, or the Communists. They didn’t. In fact, the Communists wanted them to change the faith. They didn’t.

In fact we sing every Sunday after those who received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, “We have seen the true light! We have found the true faith! Worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!” Seek the true light and there you will find Christ and His Church. I can tell that you are deeply searching. May Christ lead you there and the most holy Theotokos help you.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[teachccd]

Catholics in general are threatened with the fact their church is not what you claim – putting the need of the restoration to the side, why would the Protestant reformers state Catholicism was not the church of Jesus Christ.

Are you serious?? Have you read the writings of Martin Luther?? How can you even use the Protestants as your ally when you refute that they are even part of the Church founded by Christ? Protestants have the orthodox belief in the very nature of God to which the Mormons do not. The Protestants never claimed an apostate Church. To do so is to deny Scripture, the very source that they hold as there entire deposit of faith… Come on, let’s not play games here…teachccd

 

[TheosisM]

Catholics in general are threatened with the fact their church is not what you claim – putting the need of the restoration to the side, why would the Protestant reformers state Catholicism was not the church of Jesus Christ.

um LOL sorry, no. For us, the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, existing continually since He established it, with the fullness of the Truth.

As far as the Protestant reformers, why not ask Protestants that question? The truth of Catholicism for Catholics does not depend on whether others say it isn’t the true Church, whether Joseph Smith, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Protestants, etc. claim that it isn’t.

And, many if not most of us would sooner go to the Orthodox Church before Mormonism.

 

[teachccd]

One of the man made doctrines is “your selection of the pope”. First of all, no man can take something, i.e. the priesthood, that is not his for the taking. Yet I do not know the number of men who have “chosen” or take the priesthood. Your man made process of the selection of the pope.

You completely avoided my scripture reference indicating to me that you have no answer and are admitting to your ignorance.

 

[TheosisM]

One of the man made doctrines is “your selection of the pope”. First of all, no man can take something, i.e. the priesthood, that is not his for the taking. Yet I do not know the number of men who have “chosen” or take the priesthood. Your man made process of the selection of the pope.

No one “takes” the priesthood in Catholicism. One is called of God to the priesthood.

 

[tundramom]

Let’s assume that the “first vision” happened… let’s then again assume that Joseph Smith was told not to join any of the churches… why did he try to years later join a Methodist congregation.

I dunno… If I were told by God himself, face to face, that I was not to join any of the churches… well I’d be foolish to try wouldn’t I?

So Joseph Smith tried to join the Methodists and they wouldn’t have him. hmmmm

in Christ
Steph

 

[thecourt]

No one “takes” the priesthood in Catholicism. One is called of God to the priesthood.

So someone with authority called your called pope and other the other priesthood to be a priests earlier? You make my point. Your priesthood took the priesthood when it is not something one takes.

The original twelve did not say I want to hold the priesthood. Christ called them from the occupations they had prior to their ordination.

 

[TheosisM]

So someone with authority called your called pope and other the other priesthood to be a priests earlier? You make my point. Your priesthood took the priesthood when it is not something one takes.

The original twelve did not say I want to hold the priesthood. Christ called them from the occupations they had prior to their ordination.

I thought you were a former Catholic, don’t you know how this works?

In Catholicism, God calls someone to the priesthood directly. This is why we also call it a “calling”.

People with authority (i.e. bishops) also call others to other priesthood offices, such as the bishop of Rome (Pope).

Again, you’re arguing a straw man.

 

[thecourt]

I thought you were a former Catholic, don’t you know how this works?

In Catholicism, God calls someone to the priesthood directly. This is why we also call it a “calling”.

People with authority (i.e. bishops) also call others to other priesthood offices, such as the bishop of Rome (Pope).

Again, you’re arguing a straw man.

I understand the priesthood is not something takes arrogantly like it for them and only them.

Relative to my being a former Catholic, this is among the reasons I needed to seek the truth elsewhere versus following along with Catholicism.

 

[TheosisM]

I understand the priesthood is not something takes arrogantly like it for them and only them.

Right, and Catholics believe that one should be called of God to the priesthood, whether directly (as in the case of deacons and priests) or through someone with priesthood authority (as in the case of bishops).

Sorry, this is going off topic, let’s stick to the topic of the “need for the restoration”.

Because it wasn’t necessary. You’re operating from the premise that 1) a Great Apostasy occurred; 2) a Restoration was necessary; 3) the Father and the Son appeared to Smith; 4) that the Restoration occurred through Smith and not the host of others who claim/claimed to restore the “true church of Jesus Christ”

If the Catholic Church is the true Church, then a restoration was not necessary. We do not believe that God appeared to Joseph Smith, anymore than we believe that God appeared to or talked to any other “prophets” to restore a lost church, that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammed, etc.

As others have stated, first you have to prove the above premise(s) before one can entertain the question of, if Catholicism is the true Church, why would God tell Joseph Smith not to join any church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5913152&postcount=11

 

[Thruxton]

It was so nice of Jesus to totally abandon us for 1800 years… Right. Yeah.

 

[thecourt]

Right, and Catholics believe that one should be called of God to the priesthood, whether directly (as in the case of deacons and priests) or through someone with priesthood authority (as in the case of bishops).

Sorry, this is going off topic, let’s stick to the topic of the “need for the restoration”.

I submit it was necessary when Catholicism and the Protestants in existence when Joseph Smith asked which of the existing churches he should join, God the Father and Jesus Christ gave him the answer.

No Catholics do not want to accept their claim to being the true church has been in question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5913152&postcount=11

 

[benidict]

Catholics in general are threatened with the fact their church is not what you claim – putting the need of the restoration to the side, why would the Protestant reformers state Catholicism was not the church of Jesus Christ.

hi. actually we are not threatened with the “fact” our Church is not what we claim. we have historical, archiological. written, and physical evidence on our side to prove the Catholic Church is the one true Church. putting restoration aside, joseph smith changed his story several times about his early visions. given his life previous to his “revelations” id have to say the whole thing was a con. there is appsolutly no evidence that the book of mormon is true. no historical written records, not archiological evidence. no physical evidence. they will not even allow archiologist to dig in the hill where he supposedly found the plates. if the book of mormon were true, we would find a huge deposite of archilogical evidence. we would find stories among the native americans that would coincide with these events. we would find the ruins of cities, weaponry. etc. there are so many errors in the book of mormon as far a zoo ology. botany, etc. etc.
im not trying to be mean spirited. i for one am fascinated with the mormons and their history. and honestly, the more i study it. the more i am awed how anyone can believe in this faith.
that aside. i do love the mormon people. i love going out to utah and seeing the archetcture and cities your people have built. i love to see how they build their neighborhoods around their local churches. there is alot of good, todays mormons do. and there are areas we can work together on. such as the pro life movement. and keeping the traditional family unit intact.
p.s. i voted for romney in the primaries. God bless you and yours, my friend.

 

[heathernoel]

Joseph Smith had a vision and I’m a runway model.

Really? You can believe that Joseph Smith, a man seeking a way to justify his drunken sleazy life, had a vision, but you can’t believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist?

I’m not coming at you personally, but your question supposes one believes Joseph Smith.

 

[TheosisM]

thecourt, you can’t just say that a restoration was necessary because Joseph Smith said that God appeared and told him so (or not to join any other church), anymore than any of the host of other churches and religions that make similar claims can do so. I guess we should also believe that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad, because he said so.

Again, see this post:

Because it wasn’t necessary. You’re operating from the premise that 1) a Great Apostasy occurred; 2) a Restoration was necessary; 3) the Father and the Son appeared to Smith; 4) that the Restoration occurred through Smith and not the host of others who claim/claimed to restore the “true church of Jesus Christ”

If the Catholic Church is the true Church, then a restoration was not necessary. We do not believe that God appeared to Joseph Smith, anymore than we believe that God appeared to or talked to any other “prophets” to restore a lost church, that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammed, etc.

As others have stated, first you have to prove the above premise(s) before one can entertain the question of, if Catholicism is the true Church, why would God tell Joseph Smith not to join any church.

 

[TheosisM]

I don’t think that thecourt is getting the point that though he may believe that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, Catholics do not believe that that happened. So, his question is illogical, because yes we believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and no, we don’t believe that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, or that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad, etc.

 

[teachccd]

thecourt, you have never once addressed one of my replies. Are you hiding something? Here they are again:

First off, the Catholic Church never claimed the need for restoration. There were some necessary reforms needed but that is a huge difference. My question to you would be why would you accept the King James Version of scripture if it was maintained and translated by an apostate church? And in the King James Version we can quote Jesus as saying in Matthew chapter 16 verse 18, “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Did Jesus fail us in this promise?

In the Book of Mormon we find that in 1 Nephi 13:32 we are told about this “abominable church” which kept back the gospel of the Lamb. In 1 Nephi 13: 5-9 we read that satan was the founder of this “abominable church”. Gee, I wonder what Church that refers to? Anyway, you have no credibility when you claim that there was an apostate church that needed restoration. Your acceptance of the King James Version of Scripture verifies that you do indeed accept the authority of the Chruch that acknowledged, maintained and interprets the Written Word of God. You cannot hold that there was an apostate Church and then hold to the authority of the New Testament. Those two ideas are in complete contradiction…God Bless…teachccd

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecourt
So I not read any reason that validates the truth of Catholicism. Why would God the Father and Jesus Christ tell Joseph Smith, the churches that existed at the time, none were his Christ’s true church?

Again refer to Matthew 16:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecourt
Basically he told the churches that existed the churches, draw to me (Christ) with their lips, yet their hearts were far me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men. For me, Catholicism is what it claims, how do you explain doctrines created by you? This shows me further the lack of characteristics such a revelation that is lacking in Catholicism. If revelation existed, no man made doctrine would be necessary.

Your words are useless when you have no back up. What are these “man made” doctrines that you question and oppose? The Eucharist? Apostolic Succession? The very nature of God? Just what are these “man made” doctrines?
Are you serious?? Have you read the writings of Martin Luther?? **How can you even use the Protestants as your ally when you refute that they are even part of the Church founded by Christ? **Protestants have the orthodox belief in the very nature of God to which the Mormons do not. The Protestants never claimed an apostate Church. To do so is to deny Scripture, the very source that they hold as there entire deposit of faith… Come on, let’s not play games here…teachccd

---

 

[benidict]

You know, we never did get around to figuring out who was the greatest prophet, Mohammed or Joseph Smith. The thread got sidetracked, I believe.

Recommended Reading:
How to refute the Great Apostasy
The Bible confirms the gospel but attacks false prophets
The Catholic Church Fathers

personally, i think that would have to be mohhamed. his writing style was much better than smiths. and what he wrote actually is not a chore to read. also he only branched everything off of ismael. not some imaginary charachter like nephi.
JUST KIDDING

 

[thecourt]

hi. actually we are not threatened with the “fact” our Church is not what we claim. we have historical, archiological. written, and physical evidence on our side to prove the Catholic Church is the one true Church. putting restoration aside, joseph smith changed his story several times about his early visions. given his life previous to his “revelations” id have to say the whole thing was a con. there is appsolutly no evidence that the book of mormon is true. no historical written records, not archiological evidence. no physical evidence. they will not even allow archiologist to dig in the hill where he supposedly found the plates. if the book of mormon were true, we would find a huge deposite of archilogical evidence. we would find stories among the native americans that would coincide with these events. we would find the ruins of cities, weaponry. etc. there are so many errors in the book of mormon as far a zoo ology. botany, etc. etc.
im not trying to be mean spirited. i for one am fascinated with the mormons and their history. and honestly, the more i study it. the more i am awed how anyone can believe in this faith.
that aside. i do love the mormon people. i love going out to utah and seeing the archetcture and cities your people have built. i love to see how they build their neighborhoods around their local churches. there is alot of good, todays mormons do. and there are areas we can work together on. such as the pro life movement. and keeping the traditional family unit intact.
p.s. i voted for romney in the primaries. God bless you and yours, my friend.

So faith and confirmation from the Holy Ghost does not do it for you? You need physical evidence?

The Book of Mormon is a another witness for Christ, in light of the numerous translations of the Bible. The Book fo Mormon proves the Bible is a witness of Christ as well. Those who, as I also say, bring the same old worthless recycled garbage to prove that it is not a book of scripture will never end.

 

[benidict]

So faith and confirmation from the Holy Ghost does not do it for you? You need physical evidence?

The Book of Mormon is a another witness for Christ, in light of the numerous translations of the Bible. The Book fo Mormon proves the Bible is a witness of Christ as well. Those who, as I also say, bring the same old worthless recycled garbage to prove that it is not a book of scripture will never end.