Judaism evolved from polytheism? Mormonism right?

[SteveVH]

By claiming that “Catholics are the original” and that “the Catholic Church gets to define the meaning of what it means to be Christian,” really are begging the question. After all, sir, if Mormons agreed with that premise, we none of us would BE Mormons. We’d be Catholics.

EXACTLY! But you have no reason to disagree, certainly nothing historical. I have yet to hear a plausible scenario for the Apostacy, especially in light of the numerous historical documents that exist to give us a true picture of what the early Church believed. Far from being the topic of the day, an “apostacy” is not even mentioned in early Church history. It must have been a secret apostacy and the only one who knew about it was Joseph Smith. The only apostacy occrred beginning with the Reformation and then continuing up to and including the really new comers such as the JW’s and the Mormons. The early Church was distinctly Catholic. That being the case, the original gets to define what the term means, no one else, not when you re-define the term. Your entire belief system rests upon a claim without facts.

The entire point, sir, is that we do not believe that you ARE the ‘original church.’ It’s rather the point. Since we don’t believe that you are the original church, beginning any conversation with us by insisting that we accept that you are is not going to produce any sort of meaningful dialogue.

Unless you would like to begin a conversation with me by admitting that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth with the death of the last of the original apostles?

You can close you eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the facts of history but they still remain, ma’am. You are free to chose whatever you wish to believe and to deny that the sky is blue if you wish. I will give you an unbroken line of succession from Benedict XVI to Peter, each validly ordained, Apostle to Bishop to Bishop. You will give me the claim of one man, JS. I will give you credible historical writings from the early Church. You will give me a book given to you by the same man who made the claim, JS. People can cry all they want, but the fact remains that the Catholic Church is the original “Christian” Church. Historically the CC’s definition was the only definition. There were no other Christians. If you don’t like what it means to be Christian, as defined by the one who invented it, then call yourself something else. Just don’t change the definition to fit your story.

My point is that Christiandom, and Christianity, comprises the whole of all of those folks who claim to be Christian and who put Jesus Christ at the center of their belief systems. It doesn’t make them correct. It doesn’t make them saved. It doesn’t make them Christ’s…but it makes them Chrsitian.

So you say. The title “Christian” never included those who simply chose to believe whatever they wished to believe. Those that taught doctrines apart from those handed down by the Apostles were not called Christians, they were called heretics. It didn’t include the “whole of all those folks who claim to be Christian”. It included those who who followed the teachings of the Church.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

EXACTLY! But you have no reason to disagree, certainly nothing historical. I have yet to hear a plausible scenario for the Apostacy, especially in light of the numerous historical documents that exist to give us a true picture of what the early Church believed. Far from being the topic of the day, an “apostacy” is not even mentioned in early Church history. It must have been a secret apostacy and the only one who knew about it was Joseph Smith. The only apostacy occrred beginning with the Reformation and then continuing up to and including the really new comers such as the JW’s and the Mormons. The early Church was distinctly Catholic. That being the case, the original gets to define what the term means, no one else, not when you re-define the term. Your entire belief system rests upon a claim without facts.

There are a few groups that claim a Great Apostasy of the original Church, such as LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The problem is that they all disagree on the “restored” beliefs. While Catholics (and other apostolic churches) point to specific writings from the ancient Christians to provide evidences of the ancient origins of our beliefs, those that claim a Great Apostasy and a restoration, not only of the priesthood, but of “original” beliefs, should also be able to point towards evidences of those restored beliefs in the ancient record (ignoring those beliefs that are viewed as new revelations).

But that’s for another thread.

 

[dianaiad]

Ok lets start there. God brought the church into the world throught Chirst and the Apostles. In a very open and public way. Then Some time shortly after the death of ST John (the last Apostle) the church went into apostacy and in essence disappeared from the earth.

Yes. That is what we believe.

I have some quarrel with your definition of ‘public’ vs. ‘private,’ there.

First, please do not equate what Jesus did with what Joseph Smith was called to do. Compare apples to apples…and that would be to compare, say…Paul to Joseph Smith. In that case, I would say that the ‘public’ nature of both men was pretty must weighed toward Joseph Smith.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Yes. That is what we believe.

I have some quarrel with your definition of ‘public’ vs. ‘private,’ there.

First, please do not equate what Jesus did with what Joseph Smith was called to do. Compare apples to apples…and that would be to compare, say…Paul to Joseph Smith. In that case, I would say that the ‘public’ nature of both men was pretty must weighed toward Joseph Smith.

I do not equate What Jesus did in founding the Church, with what J. Smith did. in his invention of a religion.As for Public vs private Lets look at Paul and Mr. Smith. Paul, while travling with others met the Lord. While they did not see him they heard his voice. Now they could still see Paul and after the voice was gone Paul was blind. sounds pretty public.If my memorty and info serve me correctly Mr. Smith was alone when the angel appeard to him. He alone saw the tablets. agian sounds pretty private.

Also you are saying to compare apples to apples yet you want to change the definion of words to make them fit you mode. And I belive my comparison was more towrd the continuing spread of the Church from Chirst to the Apostles. and so on, compared to Mr. Smith with his “restoration.”.

See It like this Chirst said and did this. His Apostles said and did the same. Like Christ they has to define thing and correct people when they were worng ( we start getting the writtings and councels) they also has those that followed them as they followed Christ and they became the first bishops. Agian as a group here or there would do thing in correctly or teach something wrong or even just raise questions these bishops would come together and address this. keepsing every thing in line with what they had been taught from those before them.

Now I know that you have heard all this before and you do not believe a word of it. An you have every right to say that all christian from the sometime in the early 2nd century till the 1800 are wrong. You just do not have the right to redefine Christian.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Talk about a thread getting side tracked.

 

[Eliza10]

It seems to me that when words cannot be defined that it is impossible to communicate. To define “Christian” as basically anything you wish it to be is intellectually dishonest.

I have found this to be the biggest stumbling block in conversing with Mormons especially. Terms such as Sacrament, Trinity, God, Resurrection, heaven, etc. have been redefined by the LDS, not the Catholic Church. No one with even the most elementary knowledge of history can deny that the Catholic Church is the original. Therefore, it is the Catholic Church who gets to define the meaning of what it means to be Christian. There was no other definition of “Christian” until the Reformation, and even then, they stuck with the Catholic meaning of most of these terms (although most non-liturgical Christians wouldn’t know a sacrament from a Halibut). .

This very thing that bothers me a lot, too! When I hear my Mormon friend talk of “priesthood” or “bishop” etc., etc. I feel a offended. I keep it inside, I try to understand where she is coming again. But when her 12-year-old becomes a “Priest”, It seems a little ridiculoius. or worse, like a mockery of the things of God. I don’t say so, (I am trying to find points of agreement, and am not expressing what I don’t like unless I am invited, and I haven’t been). But it strikes me that way, and its an impression that sticks, which tells me thats the Holy Spirit in me saying “Those words are not right”. Also when I hear her talk much of her Bishop, I am surprised she has such a close aquaintenceship with her Bishop. Wow. Until I find out that Bishop means local volunteer pastor. Oh well.

So yes, it makes it hard to communicate.

If I chose to belong to some club, say the “Elk’s Club”, I must agree with the rules that govern it and the principals upon which it is based. If I start another club and call it the “Elk’s Club” but give it an entirely different set of rules and base it upon principals foreign to the original, I’ll probably be sued, and rightfully so. It’s called fraud…

Well, it feels like fraud to me when I hear it.

In my opinion a more appropriate name for the LDS Church would be the “Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-Day Saints”. In the end, it is Joseph Smith who they must follow at all cost, not Christ.

I agree! When I visited my friend’s Mormon Church, I was so impressed with the sincerity of the testamonies (I truly felt like saying my own! Its catching!) but the deflating part of all these sincere testamonies***** was nearly everyone ending thier little blurbs with “And I believe in Joseph Smith” or “And I believe in the Book of Mormon”.

*****I have to say, the testamonies were not that cogent. What they had to say was not clear and logical; what was impressive was thier sincerity, the feeling of gratitude that eminated from them, even if what they had to say was not put clearly. I chalked that up to being off the cuff, and inexperienced speakers. However, however --I have begun to think there is a lack of clear logical thinking in Mormonism, because there is a tendancy to look to Chruch leaders to explain things for them rather than think on their own. That is my opinion, from my witness.

It makes me want to help my son by having him take a class in logical thinking, so he can avoid religious group that want to do all your thinking for you.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

We aren’t Catholic, sir. Nor do we claim to be so. We claim to belong to the larger Christian world.

Who said that “Christian” = “Trinitarian?” Who gets to say so?

The problem, as I see it, is that once it is agreed upon that one group is not another (mutual agreement), then that is sufficient. When one group decides to redefine a term so that it alone (or those with whom they specifically agree) can fulfill all the requirements, it is committing a fallacy of composition…a ‘true Scot’ fallacy…especially when doing so excludes groups that absolutely comply with the one universally accepted requirement.

For instance; there isn’t a single group, Christian or not, that would claim that putting the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth at the center of one’s belief system is not a requirement for 'Christianity." Once that is agreed on, people and groups begin to disagree. Which group gets to decide what additional ‘must have’ is required for 'true Christianity?"

I contend that nobody has. True, there seem to be about three times as many Catholics as non-Catholics in the Christian world, but over three hundred million people is still a sizable group…and how many of them aren’t quite ‘trinitarian’ enough for you? They are still Christian.

Again, I submit that there is one, and ONLY one reason to deny any group fellowship in that larger “Christian” group, and it is not a good one. In fact, while denying Christianity to a specific group isn’t always followed by the persecution of that group, it usually does, and religious persecution of one Christian group by another is always preceded by that booting out of the ‘club,’ so to speak.

So, I humbly and sincerely submit that…y’all are wrong about this and by declaring that "Mormons aren’t Christians,’ the church is following a very nasty precedent.

Well, according to that statement, I could just say “My church believe that sex outside marriage, murdering, abortion, stealing, robbering, cheating, racism, sexism, racial supremacy…, yet it is still Christian because we have Christ in it.” well do you think that still considered a Christian church? I could have said “my denomination believe in reincarnation.”, well does that make it still a Christian church? Being a Christian church does not just require Christ, Christ is the center of the church, but are we following the teaching of Him or the teachings of His Church? The teachings of the Bible? If we’re not following them then we’re not Christian at all.

It is not about which group get to decide which is a Christian church, but it is God who can, through the Bible. Just because a church claim to have Jesus Christ as a center does not make it a legitimate church. What about the nature of Christ and His teachings? I could have said that Christ was only a man, a moral teacher. In that case then no, that is not a right Christian Church.

There is only one Gospel, and one right teaching. Does being Christian=Trinian? If that’s the nature of God, then yes.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, according to that statement, I could just say “My church believe that sex outside marriage, murdering, abortion, stealing, robbering, cheating, racism, sexism, racial supremacy…, yet it is still Christian because we have Christ in it.” well do you think that still considered a Christian church?

That depends. Does it claim to have the teachings of Jesus Christ at its center, and claim the name? If so, yes. I would consider it a “Christian” church.

It would be a very bad Christian church. I would call into question how it could say that it follows the teachings of Jesus when He specifically forbade some of the above things (pretty much all of them, come to think of it) and I would add all sorts of nasty qualifying adjectives to it.

But that said, do you KNOW of any church that claims to be Christian that also claims to believe all of the above? Aren’t you now asking a “have you stopped beating your wife?” sort of question?

I could have said “my denomination believe in reincarnation.”, well does that make it still a Christian church?

I actually know a few Christians who believe in reincarnation. I’m not quite certain how they reconcile that, but, well…

Being a Christian church does not just require Christ, Christ is the center of the church, but are we following the teaching of Him or the teachings of His Church? The teachings of the Bible? If we’re not following them then we’re not Christian at all.

I see…and there we have your definition of “Christian” as “he who agrees with me about what the teachings of Jesus Christ actually are.”

It is not about which group get to decide which is a Christian church, but it is God who can, through the Bible. Just because a church claim to have Jesus Christ as a center does not make it a legitimate church.

That’s a whole different word. Would you care to define ‘church?’

What about the nature of Christ and His teachings? I could have said that Christ was only a man, a moral teacher. In that case then no, that is not a right Christian Church.

I know Christians who believe just that. They aren’t correct, of course, but that’s different.

There is only one Gospel, and one right teaching. Does being Christian=Trinian? If that’s the nature of God, then yes.

You are correct. There IS only one Gospel and one right teaching. That is entirely different from being “Christian.”

Because, my friend, if being Christian meant ‘being right,’ Then I’m the Christian and you aren’t.