LDS: Apostasy

[TheosisM]

Catholic leaders would never say that something is “public revelation” because all that is required for salvation, i.e. public revelation, is complete. Our very definition of public revelation precludes any more from occurring. Private revelations occur all the time, and many have included visits by Heavenly beings, and have been accepted into the Church’s spiritual life. Many of these prophets and prophetesses are also canonized saints. Again, such revelations are not required for salvation, though they may help us on our salvation journey.

Also, it is very incorrect that Catholic authorities believe they can do whatever they want and claim that it is inspired. The nature of Papal inspiration (Papal Infallibility), as well as Ecumenical Council inspiration, precludes this. In fact, each has been invoked relatively few times in the 2000 year history of the Church. If a Pope claimed infallible inspiration on something that contradicted what has already been revealed to and in the Church (which honestly wouldn’t happen anyway), it can be rejected as uninspired.

What is wrong with claiming that God is active in His Church? Do you not claim the same thing? Is there something wrong with this statement? Catholics particularly believe that God is active in the Church through the sacred Mysteries, the sacraments. It is through the sacraments that we participate in the life of Jesus Christ.

 

[TheosisM]

Nice! TheosisM writes a post explaining our belief without touching on yours at all and instead of responding with something like “thanks for the explanation though I still don’t agree” you come out with straight up ugly.

Yes, it was unexpected, and none of that post addressed anything in mine, nor did it show an understanding of what I actually said on “public revelation”.

 

[KathleenGee]

To respond to public revelation and not recognize such a different way and message as that coming from Joseph Smith shows a very different orientation to what truth is and emotions, a burning in the heart seems to be the basic means of determining…Smith and the glasses, the golden plates and Moroni…there is no angel of that name in Scriptures, the connection with masonry…his seduction of over 30 women…correct?..his own actions of the occult…the man was a charlatan full of self-contradictions, who followed a false spirit. Where do you in Scripture see God select an idolator??

 

[KathleenGee]

I went through the Utahmissions.com this morning and saw so many pertinent references, directed to us by a former Mormon.

I suggest the Mormons who come here to debate or refute spend time on this worthy site.

 

[ParkerD]

The Bible does not teach what kind of doctrine? The things that you accuse Catholic leaders in this post can equally apply to Mormon leaders, I hope you can see that. The Mormon president asserts “only I can receive revelation for the entire church”. He knows full well that he is not receiving revelations, and knows that the most effective way to preserve his position of authority is to assert that “God is active through His church”. That gives them the complete doctrinal blanket to do whatever they want and say it was inspired. The Bible does not teach that kind of doctrine at all. Sorry it is wrong doctrine. See?

TheosisM,
It is quite a different thing to say that the Holy Spirit inspires and directs the prophet and apostles and they preserve pure doctrine, and that the members can know this for themselves by personal revelation from the Holy Spirit and can know that any teaching whether “new” or “repeated” is coming as direct guidance from God, compared with saying that “public revelation has ceased” and that the traditions passed down from the 300’s AD were pure.

 

[Jay53]

TheosisM,
It is quite a different thing to say that the Holy Spirit inspires and directs the prophet and apostles and they preserve pure doctrine, and that the members can know this for themselves by personal revelation from the Holy Spirit and can know that any teaching whether “new” or “repeated” is coming as direct guidance from God, compared with saying that “public revelation has ceased” and that the traditions passed down from the 300’s AD were pure.

Maybe I’m not following your train of thought here. If the Pope were to use his Papal Infallibility in declaring dogma, we certainly would believe that the Holy Spirit has inspired and directed him to do so and to preserve the pure doctrine of the Church. Catholic members of the Church can also “know this for themselves by personal revelation from the Holy Spirit and can know that any teaching whether “new” or “repeated” is coming as direct guidance from God.”

Also, how does this reconcile with the fact that Catholics (including many Catholic saints) have received personal revelation from the Holy Spirit that the teachings of the Catholic Church are correct?

What traditions passed down from the 300’s AD are not pure? And how do you know they are not pure - other than “Joseph Smith said so” and “I have received a personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit”. (Not to minimize your own experiences, but how do you know that your “affirmations” are indeed that and indeed from God?)

I guess my confusion always come back to my basic question which has yet to be answered. Why do Mormons believe Joseph Smith and his prophethood? What makes him credible as a prophet and indeed more credible than Muhammad and his prophethood?

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM,
It is quite a different thing to say that the Holy Spirit inspires and directs the prophet and apostles and they preserve pure doctrine, and that the members can know this for themselves by personal revelation from the Holy Spirit and can know that any teaching whether “new” or “repeated” is coming as direct guidance from God, compared with saying that “public revelation has ceased” and that the traditions passed down from the 300’s AD were pure.

ParkerD,

You actually are saying the same things that Catholics believe, whether you believe that it is true, or whether I believe that the inspiration of Mormon authorities is true. We believe that the Holy Spirit inspires and directs Catholic authorities, and preserves pure doctrine (known as the “Deposit of Faith”), and that the Spirit inspires each individual to know the truth of the doctrine of the Church. Through the direct guidance from God to our leaders, doctrine is kept from corruption. Saying that “public revelation has ceased” does not detract from this, if we understand what “public revelation” is actually referring to.

Also, I’m not sure as to what you are referring to by “traditions passed down from the 300s AD”, but Catholics believe that our Church was founded by Jesus Christ long before 300 AD.

 

[TheosisM]

Maybe I’m not following your train of thought here. If the Pope were to use his Papal Infallibility in declaring dogma, we certainly would believe that the Holy Spirit has inspired and directed him to do so and to preserve the pure doctrine of the Church. Catholic members of the Church can also “know this for themselves by personal revelation from the Holy Spirit and can know that any teaching whether “new” or “repeated” is coming as direct guidance from God.”

Also, how does this reconcile with the fact that Catholics (including many Catholic saints) have received personal revelation from the Holy Spirit that the teachings of the Catholic Church are correct?

What traditions passed down from the 300’s AD are not pure? And how do you know they are not pure - other than “Joseph Smith said so” and “I have received a personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit”. (Not to minimize your own experiences, but how do you know that your “affirmations” are indeed that and indeed from God?)

I guess my confusion always come back to my basic question which has yet to be answered. Why do Mormons believe Joseph Smith and his prophethood? What makes him credible as a prophet and indeed more credible than Muhammad and his prophethood?

I agree. I frequently see an appeal to testimony by ParkerD, where the Holy Spirit has confirmed personally to him the truth of what he believes. The thing is, the Holy Spirit has also confirmed to others the truth of the Catholic Church as God’s Church. The way he describes the Catholic Church operating is how he sees it, through the lens of a Great Apostasy, and not how Catholics themselves see it, or how Catholics describe the Church operating. The way that he describes the LDS church operating (direct inspiration of authorities, preserving pure doctrine) is exactly the same way that Catholics see the Catholic Church operating.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This has been explained more than one time to ParkerD and other LDS who come here. It doesn’t matter. They are taught that this is what Christians believe, by their church, and so they cannot stop believing it. No matter how many times and/or ways it is shown to be a false teaching.

And yes, the “Great Apostasy” is in itself, a conspiracy theory.

 

[ParkerD]

Maybe I’m not following your train of thought here. If the Pope were to use his Papal Infallibility in declaring dogma, we certainly would believe that the Holy Spirit has inspired and directed him to do so and to preserve the pure doctrine of the Church. Catholic members of the Church can also “know this for themselves by personal revelation from the Holy Spirit and can know that any teaching whether “new” or “repeated” is coming as direct guidance from God.”

Also, how does this reconcile with the fact that Catholics (including many Catholic saints) have received personal revelation from the Holy Spirit that the teachings of the Catholic Church are correct?

What traditions passed down from the 300’s AD are not pure? And how do you know they are not pure - other than “Joseph Smith said so” and “I have received a personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit”. (Not to minimize your own experiences, but how do you know that your “affirmations” are indeed that and indeed from God?)

I guess my confusion always come back to my basic question which has yet to be answered. Why do Mormons believe Joseph Smith and his prophethood? What makes him credible as a prophet and indeed more credible than Muhammad and his prophethood?

Jay,
I can see why you compare the two people you have compared in your last paragraph here. I can also see why anyone who hasn’t experienced a sure witness from the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and inspiration that teaches more than books and human teachers in a purer way, would question when someone else says they have had those kinds of experiences.

I am very familiar with the Bible. I love its teachings and promises. They are sure. The Holy Ghost has confirmed to my mind and heart that surety just as He has confirmed that the Book of Mormon contains the same teachings and promises.

The Koran does not confirm Biblical teachings, and does not “ring true” when compared with the Bible. It may be “supported” by what a person thinks is a “witness”, but that merely shows that they have not understood what kind of experience it would be to receive the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost.

Again, I am very, very familiar with the Bible. It teaches true doctrine, easily understood. The doctrines of the Bible are not “mysteries”. They are quite simple.

Peace to you and all.

 

[KathleenGee]

Post #66…TheosisM professed authentic Catholic teachings…

Parker’s response showed me how much the Catholic Church is the greatest threat to Mormon beliefs and how much truth and reason are invalidated.

The pope in the unity of the bishops reflect the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, not exclusively the Holy Father except when he pronounces dogma…and it has not been that common in 2,000 years.

The Great Apostasy is the falling away from the deposit of faith found in the Catholic Church and Mormonism is part of the apostasy.

Yes, I can now see that the Mormons here are shown the same truths, but do not accept them. Is it because the Latin clergy can’t marry or in times past we couldn’t eat meat on Friday or that married men can’t have more than one wife? I realize polygamy has been outlawed in their church.

Joseph Smith professed a religion revealed by an unknown angel offering him the forbidden fruit that would make him a god, a priesthood not consecrated in the truth and set aside as an intercessor for the people to the Lord Most High.

 

[TheosisM]

Jay,
I can see why you compare the two people you have compared in your last paragraph here. I can also see why anyone who hasn’t experienced a sure witness from the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and inspiration that teaches more than books and human teachers in a purer way, would question when someone else says they have had those kinds of experiences.

I am very familiar with the Bible. I love its teachings and promises. They are sure. The Holy Ghost has confirmed to my mind and heart that surety just as He has confirmed that the Book of Mormon contains the same teachings and promises.

The Koran does not confirm Biblical teachings, and does not “ring true” when compared with the Bible. It may be “supported” by what a person thinks is a “witness”, but that merely shows that they have not understood what kind of experience it would be to receive the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost.

Again, I am very, very familiar with the Bible. It teaches true doctrine, easily understood. The doctrines of the Bible are not “mysteries”. They are quite simple.

Peace to you and all.

Are you insinuating that Jay has not experienced a sure witness of the Holy Spirit?

I think this is the issue here: I’m sure that most people that post on this forum, and forums like it, are “very, very familiar with the Bible”. I’m also sure that many of us will also say that the Holy Spirit has confirmed to us personally the things that we believe, numerous times. This “questioning” of the experiences of others is not because the person questioning has not experienced this, but that both of these people believe that they are “very familiar with the Bible” and have “experienced a sure witness of the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and inspiration that teaches more than books and human teachers in a purer way”, and yet believe mutually exclusive things.

 

[KathleenGee]

Faith cannot be based on one’s feelings…because they are self-serving and more so, because they can deceive.

To continually block reason, truth and history…I believe like others that such sects are under the power of spirits…for them to be free, they would also have to free their families and relations, and for many to leave Mormonism, it is most difficult.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
I can see why you compare the two people you have compared in your last paragraph here. I can also see why anyone who hasn’t experienced a sure witness from the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and inspiration that teaches more than books and human teachers in a purer way, would question when someone else says they have had those kinds of experiences.

I am very familiar with the Bible. I love its teachings and promises. They are sure. The Holy Ghost has confirmed to my mind and heart that surety just as He has confirmed that the Book of Mormon contains the same teachings and promises.

The Koran does not confirm Biblical teachings, and does not “ring true” when compared with the Bible. It may be “supported” by what a person thinks is a “witness”, but that merely shows that they have not understood what kind of experience it would be to receive the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost.

Again, I am very, very familiar with the Bible. It teaches true doctrine, easily understood. The doctrines of the Bible are not “mysteries”. They are quite simple.

Peace to you and all.

I am deeply offended that you would even insinuate that I haven’t “experienced a sure witness from the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and inspiration that teaches more than books and human teachers in a purer way”! Your personal “witness” is no more valid than mine!! “Feelings” are not the yardstick of what is true.

The Book of Mormon IMO does NOT confirm Biblical teaching. There is nothing in the Bible about ancient peoples in the Americas being visited by Jesus, God having flesh and bones, people becoming gods of their own worlds and having spirit children, God the Father being married to a “heavenly mother”, Jesus and Lucifer being brothers etc. You may be able to cherry pick a verse here or there and distort the interpretation to fit the Mormon view, but it is still a contradiction.

You still haven’t answered why you believe Joseph Smith - other than your “personal revelation”. How do I know that you haven’t, as Diana put it, “piggybacked” a false teaching onto the Truth? Just knowing the Bible doesn’t cut it for me. The devil can quote scripture as well as anyone! What criteria does Joseph Smith have to validate his prophethood?

I will agree with you 100% that the Bible teaches true doctrine. It’s the Book of Mormon and the “other gospel” not taught to us by Jesus and His Apostles that I have a problem with. St. Paul warned us that even if “we or an angel of light” preached another gospel, we shouldn’t believe him/her. I asked this in another thread: why did St. Paul use the pronoun “we”? Did he think that all of a sudden he and the other Apostles would suddenly lose their minds and start preaching something different? Or was he foretelling the distortions of his words to create “another gospel” or “another testimony” as we see in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s teachings?

 

[Jay53]

Are you insinuating that Jay has not experienced a sure witness of the Holy Spirit?

I think this is the issue here: I’m sure that most people that post on this forum, and forums like it, are “very, very familiar with the Bible”. I’m also sure that many of us will also say that the Holy Spirit has confirmed to us personally the things that we believe, numerous times. This “questioning” of the experiences of others is not because the person questioning has not experienced this, but that both of these people believe that they are “very familiar with the Bible” and have “experienced a sure witness of the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and inspiration that teaches more than books and human teachers in a purer way”, and yet believe mutually exclusive things.

I actually posted my last post before I read yours and I questioned whether or not I was reading Parker’s words correctly about what he seemed to be insinuating. I guess I wasn’t the only one who took it that way!

You’ve hit my quandary on the head, so to speak. I’ve mentioned before, there is a Muslim poster here who absolutely insists that God answered her prayers and led her to Islam (she used to be a Protestant Christian). She says she has had a “personal witness” to the truth of Islam. How is Parker’s “personal witness” different from hers? I think one has to look at objective Truth and evidence to further discern their “witness”. Or if someone has another suggestion as to how you determine whether one’s “personal witness” is actually an affirmation of Truth or not, I’m all ears!

 

[KathleenGee]

Jay,

You hit it on the head between privately discerning something to be true as in the case of the Christian who became Muslim…

 

[ParkerD]

Are you insinuating that Jay has not experienced a sure witness of the Holy Spirit?

I think this is the issue here: I’m sure that most people that post on this forum, and forums like it, are “very, very familiar with the Bible”. I’m also sure that many of us will also say that the Holy Spirit has confirmed to us personally the things that we believe, numerous times. This “questioning” of the experiences of others is not because the person questioning has not experienced this, but that both of these people believe that they are “very familiar with the Bible” and have “experienced a sure witness of the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and inspiration that teaches more than books and human teachers in a purer way”, and yet believe mutually exclusive things.

TheosisM,
I do think that you are a pretty thorough student of the Bible.

Go ahead and state a “mutually exclusive thing” that has been confirmed to you as pure and complete truth by the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and I’ll check it out as compared with my understanding of the Bible and what the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me is true. I would actually be very happy to have that kind of conversation with you, since I sense that you have studied the Bible quite well.

 

[zerinus]

No, it does not. Jesus gave the keys to Peter. The keys then pass to Peter’s successor. No where does it say that it has to be an apostle. After Peter was martyred, the living apostles and bishops elected Linus (I believe) to succeed Peter and therefore, the keys passed to him.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope it the successor to Peter the Apostle; which means that the Pope also is an Apostle like Peter, and inherits the keys from him. If the Pope is not an Apostle like Peter, then he is not a successor to Peter, and does not inherit any keys from him.

 

[zerinus]

Might I ask the LDS if anyone knows the difference between apostacy, schism, and heresy? The “breaking of the church in to pieces”, according to the LDS, has nothing to do with apostacy. This has been proven to the LDS many times, but it does not register with any LDS member.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

We think life is less complicated than that. When somebody splinters off from the true Church and sets up a rival church of his own, we call that apostasy.

 

[Jay53]

TheosisM,
I do think that you are a pretty thorough student of the Bible.

Go ahead and state a “mutually exclusive thing” that has been confirmed to you as pure and complete truth by the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and I’ll check it out as compared with my understanding of the Bible and what the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me is true. I would actually be very happy to have that kind of conversation with you, since I sense that you have studied the Bible quite well.

I can give you two:

1.) The validity of the priesthood of Catholic priests to administer the Sacraments, particularly Reconciliation and Eucharist. I have had this for me NUMEROUS times throughout my life. This would be mutually exclusive from the Mormon belief that Catholic priests do not have this validity.

2.) The presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, i.e. His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. From what I understand of Mormonism, you do not believe that He is physically present in the Eucharist.