LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter soren1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Without God, we are blind. Judaism always had its God approved leaders and priests, authorized.

Same with Christianity. If people cannot believe the first 2,000 years of Christianity, then they might as well get rid of the New Testament.
 
zerinus said:
Those words were not written by me. How did you manage to make them appear to have come from me?
Click to expand...
Actually I have no idea how that happened. The post to which I was responding was from ParkerD. It was Post #758. Wierd. Sorry about that. 🤷
 
KathleenGee said:
Without God, we are blind. Judaism always had its God approved leaders and priests, authorized.

Same with Christianity. If people cannot believe the first 2,000 years of Christianity, then they might as well get rid of the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Kathleen,

The New Testament is larger in its impact than perhaps what the Catholic church intended (which would explain why people like Tyndale were prohibited from trying to disseminate its teachings), but that is because Christ really and truly is triumphing in His work of salvation, redemption, and granting free will choice to the people on earth. The comment “might as well get rid of the New Testament” shows a pretty narrow view of the good the New Testament can do in people’s lives who don’t belong to the church you belong to. Perhaps you would want to re-phrase that statement.😉
 
Why is it that nearly every Mormon post I read anymore makes me feel as if I have just fallen down a rabbit’s hole?
 
Why is it that nearly every Mormon post I read anymore makes me feel as if I have just fallen down a rabbit’s hole?
Click to expand...
Truly a wonderland and a different reality. 😃
The comment “might as well get rid of the New Testament” shows a pretty narrow view of the good the New Testament can do in people’s lives who don’t belong to the church you belong to.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the founders of the LDS faith did not trust the NT because the Catholic Church had been its guardian for 1500 years. Therefore, they wrote the BoM to substitute for the NT. That can account for the pre-Christian “Christianity” that we see in the BoM.
 
Again, Parker, then you do not understand the Catholic faith and Jesus Christ.

I would take documented history any day over conjecturing or changing the history of faith by one man…Tynsdale could not give us the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, or the other sacaraments, and the context of Scripture that incorporates all.

So many times these individuals break away because they cannot grasp the depth of Christ…that can only be experienced in the priestly ministered Sacraments.

Those are man made denominations. Look at the fracturing of Christianity, all the disputes, the divorces both within families and among Christians…using the sacred Word of God.

We are not gods. We will never become…because just by individuals taking matters into their own hands has greatly diminished Christianity. United we stand, divided we fall.

Divisions come from Satan.
 
KathleenGee said:
Again, Parker, then you do not understand the Catholic faith and Jesus Christ.

…

Divisions come from Satan.
Click to expand...
Kathleen,

Contention comes as a result of the influence of Satan, but “divisions” don’t necessarily come from Satan. Christ said, meaningfully, “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” (Matthew 10:35)

Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

This would be because by free will choice some members of a family would accept the message of the gospel, and some wouldn’t and would strongly try and keep the old traditions in place within a family.

So the Savior did not teach unity for the sake of unity; however, He did teach unity with Him and with His Father–even becoming one with Them (which means to become like Them.) But that was after He had taught all He taught, and when He gave His great Intercessory prayer.

Peace to you and all.
 
Parker, His statement was about regrettable human behavior, not His intent. We need to look at that statement within the entire context of Scripture. We don’t interpret things in isolation.
 
Yes…we look at Scripture from its whole, not phrases, parts, passages especially to create a new following. That is why the Lord left us His apostles and their successors.
 
St. Peter wants us not to personally interpret Scriptures in his letter. He attests for himself and the apostles that they truly witnessed our Lord Jesus Christ, His Majesty.

And the Holy Spirit through Tradition has insured the true intent of Scripture.

Papyrus was used for writing out the Bible. Then eventually sheep skin was used and it took 460 plus sheepskin to make one Bible. Very expensive. One Bible’s price was equal to ten years of work. So practically anyone could afford them.

The Church existed before the New Testament. There is no book in the Bible that tells you what books to keep and what to let go.

Parker esteems Tyndale.It is ironic that the Mormons consider Christianity corrupt, but look to Tyndale as a reformer. Rather, Tyndale violated the Apostles’ admonition not to change one word of Scripture. He changed various words and phrases in Scriptures to change the doctrines according to his fancy. How one man can assume that his interpretations supercede the apostles and their successors, the councils, the great Scriptural scholars and theologians is quite deviant.

Tyndale is the author of the corrupted Scriptures. The Catholic Church burned many of them. King Henry the 8th considered them also corrupt and had them burned in England in 1531.

So it is the lone Tyndale who reinterpreted Scripture against the admonishment of St. Peter and corrupted the Word of God with his man made interpretations, devoid of the Holy Spirit.
 
Finally, I was referring earlier to Revelations, the last works of the Great Evangelist, St. John, who did not mention any forthcoming apostasy after his death.

I also referred to Mary in Revelations. Mormonism draws on different events. Here is some information in regards to the event that happened in Mexico with the appearance of Mary of Guadalulpe. There is Mary of Guadalupe in Spain as well. There is the symbolism of Mary of Guadalupe coinciding with the image of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelations 12.

www.truthsoftheimage.org/en/index.html

Again, the main point of Revelations is the ongoing battle between good and evil, that we are to persevere and at the end of the world, Christ will be victorious…nothing about the Church and our priesthood and our creed corrupt, or an abomination, or needing a new message.
 
KathleenGee said:
…
Parker esteems Tyndale.It is ironic that the Mormons consider Christianity corrupt, but look to Tyndale as a reformer. Rather, Tyndale violated the Apostles’ admonition not to change one word of Scripture. He changed various words and phrases in Scriptures to change the doctrines according to his fancy. How one man can assume that his interpretations supercede the apostles and their successors, the councils, the great Scriptural scholars and theologians is quite deviant.

Tyndale is the author of the corrupted Scriptures. The Catholic Church burned many of them. King Henry the 8th considered them also corrupt and had them burned in England in 1531.

So it is the lone Tyndale who reinterpreted Scripture against the admonishment of St. Peter and corrupted the Word of God with his man made interpretations, devoid of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Kathleen,

I think something you may not have much background about is the translation process of getting the Bible into English. Tyndale’s translation was a sincere effort to re-look at earlier texts and bring them over into English; and his more closely matches the Hebrew and Greek than does the modern Catholic English translation, for example. King James thought it well to have an English Bible translation for the people–hooray for King James and hooray for the King James Translation, which was largely based on William Tyndale’s beautiful, often poetic and definitely inspired translation.👍

Happy studying to all…I for one am profoundly grateful for what William Tyndale did that paved the way for the King James Translation of the Holy Bible, and someday I hope to thank him personally! 🙂
 
ParkerD said:
Kathleen,

I think something you may not have much background about is the translation process of getting the Bible into English. Tyndale’s translation was a sincere effort to re-look at earlier texts and bring them over into English; and his more closely matches the Hebrew and Greek than does the modern Catholic English translation, for example. King James thought it well to have an English Bible translation for the people–hooray for King James and hooray for the King James Translation, which was largely based on William Tyndale’s beautiful, often poetic and definitely inspired translation.👍

Happy studying to all…I for one am profoundly grateful for what William Tyndale did that paved the way for the King James Translation of the Holy Bible, and someday I hope to thank him personally! 🙂
Click to expand...
Did you get that Kathleen? The problem is that you just don’t have the background, otherwise you would agree with him. Its kind of like belief in the BoM. If you don’t believe it, it is because you didn’t have a high enough degree of sincerity when you prayed about it. It all comes down to the position that if one disagrees with the Mormon view, it is because they are less than intelligent, uneducated, or lacking in faith. Of course, they let you know you are just ignorant with a smile and a pat on the back. They’re such nice people, you know.
 
SteveVH said:
Did you get that Kathleen? The problem is that you just don’t have the background, otherwise you would agree with him. Its kind of like belief in the BoM. If you don’t believe it, it is because you didn’t have a high enough degree of sincerity when you prayed about it. It all comes down to the position that if one disagrees with the Mormon view, it is because they are less than intelligent, uneducated, or lacking in faith.
Click to expand...
ParkerD thinks he is on his way to godhood, and with his Mormon priesthood he thinks he is 100 steps ahead (at least) of everyone here who is not Mormon. It isn’t that we’re less than intelligent, uneducated or lacking in faith, we are behind in our progression and only someone who is so far ahead can really see. Someone so far ahead in their progression naturally has more intelligence, and someone with the Mormon “priesthood” has more power.

In short, he’s going to be god and you aren’t.
 
RebeccaJ said:
ParkerD thinks he is on his way to godhood, and with his Mormon priesthood he thinks he is 100 steps ahead (at least) of everyone here who is not Mormon. It isn’t that we’re less than intelligent, uneducated or lacking in faith, we are behind in our progression and only someone who is so far ahead can really see. Someone so far ahead in their progression naturally has more intelligence, and someone with the Mormon “priesthood” has more power.

In short, he’s going to be god and you aren’t.
Click to expand...
And aren’t we so blessed to be receiving such divine enlightenment?
 
SteveVH said:
Did you get that Kathleen? The problem is that you just don’t have the background, otherwise you would agree with him. Its kind of like belief in the BoM. If you don’t believe it, it is because you didn’t have a high enough degree of sincerity when you prayed about it. It all comes down to the position that if one disagrees with the Mormon view, it is because they are less than intelligent, uneducated, or lacking in faith. Of course, they let you know you are just ignorant with a smile and a pat on the back. They’re such nice people, you know.
Click to expand...
Is this an example of Christian love or is this something else? Wouldn’t a better response be to just ignore it. a pity we are such dismal sinners to be talking about religion in such a morally superior manner. Sad indeed.
 
JeanMichel said:
Is this an example of Christian love or is this something else? Wouldn’t a better response be to just ignore it. a pity we are such dismal sinners to be talking about religion in such a morally superior manner. Sad indeed.
Click to expand...
JeanMichel,

Thanks once again for your participation in this forum. The two who made comments know that they won’t get a direct response, so that probably brings an edginess to a comment or two, but since I’ve done my share of sarcastic comments during my life (which I have come to appreciate my wife trying to help me get over that), then I’m just saying that it’s OK with me. When sarcasm is evident, then I take it like Jonathan Swift used it–as dramatizing the situation and exaggerating their point of view.

(This comment is also so other readers understand why a direct dialog isn’t going on in those cases.)

Again, thanks, and God bless you and your family and all readers. Have a great day.
 
Again, it is funny how our critics talk about godhood waaaaay more than LDS do.
They create this characature of us with godhood constantly on our minds and how proud and vain we are looking down our noses at others that just don’t understand.
This is called a strawman. One that I see is so often created and attacked, then all those involved high five each other on their victory.
If they understood the LDS church and its members like they thought they did, they would know that their characature does not match with reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top