LDS claim about J. Smith

[IanS]

amgid:

You mean to tell me that you are surprised about that? How strange. I would have thought the reason for that was obvious enough. Since the early Christian church apostatized, and God has now restored His true church on earth, it is to be expected that the scriptural interpretations of the two are not always going to agree.

Again, no real evidence of total apostasy or otherwise except some made-up theory by the LDS, which you so desperately cling too, because you know without it you would all look pretty silly. Do you really believe that God would completely empty himself for sake of man, even on a cross, then just kick back and watch everything he died and rose for fall into an almost immediate apostasy for 1800 years until old JS came rolling along?

If God did need to “renew” his covenant with JS and not start a new one. Why is it so totally different that the one Christ established?

amgid:

There are lots of clues. Unfortunately you don’t know your own scriptures, and you try to run away from them. Here are some scriptural clues as to what the NT prophets prophesied about:

So I see you’ve started getting personal with me too. I must apologize, I guess I’m not as well programmed as you are. However, these prophecies came true, and did not reveal anything new about the kingdom that was not already known.

So you claim that the LDS have a “gift” that tells them when they are right. So how often are they right?

Deuteronomy, chapter 18:21-22
And if you say in your heart, `How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ – when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

What if MY prophetic gift tells me the LDS is wrong and Joseph Smith just ate some funny mushrooms in those woods? Could I be proven wrong?

 

[IanS]

amgid:

You are kidding me of course, right? I didn’t laugh though. Not a very good joke.

So you think I’m a joker and a biblical ignoramus that can’t defend the Catholic Church’s supreme authority with scripture. Well my friend, in spite of all my ignorance I was able to scrounge up one or two things about it:

One Holy, catholic, and apostolic Church:
Jn 1516: You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
Jn20:21: But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me.
Mt22:28: "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
29: and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
30: that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
1 Cor23: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Lk10:16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Mt 18:18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mt17:17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

The Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals:
Jn14;26: But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
Lk10:16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
1 Tim3:15: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
1Jn:27: but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.
Mt28;20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

(Continues on next post)

 

[IanS]

The Catholic Church is unbroken and perpetual:
Is 9:6: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
7: Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
Dan4:44: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;
Dan7:14: And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Lk1:32: He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
33: and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."
Mt 7:24: “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock;
Mt13:24: Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25: but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26: So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
27: And the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28: He said to them, An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29: But he said, No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
30: Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
Mt16:18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mt28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Jn14:16: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,

 

[IanS]

amgid:

Religion is a matter of faith. There are many things that you have to accept on faith, without having direct evidence for them. How do you know that the miracles of Moses ever happened? How do you know that the miracles of Jesus ever happened? How do you know that it is not all a fabricated story, a nice work of fiction? The answer is that you don’t. You accept it on faith. The same here.

Not even close to the same here! I am well aware of the miracles of Moses. However, God made sure Moses had hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses with him to attest to what happened. How many thousands were with little Joe on that faithful day in 1820? Oh that’s right, NOBODY WAS!!

amgid:

Some become angels, some become gods.

Wow! I can’t wait to find out what I get to be.

amgid:

No, that is not what I meant, and I think you know that. If you can’t be honest in your debating tactics, then I am afraid there is very little for us to discuss.

Now that’t just a cheap escape route.

amgid:

An absurd comment. Very absurd.

But true. Now it’s a tactic used by atheists and apparently, Mormons too.

Now I’m 100% sure your pride will not allow you to **not ** get the last word in. However, I just want to inform you that I won’t be seeing it, because I’m done with this thread. Not because I’m conceding, but because I’ve heard all I need to know now.

Here’s what you managed to convince me of about LDS, amgid:

I used to think that all Mormons were very, nice, decent, charitable people. You’ve convinced me otherwise.

I used to get upset when people would say that Mormons are not Christians and are highly programmed cult members. I will not be upset by that anymore.

Congratulations! :clapping:

 

[Superstar905]

simple question to all Mormons…what year did the Church go Apostate? also, according to Amgid, “Peter and the other Apostles were never appointed bishops of anything, and there is no evidence in scripture or in secular history that they ever were”. What would happen if I could prove that was wrong?

 

[Superstar905]

still waiting…

 

[mormon_fool]

Superstar905:

simple question to all Mormons…what year did the Church go Apostate?

421 AD. The Church in the Americas retained priesthood authority at least until then.

“Peter and the other Apostles were never appointed bishops of anything, and there is no evidence in scripture or in secular history that they ever were”. What would happen if I could prove that was wrong?

We would see a prime example of what happens to you when you let theory control the data.

–fool

 

[Brad_Haas]

Let theory control the data? You seem familiar with my websites, so I take it you’ve read my page of New Testament passages that stand against an imminent great apostasy. Is that just reading my theory into it?

What about this data?

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
-Acts 1:20

I hope I just got the wrong impression from your post, but it just seems to me that you’ll reject whatever is presented to you as the product of a priori assertions. To me, that itself is letting your theory that it’ll be wrong control the data given to you!

 

[Superstar905]

421 AD. The Church in the Americas retained priesthood authority at least until then.

We would see a prime example of what happens to you when you let theory control the data.

–fool

Before I handle this further, why the year 421 AD? What happened to make you pick that year.

Also, you only mention the Church in the America’s (which I’m not sure even existed in 421 AD except of native indians maybe), that is not where it started, what about the Church’s in Antioch, Rome, etc…did they all go Apostolate at the same time?

 

[Superstar905]

Superstar905:

Before I handle this further, why the year 421 AD? What happened to make you pick that year.

Also, you only mention the Church in the America’s (which I’m not sure even existed in 421 AD except of native indians maybe), that is not where it started, what about the Church’s in Antioch, Rome, etc…did they all go Apostolate at the same time?

Bump

oh, and P.S., please show me the documentation to back up your claims. Thanks.

 

[TamaraS]

421 AD. The Church in the Americas retained priesthood authority at least until then.

We would see a prime example of what happens to you when you let theory control the data.

–fool

Sorry to pop in now, but I’ve reading this for days, watching everyone go back and forth. I won’t post anymore after this. I just have a quick question. I’ll look for someone’s reply, then I’ll leave everyone alone because I feel I don’t belong in this one.

You and/or Amgid (sorry I can’t remember exactly who posted what without going back through the whole thread) say there is absolutely no proof that Peter or Paul were appointed bishops, but above it is said that the early priesthood authority was retained in the Americas at least until then. I would find it much easier to believe that Peter or Paul were Bishops (also in line with the priesthood) than that the church in the America’s had retained the priesthood. There’s much in scripture that can lead us to a reasonable conclusion that Peter and Paul could be appointed in this manner, but who are some of the men in the priesthhood that retained this priestly authority in the church in the America’s? What makes the latter true, and the former is not? I don’t know much about the Mormon church and I was just curious.
Now I’ll leave everyone alone!
Tamara

 

[Superstar905]

Superstar905:

Bump

oh, and P.S., please show me the documentation to back up your claims. Thanks.

bump

 

[Jerusha]

He has no documentation outside of the BOMb!!

There was no Church in the Americas in 421AD.

The earliest possible influence on the Americas might have been through this guy:

newadvent.org/cathen/02758c.htm

Which was significantly after, and has minimal other documentation.

The most likely Christian influence in the Americas in pre-Columbian times was WELL after 421AD. Actually, the Book of Alma of the BOMb was probably derived from Indian legends of these people:
newadvent.org/cathen/01416a.htm

I hate sounding like a broken record. But for the people who need it pounded into their heads, and the newbie LDS, I suppose it needs to be repeated and re-repeated.

 

[amgid]

IanS

What you are engaged in is a slanging match rather than a reasoned, sober, logical debate, and that makes a meaningful discussion impossible. Good luck with your beliefs. I respect your choice of religion and personal beliefs.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Superstar905:

simple question to all Mormons…what year did the Church go Apostate?

The Apostasy was a process, not an event; but if you want me to set a date for it, I would say that the process began when the Apostles died.

also, according to Amgid, “Peter and the other Apostles were never appointed bishops of anything, and there is no evidence in scripture or in secular history that they ever were”. What would happen if I could prove that was wrong?

I am waiting with baited breath for you to prove that that was wrong!

amgid

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

Let theory control the data? You seem familiar with my websites, so I take it you’ve read my page of New Testament passages that stand against an imminent great apostasy. Is that just reading my theory into it?

What about this data?

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick

let another take.
-Acts 1:20

The word “bishoprick” here simply means “office” or “calling”. It is not equivalent to the office of “bishop” to which many were ordained in the NT by the Apostles. The original Psalms reads as follows:

Psalms 109:

8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
The New Jerusalem Bible, which is Catholic approved translation, also renders this word in Acts 1:20 as “office”.

If your reasoning were valid, then every bishop would also be an Apostle; when we know in fact that that is not correct. There were only twelve Apostles at any one time (Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13; 22:14); and their office was higher than that of a bishop:

1 Corinthians 12:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
The office of bishop falls in the category of “pastors and teachers” and “helps and governments”. It is not equivalent to that of an Apostle. The office of an Apostle was essentially a travelling ministry. They were to travel to all the world to preach the gospel, and to invite all men to come unto Christ (Mark 16:16). The word “apostle” literally means one who has been “sent forth”. They were not meant to settle in one particular area, and look after the church in a particular location. The office of a bishop, by contrast, was a localized ministry. They were ordained in a particular location, and their ministry was to look after the flock in that particular locality over whom they were made overseers (see Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 1:7). Big difference between a bishop and an Apostle. The Apostles were never bishops.

amgid

 

[Superstar905]

amgid:

The Apostasy was a process, not an event; but if you want me to set a date for it, I would say that the process began when the Apostles died.

I am waiting with baited breath for you to prove that that was wrong!

amgid

You said it was the year 421AD. On what basis, do you say this started when the Apostles died. Where is your supporting documentation please?

If you can’t back up what you say, don’t say it. I await please.

 

[Superstar905]

Superstar905:

Before I handle this further, why the year 421 AD? What happened to make you pick that year.

Also, you only mention the Church in the America’s (which I’m not sure even existed in 421 AD except of native indians maybe), that is not where it started, what about the Church’s in Antioch, Rome, etc…did they all go Apostolate at the same time?

AMGID, please answer me about the Church in the America’s, what is it’s history, and where is the documentation to support this please? Please answer my questions. Thanks.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Amgid

A while back you said that to know the History behind the Scriptures / Bible is really not that important. I beleive it is very important.
I asked you a question. You did not respond. Do you remember the question? The Scripture?

God Bless

This question as well Amgid

 

[amgid]

Superstar905:

You said it was the year 421AD.

I didn’t say that. Mormon fool said that. You have to let him answer that for you. Apparently he was referring to the Christian church that the Lord established among the Nephites on the American continent. But that is a bit of a diversion. When we talk of the Apostasy, we generally refer to the apostasy of the Christian church on the old continent, not the Americas. The two are not directly related.

On what basis, do you say this started when the Apostles died. Where is your supporting documentation please?

By the Apostasy we mean the loss of priesthood authority and the keys of revelation to lead and direct the Church by revelation from God. Only the Apostles held those keys. Whey they died, those keys were lost.

If you can’t back up what you say, don’t say it. I await please.

I have already said it!

Also, you only mention the Church in the America’s (which I’m not sure even existed in 421 AD except of native indians maybe), . . .

I didn’t mention that. Mormon fool mentioned that. You have to let him answer that for you.

. . . that is not where it started, what about the Church’s in Antioch, Rome, etc…did they all go Apostolate at the same time?

I agree. The Lord first established His church in Palestine. But after His resurrection He visited the Nephites in America, and established His church among them too.

AMGID, please answer me about the Church in the America’s, what is it’s history, and where is the documentation to support this please? Please answer my questions. Thanks.

The answer to that is given in the Book of Mormon. You have to get hold of a copy of the Book of Mormon and read it for yourself. It would take too long for me to explain it here.

amgid