That came later. However, when Peter first met Jesus he came to believe by a miracle.
Cite scripture where Jesus Christ talks of Mormonism.
My defense is the witness of the Holy Spirit I have that the revelations Joseph Smith received were true and came from God.
Argument is actually a noble excercise when engaged in by reasonable people with the common goal of finding truth in the end. My comments were stated for the purpose of establishing a basis for Catholic belief as opposed to the basis for LDS belief concerning the loss of “priesthood authority”. I was only responding to your comments and hoping you would make a reasonable defense.
Just faith is good enough for me!
Jesus said: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” (Matthew 16:4); and in LDS scripture the Lord has said: “Faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe” (D&C 63:9). I believe that is true. That is what I go by.
The standard scriptures quoted by Mormons relating to the Apostasy and the loss of the priesthood are well known and referenced in many articles and discussions. I am not sure if a useful purpose will be served here by rehashing them again. They would not be acceptable to you, but to us they are.
The conviction comes by the witness of the Holy Spirit to us that the Latter-day Restoration is true.
In a way yes. You either believe that he was a prophet of the Lord or you don’t. No amount of argument, miracles, or signs will convince anyone.What I know is that Mormon men cannot hold the Melchizedek or Aaronic priesthood.
Read the Old Testament and see for yourself.
I am truly dumbfounded that Mormons pass out literature making broad claims that they can’t back up at all.
I really thought you’d have something to say about priesthood authority being taken from the earth.
So all of Mormonism hangs on the sayings of one Joseph Smith…???
We don’t believe that it was the miracles that convinced them, but the witness of the Holy Ghost. According to the book of Revelation, in the last days God will allow Satan to perform miracles to deceive the inhabitants of the earth (Rev. 13:14). So performing miracles cannot be a sufficient “proof” to anyone.
The whole of the Bible. Jesus talked about the gospel, and that is what Mormonism is.
Joseph Smith was a bringer of a new dispensation of the gospel, like Moses. That is what he is compared to. Believe it or not, Moses also was a Christian prophet, although he did not live on earth at the same time as the Lord’s earthly ministry.
Then are you saying Jesus Christ was…misinformed?
Mormons don’t have to prove there was an apostasy. If Joseph Smith’s claims are true then it follows the Catholic Church was apostate. I don’t think our Catholic idea of an unbroken chain of authority means anything if God was speaking to Joseph Smith in the 19th century. If God was speaking to Joseph Smith and telling him the authority was lost, then the authority was lost. In my opinion there is no evidence that God was really speaking to Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Joseph Smith’s scriptures aren’t very convincing.
Hi flyonthewall -
JS was a bringer of a new dispensation alright!My defense is the witness of the Holy Spirit I have that the revelations Joseph Smith received were true and came from God.
Please explain what that revelation is like for you and how it comes to you. Does it come often or only once?
Just faith is good enough for me!
Why? Why believe in something illogical?
Jesus said: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” (Matthew 16:4); and in LDS scripture the Lord has said: “Faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe” (D&C 63:9). I believe that is true. That is what I go by.
Okay, but why REJECT things that can be seen? Even Moses had the tablet with the 10 Commandments in hand. God knew the people would not believe Moses if he claimed to have spoken to God but had no proof. God always provides for us to help us in our faith.
The standard scriptures quoted by Mormons relating to the Apostasy and the loss of the priesthood are well known and referenced in many articles and discussions. I am not sure if a useful purpose will be served here by rehashing them again. They would not be acceptable to you, but to us they are.
I think it is very purposeful. Because you claim to have the only true priesthood on the face of the earth, then it goes to show that you (assuming you are male) and all other LDS men believe that they have some sort of power over others. Think future presidential candidates…
I think we should all know why and how Mormons think they have got the corner on the priestly market.
The conviction comes by the witness of the Holy Spirit to us that the Latter-day Restoration is true.
But what about the rest of us? What about people who are offended by the lack of a Christian lifestyle by one certain supposed prophet?
In a way yes. You either believe that he was a prophet of the Lord or you don’t. No amount of argument, miracles, or signs will convince anyone.
No, God would choose someone who was not offensive to so many good people. You are right, arguing away will never convince the majority of people that a person of questionable character would ever be a prophet! That’s because the Bible warned us to be aware of false prophets and we are listening to God.
We don’t believe that it was the miracles that convinced them, but the witness of the Holy Ghost. According to the book of Revelation, in the last days God will allow Satan to perform miracles to deceive the inhabitants of the earth (Rev. 13:14). So performing miracles cannot be a sufficient “proof” to anyone.
Well, then read your Bible. When people were healed or raised from the dead they ran and told everyone they could. Why would Jesus perform miracles if it wasn’t to prove His Divinity?
The whole of the Bible. Jesus talked about the gospel, and that is what Mormonism is.
So when Jesus told Peter “upon you I will build My Church and it will never fall away” He was referring to Mormonism?
Joseph Smith was a bringer of a new dispensation of the gospel, like Moses. That is what he is compared to. Believe it or not, Moses also was a Christian prophet, although he did not live on earth at the same time as the Lord’s earthly ministry.
I would add that I don’t find Mormon history very convincing. The examples given to show a loss of authority were present in the early Mormon Church.
Hi BartBurk -
True, for one, they all have parents (Hebrews 7:3)
And from Leviticus 21:16-23:
That is right. That is what he was.
I think this sums up the LDS position very well.
From the Catholic perspective you are of course correct. But from the Mormon perspective if Joseph Smith is a true prophet then there was an apostasy. If the Mormon Church sent their missionaries out and simply said there was an apostasy of the ancient church then we could demand proof of the apostasy, but the LDS Church doesn’t do that. It sends out missionaries with the Book of Mormon and tells them the testimony of Joseph Smith. That is their proof of an ancient apostasy. They don’t need any other proof if the claims of Joseph Smith hold up. And of course the Mormons would claim their temple work for the dead shows that God cared about all of the people who were denied proper authority because of the apostasy. They would also claim that Christ’s work continued imperfectly because God allowed the Bible to continue as a witness, but people lost the fullness of the Gospel. In the Mormon view God did not deny anyone heaven because He allowed an apostasy. Mormons would claim that God’s work through Joseph Smith opened up the gospel of Jesus Christ for everyone regardless of when or where they lived – the gates of hell didn’t prevail because of God’s work through Joseph Smith. While Joseph Smith’s claims don’t hold up under scrutiny, it’s not necessary for Mormons to prove an apostasy to substantiate his claims.
You are really cracking me up, although I am not sure you are kidding.
Even if you are a good Mormon you have a problem – did the Brighamites or the Josephites maintain the Aaronic priesthood? Joseph Smith III’s claim to authority seem as good or better than Brigham’s. Appeals to authority tend to fall apart if you begin to base them on theological views or the righteousness of those claiming to hold the authority. The Aaronic Priesthood might have remained even though a claim could be maintained that Joseph Smith’s theology and committing adultery invalidated his own authority. In the same way the Catholic priesthood could have survived even when the holders were sinners (as we all are). Priesthood authority only survives through God’s grace – it seems to me a bit implausible to believe that God wrenched away his authority from the Catholic Church because its holders were sinners. If that be the case no authority would ever survive.
So I can become a Mormon and not believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet?
What would be something that would prove to you that an apostasy occurred? To Mormons (and many Protestants) the assumption of unrighteous authority by the Catholic clergy as well as the intrusion of non-Biblical theology would be enough to show them the Catholic Church apostatized. The Catholic view tends to be there was an uninterrupted legal chain of authority passed down from the apostles to the bishops and that is enough to prove that no apostasy occurred. I don’t think you can get anywhere on either side because it is all a matter of faith on both sides. As a Catholic I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the doctrinal development in the early church, but you won’t get many Protestants or Mormons to agree with that assertion. The problem with the Protestants is they don’t really have a way to argue the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire the development of doctrine. The strength of the Mormon position is they have the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures to buttress their belief that Joseph Smith was given restored authority which in their view shows the doctrine of the Catholic Church is apostate. Of course the whole Mormon framework falls apart when you actually study their scriptures and see them for the frauds they are.
The Mormons would claim there was an apostasy because Joseph Smith was told by God that such an apostasy occurred. It is not a matter of proving historically that one occurred. The Mormon (and Protestant) position is the authority of the Catholic Church is asserted falsely. The Protestants don’t claim it was necessary and the Mormons claim it because there were no longer apostles succeeding the original apostles. The Mormon claim is based on the revelation of God to Joseph Smith, not on some historical study which proves it. Apostasy is in the eyes of the beholder. Luther would never have considered himself an apostate, but seemed to believe the Catholic Church was in apostasy. The Mormons are not stepping away from their claim of a Catholic apostasy, they are just basing it on something we reject.
