P
Peter_John
Guest
Excellent observation! You get it!
LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
PD,
It is not seemingly a facade, it IS a facade. Jesus fulfills all things. He established His Church during His ministry in order to bring all people to Salvation. Why would you want or need to believe otherwise?
To claim otherwise is to put up a facade that overlays this absolute truth, with a lie.
There is no need for this, and Mormonism indeed should be seen by all people for what it is. This includes you. Trust that God has provided a place to go for Salvation, to hear the Good News, of Christ Risen. He has never left us orphans, as He promised.
Have a concern for your soul, and what you believe about God. He doesn’t promise something and then remove Himself from what is HIS. For you to believe this, is really a rather frightening prospect for how you perceive God.
You should seriously reconsider your position, and what you are actually saying about God’s Work in the world. He doesn’t fail.
He is the Word of God, and there is no other prophet that can or needs to replace God’s Perfect Word REVEALED. This is the Word you should be meditating on, following, and seeking to understand. There is no other.
P
Peter_John
Guest
Also, this may be a good point to mention that most LDS are raised in the belief that Catholics do not believe in revelation. It would be a good time for each of us to affirm to our colleagues that we DO believe in personal Revelation. Like Mormons, we do not believe that any valid personal revelation will contradict the established tenets of our Faith. We do not believe in divine revelation of any new dogmas, as all are already contained in the existing scripture, but we do believe that we can understand doctrines previously not specified from continued study of scripture (such as Mary, Mother of God as a valid title for the Blessed Virgin). But we do believe in general revelation within the bounds of existing Dogma – indeed the selection of each new Pope is a revelation – we just believe that all Dogma has already been revealed through the prophets or the perfect and complete Revelation of God in Christ.
If anything I said sounds inaccurate, please correct me, but I think I worded it accurately in a way that Mormons will know what we mean. The important thing: Most are taught that we do not believ in revelation at all, when in fact we believe that it never stopped, we only believe that God has already revealed all Dogma – and Dogma means to us what Doctrine means to Mormons.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
This has been explained to the LDS [who are participating] in this thread, several times. They don’t believe us. They would rather believe what their church teaches about us.
(edit to add what I put in brackets)
(edit to add what I put in brackets)
P
ParkerD
Guest
RJ,
What I end up believing is what I read in comments such as the one you made just earlier to me, that says you need nothing besides Christ, don’t need prophets even though Christ said our day would be as the days of Noah and at that time the earth had a prophet with a message that was being rejected by the majority of the people.
I also have read the position paper represented about praying about the Book of Mormon, and dismissing the idea of personal prayer to know whether something from God is true.
I also have read comments dismissing, questioning, or discounting the idea of a “burning in the bosom” of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus or the “burning in the bosom” of anyone today and it being true communication by the influence of the Holy Ghost.
So, the beliefs are evidenced in the comments that are made.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
PD,
You should believe me when I tell you, the Holy Spirit works in my life. Otherwise, how would I have gone from atheist to a person who seeks to follow the Will of God? Be assured, I consider the very faith I have, as a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps you see only what you want to see and ignore everything else?
For someone like me, an emotional person, and having had my emotions lead me to places I should never have gone…God knows how to speak to me, and I have only profound gratefulness in my heart. I don’t need you, or anyone else, invalidating my experiences, as they are truly an encounter with Truth, Who is a Person: Jesus Christ.
He is Who I seek to follow. I don’t think it is getting through your head, how central He is. PROPHET, HIGH PRIEST, AND KING. What am I lacking in Him? From where does the Holy Spirit proceed, but the Father and the Son? With the Father and Son He is worshiped and glorified. I submit to GOD, and no other.
Peace.
You should believe me when I tell you, the Holy Spirit works in my life. Otherwise, how would I have gone from atheist to a person who seeks to follow the Will of God? Be assured, I consider the very faith I have, as a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps you see only what you want to see and ignore everything else?
For someone like me, an emotional person, and having had my emotions lead me to places I should never have gone…God knows how to speak to me, and I have only profound gratefulness in my heart. I don’t need you, or anyone else, invalidating my experiences, as they are truly an encounter with Truth, Who is a Person: Jesus Christ.
He is Who I seek to follow. I don’t think it is getting through your head, how central He is. PROPHET, HIGH PRIEST, AND KING. What am I lacking in Him? From where does the Holy Spirit proceed, but the Father and the Son? With the Father and Son He is worshiped and glorified. I submit to GOD, and no other.
Peace.
P
Peter_John
Guest
Actually, I cannot dismiss the “burning in the bosom”. There is so much doctrinally true in the Book of Mormon that you cannot help but get witness to its truth if you ask about it. That does not mean the overall story has to be literally true, or that there is not some seed of heresy implanted in it.
Stories of Christian missionaries converting entire populations, of Christians facing execution without resistance to the point that more of their assailants converted than the Christians who died, of faithful miraculously unharmed in combat, of imprisoned missionaries miraculously released, of faith so great that “even the trees obey us” – all of these are part of Catholic tradition from before the Book of Mormon was published. Huge chunks of the Book of Mormon come straight out of the Bible, so of course they are true.
But the Church of Jesus Christ does not teach what is in the Book of Mormon. It internprets the Book of Mormon according to the Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and the words of contemproary and historic leaders.
Here’s the thing: You criticize the Catholics on this site for saying that Jesus is all that matters, and that is exactly the message of the Book of Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not follow the Book of Mormon.
I say this this not believeing that it is true for some very simple reasons – but I can understand why someone would believe it, and why one might perceive a divine witness of it. The Lord demonstrated that some witnesses should not be accepted, even if they are right, “beware the leaven of the Pharisees”. The source matters.
It matters less what it says than where it leads, if where it leads is wrong. If it leads away from a valid authority that remains intact, than where it leads is wrong.
This discussion is about establishing where that valid authority was taken away.
P
Peter_John
Guest
Now we are getting somewhere! I am not certain of your interpretation expressed in your last sentence.
Whether or not Clement appealed out of concern or out of authority, the important thing is that it sounds as if you accept him as being a valid Bishop. Whether out of authority or concern, his letter was taken as a general guide, if not authority, and was only not included in the Bible because Clement was not an Apostle.
That means we can date the alleged apostasy as happening sometime after Clement. It also means we need to look at other documents and figures roughly contemporary with Clement. Let’s say Ignatius of Antioch and the Didache for a start.
Clement still carried great weight in Catholic liturgical history, and continues today. If I had to compare it, I would place Clement I as comparable to something between The teachings if the Prophet Joseph Smith and The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. It has less authority in Catholicism than the former has in Mormonism, and more influence in doctrine in Catholicism than the latter has in Mormonism.
I am also curious: Where are the stake presidents in all this? There seems to be nobody between the Apostles and the Bishops – the 70, or 72 depending on translation, do not seem to be intermediaries between the bishops and the Apostles.
So you know, Catholics consider St. Stephen, considered a Seventy in Mormonism if I studied correctly, to be a Deacon. A Deacon in Catholicism is significantly more significant than in Mormnonism. It would be roughly equivalent to a counselor in an LDS Bishopric, with a few significant differences.
P
Peter_John
Guest
Then in this case The Community of Christ would have been the valid heir as the true Restored Church, had a restoration been needed.
That is exactly my point. We have here a parallel to what happened when the Eastern and Roman churches split. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers this a valid manner of resolution, then it rules out using the Great Schism as a claim to support their argument for apostasy. This narrows the time frame of when they can prove that such an apostasy occurred. It had to have happened before the Great Schism, since the methodof Catholics having resolved that is no different from the way Moromons resolved their own.
P
Peter_John
Guest
Very good point. Their writings emphasize the risk they are in.
P
Peter_John
Guest
One answer to this actually reinforces Clement as a central authority. To this day when the Pope speaks (or writes officially) he speaks in the first person plural.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Peter John,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does indeed teach the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that Jesus is “all that matters” in the sense that this would mean there is not a need for prophets and apostles in the midst of also believing in personal revelation such as the vision of the tree of life that both Lehi and Nephi received.
Prophets and apostles are called of God to lead people to Christ through their teachings and example. They also are able, by revelation and by visiting places throughout the world, to discern when there is a need for warning or when there is a need for helping the people in a particular place who may have brought some ceremony into their practices that represents a change from the simplicity of the gospel, and needs to be changed back to that simplicity.
But certainly a person is better off believing in Christ than not believing in Him at all, so long as this leads to repentance and forgiveness and love of others, and He is central to the plan of salvation as taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the New Testament. Those doctrines do matter most in the gospel, and are only possible through Him in their fullest expression.
Peace and good will to you and all. Have a terrific day.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Still, no proof, or even evidence, of priesthood authority ever leaving the Church that Jesus founded. Of course this is because this idea is nothing but a conspiracy theory, and theories of conspiracy are all we’re getting in this thread.
Perhaps someday Mormons will be able to look at the Church and see that it never failed, and understand as Catholics do, that the only reason is because of God. Who sustains her as a husband sustains His Bride.
Perhaps someday Mormons will be able to look at the Church and see that it never failed, and understand as Catholics do, that the only reason is because of God. Who sustains her as a husband sustains His Bride.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, I agree. Mormons point to a lot of things as “apostasy”, all of which can be pointed to in themselves.
It comes down to one thing only. They do not trust that God kept His own Body in tact, and turn to teachings that support their distrust.
P
pablope
Guest
P
Peter_John
Guest
If pressed I would have to say that I’ve read it about eight times. I have to estimate because I only read it a few times as an integral work. I really tried understanding Mormonism, and eventually decided that the key would be taking the Book at its word as the fullness of the Gospel, and reading it for what it says on its own, like the earliest 19th Century converts, without commentary. I ended up more puzzled than ever, and realized how inconsistent the Book on its own was from what I observed in Church meetings and read in other commentary. That was about six months before I attended my first Catholic Mass.
I am guessing that you have not read it for the integral work it claims to be, that is complete in and of itself, without external reference or commentary regarding its teachings or origin. When you do that everything comes back to Christ, and it says so on the title page which was reportedly part of the Golden Plates.
Most significantly the Book of Mormon teaches extensively about Grace, not just as a safety net after all we can do, but as what matters most because whatever we do will not save us without grace. It teaches that by the grace of God we can be “perfect in Christ” – that is Christ is perfect and we share in His perfection through God’s grace. It is all there.
Try reading it for the promise on the Title page, that it has the fullness of the Gospel., without even referenc to the story of Joseph Smith or the witnesses. Read it 2-3 times at least in two months without reference to other works to understand it, and you will begin to recognize the gap between what it teaches and and how the Church applies it.Even if I am wrong, you should have no problem with doing this, since the Church wants members to read it more, and since Joseph Smith said “a man may grow closer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.”
What you will not notice are the embedded heresies which invalidate the entire thing, largely becaus of a lack of comparison. If you have always been a Mormon, you do not know what else to believe. The idea of never having a pre-existence, which most other Christian churches teach, is so foreign you have a hard time imagining religious teachings without it. The belief in your own eternal pre-existence “co-eternal with God” informs everything you do.
You are a Creation of God, not an eternal intelligence raised to a higher level by Him. You existed as no more than a thought in God’s heart until your conception, when He created you. You had no conciousness, will, or being before that moment, and then you were there. Your only pre-existence is the time you spent in your mother’s womb.
This dichotomy in perception is a basic difference in how you interpret scripture when you read it and how Catholics understand it. The Bible makes more sense when considered from that perspective because that is the perspective with which it was written and compiled. You would argue that the records in the Bible are corrupt because of the Apostasy, which brings us back to the main point:
When did this apostasy happen? Based on what I am reading in this discussion, it has to have been sometime after the end of the First Century but before the Great Schism. I will roll it farther back, and suggest that it had to have happened before the conversion of Constantine. That would be consistent with what Mark E. Petersen wrote about it in “The Great Prologue”. He suggests that the Church to which Constantine converted was already corrupt.
R
rainman10
Guest
Jesus said he will be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail. We were, also, warned to be aware of false prophets.
Joseph Smith said he saw God, Jesus, and whomever else he claims to have seen, and was told that all religions are an abomination and that Joseph needs to restore the church.
Which story do you believe??
If you believe Jesus, nothing else really needs to be said. How can anyone possibly believe Joseph Smiths word over that of Jesus???
Joseph Smith said he saw God, Jesus, and whomever else he claims to have seen, and was told that all religions are an abomination and that Joseph needs to restore the church.
Which story do you believe??
If you believe Jesus, nothing else really needs to be said. How can anyone possibly believe Joseph Smiths word over that of Jesus???
J
Javl
Guest
Mormonisim itself is predicated on contradiction. With all that I have learned about the LDS, it’s quite impossible to prove otherwise. Shalom haMeshiach
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
1
1stOrderKoC
Guest
Before posting on this topic I read every post. Im confused. So everything that of Lord Jesus said is a lie? And this Prophet Joe Smith is right? Im trying really hard to understand this. Everything ive been taught about from the last 2,000 years is a lie. And this religion that has been around no more than 200 years has it all figured out? Well, I guess ill have to pray on this for spiritual guidance. God Bless.
J
Javl
Guest
Yep! The LDS claims that according to Paul, etc. that the Church has apostacized Paul and others did not mention Church, but individuals. The LDS evidently cannot tell the difference. therefore, Jesus has not kept His word and has lied to us. So let’s pack up our belongings and go home!.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
- Status