LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

There’s quite a difference between the origins of the Protestant churches and the LDS church. [SIGN][SIGN]None that I know of claimed to be [/SIGN][/SIGN]visited by heavenly messengers (even the Father and Son) or the mantle of a prophet. None brought forth writings from an ancient people deeply devoted to a God they referred to as Jesus Christ, the Savior, but with origins in the Old World Jerusalem. None claim to have been ordained to the priesthood by the hand of a resurrected Peter, James and John or John the Baptist.

Of course these aren’t proofs but they’re either a burst of light from the heavens on a grand scale or a grandiose heresy. As the missionaries will say, you decide but make it a point of prayer. A point of study and prayer.

The actual LDS teaching on what we call the restoration is that after an early period of struggle against persecution, the church endured and evolved. But because of early victories of its enemies, there was “stumbling”. The Protestant movement was an effort for man to recover what had been lost during the early persecutions. The Protestants fled to America where they enjoyed real religious liberty and finally a restoration was possible. If you know much about the LDS history, even in the land of religious liberty, they had a very difficult time.

You’re Catholic and you don’t have to believe that, I just trying to answer your question regarding the timeline. A lot of people find it hard to believe that the church was allowed to languish for such a long time but I think it was because it had lost it original sacred leadership and allowed to become tainted with a degree of political power that it was unable to break free of its history.

There you have the KEY word Claimed. JS claimed alot of things didn’t he now? We could go on for weeks and weeks.

There are so many things that have been taught by JW its unreal. And contradicted by themself to boot. Lets review a few shall we.

To worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong (WT, Mar 1880, 83) It is unscriptural for worshippers of the living and true God to render worship to the son of God Jesus Christ (WT, Nov 1 1964 671)

There could be nothing against our consciences in going into the army (WT Apr 15 1903) Due to the Conscience of the JW must refuse military service (WT Feb 1 1951 73)

We may as well join with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event (Christmas) WT Reprints Dec 1 1904, 3468) Christmas and its music are not from Jehovah What is their source? Satan the devil (WT Dec 15 1983. 7)

I could go on and on and on…But what would be the point. We all know the bottom line. TRUE TEACHINGS NEVER CHANGE. The RCC teaches the same today as the day Christ was walking on this earth. Only Jesus Christ can come back and teach us different, Until then its it what it is. Jesus told us time after time that if any teaching goes against his to stay away from it. He said the Devil is the master of disguise and will try to hide in his clothing but he said to stick with the Church the church will never fail.

I have explained numerous times we are led by the power of the HS that is why the RCC can never fail. Yes human being can and do fail. yes many Priests have failed, and yes many great leaders may have failed. But the Teachings of the RCC have never failed and the RCC has stood its ground. Why because it is built on Rock just like Jesus Christ promised. As you can see by the teachings of the JW that I showed you. They were built on sand that is why they fall away. The JW cannot do the same, they cannot show how the RCC teaches one thing, and then turn around and change that teaching. That is how we know we are the Solid Church built on that rock! If they can let then show proof the way we can. Let them quote the teachings of the RCC and then show another quote that contradicts that teaching. They won’t because they cannot.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

There’s quite a difference between the origins of the Protestant churches and the LDS church. None that I know of claimed to be visited by heavenly messengers (even the Father and Son) or the mantle of a prophet. None brought forth writings from an ancient people deeply devoted to a God they referred to as Jesus Christ, the Savior, but with origins in the Old World Jerusalem. None claim to have been ordained to the priesthood by the hand of a resurrected Peter, James and John or John the Baptist.

Of course these aren’t proofs but they’re either a burst of light from the heavens on a grand scale or a grandiose heresy. As the missionaries will say, you decide but make it a point of prayer. A point of study and prayer.

The actual LDS teaching on what we call the restoration is that after an early period of struggle against persecution, the church endured and evolved. But because of early victories of its enemies, there was “stumbling”. The Protestant movement was an effort for man to recover what had been lost during the early persecutions. The Protestants fled to America where they enjoyed real religious liberty and finally a restoration was possible. If you know much about the LDS history, even in the land of religious liberty, they had a very difficult time.

You’re Catholic and you don’t have to believe that, I just trying to answer your question regarding the timeline. A lot of people find it hard to believe that the church was allowed to languish for such a long time [SIGN]but I think it was because it had lost it original sacred leadership and allowed to become tainted with a degree of political power that it was unable to break free of its history.

[/SIGN]

But do you really understand that by saying that you are saying that the gate of hell prevailed and you are calling Jesus Christ a liar. Do you understand that?

 

[ricko]

y35, 17 15 1ND33D 4 K47h0l1C 7h1N9. JoO 9E7 jOOr phiR57 hOly KOMmUNIoN @ e457er, 8U7 I WoN7 8e 48LE 7O RecIeVE i7 CU2 I mI55ed 7eH pRo9R4M 7H@ Le4D2 Up 7o i7.
5O now I H4vE 7o w4i7 4 WholE ye4R!
I 485oLU7eLY 9U77Ed.
I u2E 7o 8e PRO7e574n7 only 4 moN7H2 49O. 5o i rE4lly W4N7 7hI2 kommunIoN 5o 7H@ i PhEEL kOmpLe7ElY K47hoLIc.

N0 k0MM3n7!? 50 j00 l1K3 73H m0rM0n5 7H3n? L0L
1 h4V3 4 M0rM0n PhR13nD WH0 0F73N h4R4Zz35 M3 70 k0nV3R7 70 H3R “b3l13f5”.

L0L 1nD33d, my L1TTl3 PHr13Nd.

(./)
(0.0)
(")(")

I wish yall would stop doing that, it gives me a headache trying to read that stuff. Who started that type of writing anyhow? Tnx BCNU

 

[Xavierlives]

y35, 17 15 1ND33D 4 K47h0l1C 7h1N9. JoO 9E7 jOOr phiR57 hOly KOMmUNIoN @ e457er, 8U7 I WoN7 8e 48LE 7O RecIeVE i7 CU2 I mI55ed 7eH pRo9R4M 7H@ Le4D2 Up 7o i7.
5O now I H4vE 7o w4i7 4 WholE ye4R!
I 485oLU7eLY 9U77Ed.
I u2E 7o 8e PRO7e574n7 only 4 moN7H2 49O. 5o i rE4lly W4N7 7hI2 kommunIoN 5o 7H@ i PhEEL kOmpLe7ElY K47hoLIc.

Well, that really won’t be long.

N0 k0MM3n7!? 50 j00 l1K3 73H m0rM0n5 7H3n? L0L
1 h4V3 4 M0rM0n PhR13nD WH0 0F73N h4R4Zz35 M3 70 k0nV3R7 70 H3R “b3l13f5”.

No. But they are 1057, so I feel for them. I can only pray for them.

L0L 1nD33d, my L1TTl3 PHr13Nd.

(./)
(0.0)
(")(")

Until next time.

 

[Xavierlives]

There’s quite a difference between the origins of the Protestant churches and the LDS church.

The only similarity is the whole “protesting” of the Catholic church, the attempt to reform the first church, and the use of the “protestant” Bible.

None that I know of claimed to be visited by heavenly messengers (even the Father and Son) or the mantle of a prophet. None brought forth writings from an ancient people deeply devoted to a God they referred to as Jesus Christ, the Savior, but with origins in the Old World Jerusalem. None claim to have been ordained to the priesthood by the hand of a resurrected Peter, James and John or John the Baptist.

Of course these aren’t proofs but they’re either a burst of light from the heavens on a grand scale or a grandiose heresy. As the missionaries will say, you decide but make it a point of prayer. A point of study and prayer.

I just pray the the truth will be revealed and I am always lead to rejecting the Mormon message.

 

[banarick]

The burden of proof upon any claim is upon the person making the claim and so far you’ve claimed no apostasy occurred. Matt 16:18 is constantly trotted out and–well, not everybody agrees with the Catholic interpretation of this scripture. Do you really want to have the divinity of your church hanging on a possible interpretation of a single sentence in the New Testament? There are many similar statements alluding to the eventual triumph of the saints:

I don’t want to mistakenly convey the idea that I don’t respect the Catholic church–sorry if I give that impression. I have the greatest respect and was raised in a Catholic home and attended Catholic schools. All I’m saying is that it’s sort of a fruitless effort to demand or claim proof in what is essentially a matter of faith.

Also I am not familiar with any statement regarding a “Total” apostasy. Could you quote the one you’re referring to?

The lowest burden of proof is to get it over the 50 yard line, did it probably happen. When dealing with our everlasting soul it is reasonable to ask for the standard in criminal courts, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not something you just want to take a chance with based on a feeling alone. Sometimes we just feel like doing something that is just bad and we should fight this feeling with our reason and common sense.

 Perhaps, I received the verbage "Total Apostasy" from a couple of sources.  Mormon LeGrande Richards in his work "A Marvelous Work and A Wonder"  calls it a Universal Apostasy pg 32 and that God could not author two contradictory organizations on pg 26

Mormon Apostle Talmage in “The Great Apostasy” , iii said “If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims.” I agree. So if it was not Total there is no need for a Restoration. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS in its Restoration Beliefs book said it took hundreds of years for false doctrine to replace the word of truth. It seems the Utah LDS Church indicates it was happening right away from the discussions here. But you seem to talk along the Reorganized LDS. Which Mormon Church are you speaking for? I know there are many others as well.

  If you are LDS do you just use the verbage "Universal" like LeGrande?   Whether you use Universal or Total I have the same question.  Does it mean everybody, or everything or both.   

 Most of my belief is not based on the one line of scripture regarding Jesus' promise the gates of hell would not prevail. Matt 16;18.    I have other scripture for my beliefs,    The infinite unchanging God of Scripture (Mal 3:6; Jas 1;17) who once and for all revealed the fullness of his word in his son (Heb: 1-2) who himself established one Church that would remain faithful forever and tech all nations in all times (Matt 28: 19-20)

 I also base my belief not just on my feelings of great love for the Catholic Church that I spent along time praying about and confirming but on the history of the early Church Fathers that show distinctive Catholic beliefs from the beginning.  St Ignatius of Antioch is big on my list because he was a contemporary of the Apostles.  The Didache is big with me as well.   Logic, reason , love, scripture, prayer, early writings of the fathers of the Church and how it all ties together make me one happy appreciative Catholic.   Catholics look at the whole picture and are not like our seperated Protestant brothers and sisters who tend to grab on just a couple of things.     However, if I were ever to grab and hold on to one thing it would be the Body of Christ found in John 6 and the last supper that we take every Mass.

 

[rmcmullan]

Banarick,

Those two books you refer to are, hmmm, not very popular so I am at a disadvantage here but I would go with a universal apostasy in the sense that it was widespread. But I don’t think total. I would definitely disagree with total. I’m going to stick to what it says in the Book of Mormon and say the early saints “stumbled.”

As for the timeline, I really don’t know. It seems to me that errors could have crept in at any point but again I have to point to the loss of Apostolic leadership. The fact that there is even a Pope and Magesterium seems to indicate that there is a need for some kind of central leadership. And, not being a Catholic scholar, I do not know how Catholic teachings have evolved over time. When I look at the Catholic church today, I find a lot of good and inspiring things in it so I can’t help but think they’ve done a pretty good job. As far as the doctrine, I much prefer it it to many of the uniquely Protestant teachings.

The point of the teaching on the Apostasy is the proclaim a restoration as you know, and part of the Mormon teaching is that the church was raised to prepare for the Second Coming. So they go hand in hand.

As for those of you who have been complaining about the founder of our church, let me suggest that you have not received his testimony with an open heart. SO at least be faithful to your Creator the best way you can live with.

 

[rmcmullan]

But do you really understand that by saying that you are saying that the gate of hell prevailed and you are calling Jesus Christ a liar. Do you understand that?

So far as I know, the gates of hell will never prevail against the kingdom of heaven.

When David disgraced himself with Bathsheba, did the gates of hell prevail against the kingdom of heaven? No. Against David maybe, but not the kingdom of heaven. When the unrighteous kings of Israel erected idols and called the priest of Baal to serve in the kingdom, did the gates of hell prevail? Did they prevail when Israel was invaded and fell to the Babylonians, or when the Messiah was raised on the cross?

There have been a lot of battles with many wins and losses on both sides. But in the end,

Rev 20: And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

 

[Javl]

There’s quite a difference between the origins of the Protestant churches and the LDS church. None that I know of claimed to be visited by heavenly messengers (even the Father and Son) or the mantle of a prophet. None brought forth writings from an ancient people deeply devoted to a God they referred to as Jesus Christ, the Savior, but with origins in the Old World Jerusalem. None claim to have been ordained to the priesthood by the hand of a resurrected Peter, James and John or John the Baptist.

Of course these aren’t proofs but they’re either a burst of light from the heavens on a grand scale or a grandiose heresy. As the missionaries will say, you decide but make it a point of prayer. A point of study and prayer.

The actual LDS teaching on what we call the restoration is that after an early period of struggle against persecution, the church endured and evolved. But because of early victories of its enemies, there was “stumbling”. The Protestant movement was an effort for man to recover what had been lost during the early persecutions. The Protestants fled to America where they enjoyed real religious liberty and finally a restoration was possible. If you know much about the LDS history, even in the land of religious liberty, they had a very difficult time.

You’re Catholic and you don’t have to believe that, I just trying to answer your question regarding the timeline. A lot of people find it hard to believe that the church was allowed to languish for such a long time but I think it was because it had lost it original sacred leadership and allowed to become tainted with a degree of political power that it was unable to break free of its history.

Yes, I agree that there is quite a difference between the LDS church and Protestantism.
And no, none were visited by heavenly messengers. But none make the unbelievable statements and claims that Joseph Smith made. Nor do any claim stories about an ancient peoples of which there is no documented records in ancient or modern history.
Also the claim that these people were one of the losts tribes of Israel has no foundation in fact. None of the tribes were ever lost. Ask any Jew, or read ancient history. The ancient diaspora of the jews resuted in their dispersal throught the known world of the time with the majority migrating to Greece and Egypt. There is no evidence whatsoever in history, archaeology, paleoentology, etc. to make any of the LDS claims believable. Using your words “…it’s a grandiose heresy”. I apologize for being so harsh, but facts are facts.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

y35, 17 15 1ND33D 4 K47h0l1C 7h1N9. JoO 9E7 jOOr phiR57 hOly KOMmUNIoN @ e457er, 8U7 I WoN7 8e 48LE 7O RecIeVE i7 CU2 I mI55ed 7eH pRo9R4M 7H@ Le4D2 Up 7o i7.
5O now I H4vE 7o w4i7 4 WholE ye4R!
I 485oLU7eLY 9U77Ed.
I u2E 7o 8e PRO7e574n7 only 4 moN7H2 49O. 5o i rE4lly W4N7 7hI2 kommunIoN 5o 7H@ i PhEEL kOmpLe7ElY K47hoLIc.

N0 k0MM3n7!? 50 j00 l1K3 73H m0rM0n5 7H3n? L0L
1 h4V3 4 M0rM0n PhR13nD WH0 0F73N h4R4Zz35 M3 70 k0nV3R7 70 H3R “b3l13f5”.

L0L 1nD33d, my L1TTl3 PHr13Nd.

(./)
(0.0)
(")(")

Hey cutie: How’s about using pig latin so’s we can all read whatcha sayin’ without having to cross our eyes? Yikes and Sheesh!

:choocho:

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ricko]

So far as I know, the gates of hell will never prevail against the kingdom of heaven.

When David disgraced himself with Bathsheba, did the gates of hell prevail against the kingdom of heaven? No. Against David maybe, but not the kingdom of heaven. When the unrighteous kings of Israel erected idols and called the priest of Baal to serve in the kingdom, did the gates of hell prevail? Did they prevail when Israel was invaded and fell to the Babylonians, or when the Messiah was raised on the cross?

There have been a lot of battles with many wins and losses on both sides. But in the end,

The verse in question…“Upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” “It” is the church. So it would read “…the gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church” Twisting scripture to chance the subject from “church” to “kingdom of heaven” is something Mormons do often.

 

[Javl]

The verse in question…“Upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” “It” is the church. So it would read “…the gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church” Twisting scripture to chance the subject from “church” to “kingdom of heaven” is something Mormons do often.

Why does the LDS church read what is to be taken literally as symbolic and what is to be taken as symbolic is taken literally? Also why does it also substitute phrases with what it thinks it should say?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[rmcmullan]

The verse in question…“Upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” “It” is the church. So it would read “…the gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church” Twisting scripture to chance the subject from “church” to “kingdom of heaven” is something Mormons do often.

I don’t see how it makes that much of a difference. Since his creation, God has always strived with man and when there have been enough who call on His name, they are organized. Whether it be the children of Moses in the desert, the Nation of Israel or the churches of the New Testament.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t see how it makes that much of a difference. Since his creation, God has always strived with man and when there have been enough who call on His name, they are organized. Whether it be the children of Moses in the desert, the Nation of Israel or the churches of the New Testament.

YOU DON’T SEE HOW IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE! Lord have Mercy. Maybe to you it doesn’t but to Catholics it makes all the difference in the world. It means that if it happend Jesus lied to us. What part of that do you not understand. Jesus made a promise to us, that the CC would be here for us until he comes again in glory.

I have told you numerous of times our Church is led by the Power of the HS. Thats a big difference to us, maybe not you but us it sure it. God never left us, He is still here in the CC. Rather it is by the Power of the Holy Spirit, or by the word of God, or if Jesus stood up and preached the gospel himself there is no difference to us.

The Trinity. Its ONE IN BEING. It is the Father the SOn the Holy Spirit.

What I think honestly is you do not understand the Trinity at all. I think you need to really study and understand that God is the Trinity. One God made up into 3 persons. I think that if you could grasp the entire concept of the Holy Trinity you would understand what you are saying. I really don’t think you understand what you are saying at times.

 

[rmcmullan]

Rinnie, I have to ask, did the HS attend Moses or Adam or Jacob or Israel? Or did he not strive with man before the Pentacost?

 

[Xavierlives]

Why does the LDS church read what is to be taken literally as symbolic and what is to be taken as symbolic is taken literally? Also why does it also substitute phrases with what it thinks it should say?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Ooo… not to be too protestant here, but I ask myself that of the Catholic Church sometimes.

 

[Xavierlives]

YOU DON’T SEE HOW IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE! Lord have Mercy. Maybe to you it doesn’t but to Catholics it makes all the difference in the world. It means that if it happend Jesus lied to us. What part of that do you not understand. Jesus made a promise to us, that the CC would be here for us until he comes again in glory.

I feel like I need to respond to both the Catholic and the Mormon:

1. [on the Catholic side] Ok, lets just say for a moment when Jesus said that, he literally meant, “the Catholic Church” will be standing until he returns. Does that mean they are the only boat on the ocean?
2. [on the Catholic side] Does it make it a “lie” if he meant Christianity and the Catholic Church is a part of that?
3. [on the Mormon side] The beauty in the Mormon message is it often contains truths, which is a sign to me, but those truths are designed to mislead, misdirect, or confuse. Here is the truth you speak, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Kingdom of Heaven.” Truth. The misdirect is saying “the Bible means this” kind of language. There are times when the Bible uses figures of speech for emphasis or understanding.

But what you are saying is something comparable to

I know you love to eat apples.
When I say apples, I mean fire engines, because they are both red.
When I mean fire engines, I’m saying red peppers, because they are red and hot.
Therefore, I know you love to eat red peppers.

Or as grandma would say, “There is no need to run around the barn to get the hay.”

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I feel like I need to respond to both the Catholic and the Mormon:

1. [on the Catholic side] Ok, lets just say for a moment when Jesus said that, he literally meant, “the Catholic Church” will be standing until he returns. [SIGN]Does that mean they are the only boat on the ocean?[/SIGN]
2. [on the Catholic side] Does it make it a “lie” if he meant Christianity and the Catholic Church is a part of that?
3. [on the Mormon side] The beauty in the Mormon message is it often contains truths, which is a sign to me, but those truths are designed to mislead, misdirect, or confuse. Here is the truth you speak, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Kingdom of Heaven.” Truth. The misdirect is saying “the Bible means this” kind of language. There are times when the Bible uses figures of speech for emphasis or understanding.

But what you are saying is something comparable to

I know you love to eat apples.
When I say apples, I mean fire engines, because they are both red.
When I mean fire engines, I’m saying red peppers, because they are red and hot.
Therefore, I know you love to eat red peppers.

Or as grandma would say, “There is no need to run around the barn to get the hay.”

Well let me put it this way. According to the teachings of Christ and what he told the Apostles and according to their creed what does it say. It say’s I Believe in ONE Holy CATHOLIC Apostolic Church.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, I have to ask, did the HS attend Moses or Adam or Jacob or Israel? Or did he not strive with man before the Pentacost?

Mc I have to ask you this then. Did God attend Moses, Adam, Jacob or Israel. then there you have your answer.

 

[rinnie]

The Trinity made simple.

In scriptures 3 divine persons are denoted together in the first creed. It reveals there is nothing CREATED nothing has been added as though it has not existed. Therefore the Father is never without the Son and the Son without the Holy Spirit.

(P.G., x 986)

If you go back and concentrate on the Creed it will become simple. This is where our faith and yours differs so so much. There is only ONE God. He is ONE GOD made up into 3 different beings. But never is one apart from the other. God just revealed himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is God he can reveal himself any way he wants.