LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[evanfaust]

PaulC
Look, I have no doubt that you became a Mormon in entirely good faith and that you probably live a devout life. I feel for you here. Your most basic beliefs are being attacked which is never pleasant, particularly for Mormons because your social lives are so closely tied to your faith.

Evanfaust comments,
Paul C…You are right, I am a devout Mormon, but I am not a new member. I have served in many different capacities within the church. Honestly speaking, I grow in faith and knowledge during these debates. This is not may first place to debate, I also have debated in many other communities, including the Jewish and Muslims.

I like the opposition…they make me see other angle of things!

 

[Stephen168]

If you check my posting, I actually asked you to point me out the discrepancies on the Melchizedek Priesthood. Besides, you did not prove that Jesus was not married and you did not show any scripture conclusively proving that the clergy should be celibate. In addition, the Popes only forced celibate on the priests in the year 1070. By the way you did not comment on many of the arguments I presented in the posting. As far as the polygamy, I explained before, but you made no comments. I will say it again: God has allowed polygamy to be practice by some great prophets of the past and there is nothing saying the God could not institute polygamy again. Do you see the Lord saying anywhere in the Bible that Polygamy is of the devil or that whoever practice polygamy ever again will be condemned?

Using Mormon logic, show me where a unicorn doesn’t exist? I can’t point out something that does not exist. Melchizedek Priesthood is not in the Bible, it was made up by Joseph Smith. The same logic applies to Jesus being married. If you don’t get married, you are single. Show me where Christ got married. Christ and the Apostles did not teach or practice polygamy. None of these Mormon beliefs are biblical or historical. They are all Mormon unicorns.
This was also the logic I heard as a kid about the Book of Mormon: Prove it isn’t true? But now we have DNA.

 

[paul_c]

Stephen168 said
“But you did not respond showing us the biblical proof of a Melchizedek Priesthood.
We showed you how Christ and the Apostles taught and/or set an example for a celibate clergy, but you have not shown how Christ or the Apostles taught or set an example for a polygamous clergy.

Evan comments,
If you check my posting, I actually asked you to point me out the discrepancies on the Melchizedek Priesthood. Besides, you did not prove that Jesus was not married and you did not show any scripture conclusively proving that the clergy should be celibate. In addition, the Popes only forced celibate on the priests in the year 1070. By the way you did not comment on many of the arguments I presented in the posting. As far as the polygamy, I explained before, but you made no comments. I will say it again: God has allowed polygamy to be practice by some great prophets of the past and there is nothing saying the God could not institute polygamy again. Do you see the Lord saying anywhere in the Bible that Polygamy is of the devil or that whoever practice polygamy ever again will be condemned?

And look here some other changes instituted by the Popes. Maybe you can explain why the Popes made these changes while you believe that all truth was already revealed by Christ and the Apostles. Again, I am reminding you that the Popes are not entited to revelation because they do not claim to be prophets…then I ask again why are they changing doctrines?

Infallibility of the Catholic Church

“The Church is not susceptible of being reformed in her doctrines. The Church is the work of incarnate God. Like all God’s works, it is perfect. It is, therefore, incapable of reform…”

“If only one instance could be given in which the Church ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had BEEN PREVIOUSLY HELD, that single instance would be the death blow of her claim to infallibility…” and also to her claim of being the true church!”
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII, page 262
FOOF – page 61

Changes that have taken place in this church.

1 – It was built upon a foundation different than that which was built by Christ. His church was built upon a foundation of: “And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;”

2 – The worship of Saints. Approx. 375
3 – Worship of the Virgin Mary. Approx 431.
4 - The Doctrine of Purgatory. Approx. 593
5 - The imposition of religious images. Approx 788.
6 – Forced celibacy of the Priest. Approx. 1074.
7 – Use of the Rosary. Approx. 1090.
8 – The sale of indulgences. Approx. 1190.
9 – The Divine substitute of bread. Approx. 1200.
10 – The Institution of the Transubstanciation (Wherein the sacrament supposedly becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ). Approx 1215.
11 – The Book of Apocalypse (Revelation) introduced into the cannon of scripture. Approx. 1546.
12 – The Inquisition of Spain. Approx. 1478.

Evan, Where did you get these things? They are all incorrect.

first of all, the Church’s doctrines have always been eternal truths that are unchangeable.

1. I have no idea what you mean. Matthew 16: 16-19 clearly says that Jesus will found his church on St. peter. and in John 21, the risen Jesus, the good shepard, tells Peter to feed his sheep three times.
2. we don’t worship Saints. We follow their example and this is as old as Christianity
3. In Luke 1: 48 Mary herself prophesies : 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. So devotion to Mary existed in Apostolic times
4. The concept of purgatory existed before Christianity. IN Macabees 2, the Jewish people prayed for the dead, which is unnecessary for those in heaven (who don’t need it) and for those in hell (who can’t be helped by it)
5. There is no imposition of images in the Catholic Church.
6. Priestly celibacy is a church practice, not a doctrine and only exists in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. the other 21 Eastern Churches in communion with Rome have married priest. Priestly celibacy was declared in 981 in the latin rite to ensure that the priests were singularly focused on their parishes. It is not forced on anyone, but is a requirement if you want to be a priest in the Latin rite.
   7.The rosary is a type of prayerfol devotion and is not a doctrine.
7. Indulgences were never meant to be for sale. Indulgences are simply the Papal right to bind and lose in heaven described in Matthew 16 and were meant to given to people who performed good works. They existed from the beginning although the practice was abused in the middle ages.
   9/10 I have no idea what you mean by the divine substitute of bread. If you mean that the bread and wine were consecrated to become the body and blood of Christ, this is described in the last supper discourses as well as in 1 corinthians It is as old as Christianity itself, being one of the core sacraments.
8. Revelations was part of the original bible canon approved by Pope Damascus in 382AD.
   12: The inquisition of spain is not a doctrine. It was a court, actually set up by the Spanish monarchy, that tested the orthodoxy of various ideas. The Church was testing ideas and that people that had them even in the New testament. Peter excommunicated Simon Magnus in Acts for his heretical idea that you could buy the right ot give the Holy spirit, for instance.

Oh and by the way, Polygamy was denounced in Paul’s letter to Timothy, which we already discussed (Bishops should have no more than 1 wife). So Joseph Smith missed on this one by 32 wives, i think. And he also commited adultery at least 10 times, marrying other men’s wives. There is no indication in any source (other than the Divinci code) that Jesus was married. And Paul says he himself was celibate.

 

[evanfaust]

Paul C
This doesn’t mean it was from God. Remember in Galatians, when Paul says that even if an Angel was to tell you something different from the Gospel he taught (which is the Catholic Gospel), let them be accursed.

Evanfaust comments,
I already commented on Gal 1:8 on the other thread. But, I ask you the same question…how do you know what St Faustina, Bernadete or others experienced was from God and not the from the dark side, since the devil can transform himself as an angel of light? Were they in violation of Galatians?

Now, explaining Galatians…

1 – Paul is addressing to the Saints (members of the Church) living in Galatia, modern Turkey. The main theme was that the people of Galatia have turned away from Christ’s teachings. Some believe the churches of Galatia (Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) were founded by Paul himself (Acts 16:6; Gal 1:8; 4:13, 4:19)]. They seem to have been composed mainly of converts from paganism (4:8). After Paul’s departure, the churches were led astray from Paul’s Christ centered teachings by individuals proposing “another gospel” (which centered around Judaism and salvation through the Mosaic Law, so-called legalism), whom Paul saw as preaching a “different gospel” than that of Jesus Christ (which was centered around salvation by God’s grace and Christ’s atonement, not the “works” of the Mosaic law). (1:6–9). The Galatians appear to have been receptive to the teaching of these newcomers, and the epistle is Paul’s response to what he sees as their willingness to turn from his teaching.

2 - Biblical scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s. (M. Coogan, ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford University Press: New York, 2001), 309 NT.)

3 – Many other books were written after Galatians. For example the Book of Revelation, was written between 96 and100 AD. The book of Revelation starts this way: “THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by **his angel **unto his servant John”

Just to make it clear…An angel came from Heaven and announced more revelation to the Apostle John, which was in addition to what Paul had preached! Does it mean this is in violation of what Paul said in Galatians 1:8? Well, if you interpret the scripture the way you do, then you have to discard any other book after Galatians, including the book or Revelation.

4 – Mormons do not preach another gospel! We preach the gospel of Jesus Christ! Another book does not necessarily mean another gospel as I demonstrated in my analogy.
Does the Book of Revelation contain more information and more news that was not revealed before? YES!! Does that invalidate the book of revelation? NO! Does the Book of Mormon have some more good news? YES! Does it invalidate what was previously revealed in the Bible?NO!

 

[paul_c]

Paul C
This doesn’t mean it was from God. Remember in Galatians, when Paul says that even if an Angel was to tell you something different from the Gospel he taught (which is the Catholic Gospel), let them be accursed.

Evanfaust comments,
I already commented on Gal 1:8 on the other thread. But, I ask you the same question…how do you know what St Faustina, Bernadete or others experienced was from God and not the from the dark side, since the devil can transform himself as an angel of light? Were they in violation of Galatians?

Now, explaining Galatians…

1 – Paul is addressing to the Saints (members of the Church) living in Galatia, modern Turkey. The main theme was that the people of Galatia have turned away from Christ’s teachings. Some believe the churches of Galatia (Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) were founded by Paul himself (Acts 16:6; Gal 1:8; 4:13, 4:19)]. They seem to have been composed mainly of converts from paganism (4:8). After Paul’s departure, the churches were led astray from Paul’s Christ centered teachings by individuals proposing “another gospel” (which centered around Judaism and salvation through the Mosaic Law, so-called legalism), whom Paul saw as preaching a “different gospel” than that of Jesus Christ (which was centered around salvation by God’s grace and Christ’s atonement, not the “works” of the Mosaic law). (1:6–9). The Galatians appear to have been receptive to the teaching of these newcomers, and the epistle is Paul’s response to what he sees as their willingness to turn from his teaching.

2 - Biblical scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s. (M. Coogan, ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford University Press: New York, 2001), 309 NT.)

3 – Many other books were written after Galatians. For example the Book of Revelation, was written between 96 and100 AD. The book of Revelation starts this way: “THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by **his angel **unto his servant John”

Just to make it clear…An angel came from Heaven and announced more revelation to the Apostle John, which was in addition to what Paul had preached! Does it mean this is in violation of what Paul said in Galatians 1:8? Well, if you interpret the scripture the way you do, then you have to discard any other book after Galatians, including the book or Revelation.

4 – Mormons do not preach another gospel! We preach the gospel of Jesus Christ! Another book does not necessarily mean another gospel as I demonstrated in my analogy.
Does the Book of Revelation contain more information and more news that was not revealed before? YES!! Does that invalidate the book of revelation? NO! Does the Book of Mormon have some more good news? YES! Does it invalidate what was previously revealed in the Bible?NO!

Evan, when St. Bernadette saw Mary 18 times in 1858, she was put through a very rigorous inquisition to determine the nature of those visions. there were hundreds of witnesses called and in the end they found that everythign she said was true and in accordance with established Church teaching. Same for the other acknowledged miracles.

As for Joseph Smith, his gospel is absolutely at odds with the Christian Gospel Besides the adultery discussion, he introduced tons of doctine in direct opposition of what was said in the Bible. He denies the virgin birth. He denies the Trinitarian nature of God. He denies the eternal nature of God and you know that Brigham Young claimed that Adam was God. He claimed that there was a general apostacy while Jesus said he would protect the Catholic Church. It denies the real presence in the eucharist. There are many more.

 

[sablouwho]

How do you know what St Faustina, Bernadette or others experienced was from God and not the from the dark side, since the devil can transform himself as an angel of light?

Hey Evan,

I am not saying that I know this, because I am pretty new to the CC and am not technically a member yet as I’m still in the initiation process. I am more just thinking out loud here… It seems to me that the experiences of these saints leads people TO Christ, whereas the devil wants to lead people away from the things of God. That doesn’t prove anything (and proof is a rare commidity in matters of faith anyway) however I would think it might be a good starting point.

Out of curiousity, how do LDS members view things like this? I’m pretty curious to know, particularly since they happened in a non-LDS faith, and since they happened after Joseph Smith died. Ditto for Our Lady of Guadalupe, though it happened before JS’s time.

 

[ParkerD]

Hey Evan,

I am not saying that I know this, because I am pretty new to the CC and am not technically a member yet as I’m still in the initiation process. I am more just thinking out loud here… It seems to me that the experiences of these saints leads people TO Christ, whereas the devil wants to lead people away from the things of God. That doesn’t prove anything (and proof is a rare commidity in matters of faith anyway) however I would think it might be a good starting point.

Out of curiousity, how do LDS members view things like this? I’m pretty curious to know, particularly since they happened in a non-LDS faith, and since they happened after Joseph Smith died. Ditto for Our Lady of Guadalupe, though it happened before JS’s time.

Sablouwho,
I assume and hope that Evan will comment, but since you added an “s” then I noticed your question and thought it was a very good one that I could add a personal perspective about.

Moroni 7 gives a clear picture about the answer to that question. Does what is perceived as “from God” “invite and entice to do good continually”, and to love God, and to serve him" (7:13), and “to persuade to believe in Christ” (v. 16), and to “exercise faith in Christ; and thus by faith, …lay hold upon every good thing;” (v. 25) and “that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts, according to the power thereof;” “And Christ hath said: If ye will have faith in me ye shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me. And he hath said: Repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and have faith in me, that ye may be saved.” (v. 33-34)

So one can evaluate the circumstance by the above criteria, to see whether an experience or a claimed “miracle” is sourced from God and Christ and the Holy Ghost. Does it lead toward Christ and repentance and covenant-making and faith and doing good continually and giving place in their heart for the Holy Ghost? If so, then it is of God, because it leads to obtaining faith and the power of Christ’s redemption.

 

[Xavierlives]

If you check my posting, I actually asked you to point me out the discrepancies on the Melchizedek Priesthood. Besides, you did not prove that Jesus was not married and you did not show any scripture conclusively proving that the clergy should be celibate.

How does one go about proving that Jesus was not married? How can one go about proving he did not own a dog? How can one prove that that he did not visit Rome?

The sheer fact that it isn’t mentioned is the best proof.

 

[ParkerD]

How does one go about proving that Jesus was not married? How can one go about proving he did not own a dog? How can one prove that he did not visit Rome?

The sheer fact that it isn’t mentioned is the best proof.

Xavierlives,
I would say that your comment here is an implausible assumption as to knowing everything that Christ did by reading the New Testament, given what John specifically wrote that is now presented to us as John 21:25 (you’ll remember as you look it up), and also given what Christ deliberately and with focused attention taught as follows (which is in a commandment form as it is given):

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Both John 21:25 and Matthew 19:4-6 contain very understandable words conveying very understandable ideas.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All through the Gospels Jesus speaks of His Purpose. Never does He say this Purpose was to marry.

Beyond that, WHO exactly is married to GOD?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Xavierlives,
I would say that your comment here is an implausible assumption as to knowing everything that Christ did by reading the New Testament, given what John specifically wrote that is now presented to us as John 21:25 (you’ll remember as you look it up), and also given what Christ deliberately and with focused attention taught as follows (which is in a commandment form as it is given):

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Both John 21:25 and Matthew 19:4-6 contain very understandable words conveying very understandable ideas.

If being married was essential then why wasn’t Christ’s marriage mentioned, His family is mentioned but no wife?

Oh and this (you’ll remember as you look it up), nice snarky dig:thumbsup:

 

[RebeccaJ]

If being married was essential then why wasn’t Christ’s marriage mentioned, His family is mentioned but no wife?

Oh and this (you’ll remember as you look it up), nice snarky dig:thumbsup:

And kind of ridiculous to think anything a person can speculate about Jesus is covered by John 21:25.

 

[ParkerD]

If being married was essential then why wasn’t Christ’s marriage mentioned, His family is mentioned but no wife?

Zffiroborant,
Xavierlives is a student of the Bible. I thought perhaps he had forgotten that verse. I really do think he would remember as he looked it up. But I’m merely re-amused by such a comment as you made, as if you felt the need to stay “in character”, though sometimes it has been nice to read a different side of you and I have appreciated those times.

I have no idea whether Christ was married, but He certainly taught in favor of marriage and didn’t exclude anyone in that teaching in the general principle. The valid reason that He may not have been, is that He knew clearly that His life on earth was going to be cut short, and taught so eloquently and compassionately about the fatherless and the widows that He certainly may have chosen to not marry at His young age since He would be leaving a widow and fatherless children by doing so, nor had He taught that marriage needed to be at a certain age. He also did not need the type of counsel and perspective that being married and having children would have brought into His life through marriage, because of the fact that He was perfect, unlike anyone else.

That makes Him completely unique, in that those blessings from marriage and family are completely missed by those who choose not to marry, but were not missed by Him.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zffiroborant,
**Xavierlives is a student of the Bible. I thought perhaps he had forgotten that verse. I really do think he would remember as he looked it up. But I’m merely re-amused by such a comment as you made, as if you felt the need to stay “in character”, though sometimes it has been nice to read a different side of you and I have appreciated those times.
**
I have no idea whether Christ was married, but He certainly taught in favor of marriage and didn’t exclude anyone in that teaching in the general principle. The valid reason that He may not have been, is that He knew clearly that His life on earth was going to be cut short, and taught so eloquently and compassionately about the fatherless and the widows that He certainly may have chosen to not marry at His young age since He would be leaving a widow and fatherless children by doing so, nor had He taught that marriage needed to be at a certain age. He also did not need the type of counsel and perspective that being married and having children would have brought into His life through marriage, because of the fact that He was perfect, unlike anyone else.

That makes Him completely unique, in that those blessings from marriage and family are completely missed by those who choose not to marry, but were not missed by Him.

Did you have to look it up? If you had to look it up then your comment could be understood, if you did not need to look it up then you are disparaging Xavierlives by assuming he is not as well read as you. You often imply in your posts that people don’t read the bible. Even more frequently you imply that if they read it, it is with a bias, and of course you do not read it with any sort of bias.

As to Christ being married I of course have a whole different understanding of it.

 

[Answersplease]

(color added to the original texts)

Xavierlives,
Here are some important verses

in the New Testament that show both that there was disunity in the early church, and that there were significant departures from the pure doctrinal teachings of the apostles:

1 Peter 3:16 "…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

FYI it is 2 Peter 3:16-18

.
But I will read the rest and try to respond.

DZHeremi,

…

How very Islamic of you. Excuse me while I remain unimpressed by this boasting

, Hafiz ParkerD.
(color added to the original texts)

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
I would say that your comment here is an implausible assumption as to knowing everything that Christ did by reading the New Testament, given what John specifically wrote that is now presented to us as John 21:25 (you’ll remember as you look it up), and also given what Christ deliberately and with focused attention taught as follows (which is in a commandment form as it is given):

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Both John 21:25 and Matthew 19:4-6 contain very understandable words conveying very understandable ideas.

I’m pretty sure I don’t need to look up the John verse. Knowing your where you are going with this line of thought, it is, there are many other things that Christ did that are not recorded here.

First and foremost, if Jesus would have married and had children, we would have this whole demigod, Greek mythology-thing running amuck in Christianity and we don’t. If Christ would have been married and had children, then we would have the lineage of Christ (likely as the religious leader of Christianity) and we don’t. If Christ was married and had Children, it is not likely that we would see Mary playing a supporting role in his life, we would see a wife and we don’t. So dispite that Jesus did a lot more things to prove his divinity, to prove he was the Messiah, to prove he was the Son of God, we don’t see him ever proving he had a wife and children, not once. The things left out were redundant. For every one leper healed in the Bible he probably healed 100. So, no. I don’t need to read John to think that there is a chance he was married and had children.

On a side note Christ does mention his offspring in John though (somewhere around 12), but it is in relationship to Christians. He is a corn of wheat, buried and with that burial a new plant emerges, one that that produces a new seed. We are that spiritual seed, not physical offspring.

Guess I should go look this all up.

Nah… I’ll wait until morning.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’m pretty sure I don’t need to look up the John verse. Knowing your where you are going with this line of thought, it is, there are many other things that Christ did that are not recorded here.

First and foremost, if Jesus would have married and had children, we would have this whole demigod, Greek mythology-thing running amuck in Christianity and we don’t. If Christ would have been married and had children, then we would have the lineage of Christ (likely as the religious leader of Christianity) and we don’t. If Christ was married and had Children, it is not likely that we would see Mary playing a supporting role in his life, we would see a wife and we don’t. So dispite that Jesus did a lot more things to prove his divinity, to prove he was the Messiah, to prove he was the Son of God, we don’t see him ever proving he had a wife and children, not once. The things left out were redundant. For every one leper healed in the Bible he probably healed 100. So, no. I don’t need to read John to think that there is a chance he was married and had children.

On a side note Christ does mention his offspring in John though (somewhere around 12), but it is in relationship to Christians. He is a corn of wheat, buried and with that burial a new plant emerges, one that that produces a new seed. We are that spiritual seed, not physical offspring.

See Parker he does actually read the book and retains it (I retain nothing and do look things up!) I think Xavierlives has shown himself prior to this as one who reads the bible and retains its (yes I’m a bit envious) and you were being passive/aggressive or snarky in your post.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m pretty sure I don’t need to look up the John verse. Knowing your where you are going with this line of thought, it is, there are many other things that Christ did that are not recorded here.

First and foremost, if Jesus would have married and had children, we would have this whole demigod, Greek mythology-thing running amuck in Christianity and we don’t. If Christ would have been married and had children, then we would have the lineage of Christ (likely as the religious leader of Christianity) and we don’t. If Christ was married and had Children, it is not likely that we would see Mary playing a supporting role in his life, we would see a wife and we don’t. So dispite that Jesus did a lot more things to prove his divinity, to prove he was the Messiah, to prove he was the Son of God, we don’t see him ever proving he had a wife and children, not once. The things left out were redundant. For every one leper healed in the Bible he probably healed 100. So, no. I don’t need to read John to think that there is a chance he was married and had children.

On a side note Christ does mention his offspring in John though (somewhere around 12), but it is in relationship to Christians. He is a corn of wheat, buried and with that burial a new plant emerges, one that that produces a new seed. We are that spiritual seed, not physical offspring.

Guess I should go look this all up.

Nah… I’ll wait until morning.

Xavierlives,
I’ve already responded that I don’t think Christ was married, but I tend to agree with your sub-point number one, but not with any of the other sub-points other than about his “offspring” being His spiritual “seed”, which I whole-heartedly agree with. I disagree that Mary is shown to have had any more supportive a role than any close mother who lived nearby the person in question. But that is neither here nor there as to whether He was married.

Have a good day.

 

[Stephen168]

As for Joseph Smith, his gospel is absolutely at odds with the Christian Gospel Besides the adultery discussion, he introduced tons of doctine in direct opposition of what was said in the Bible. He denies the virgin birth. He denies the Trinitarian nature of God. He denies the eternal nature of God and you know that Brigham Young claimed that Adam was God. He claimed that there was a general apostacy while Jesus said he would protect the Catholic Church. It denies the real presence in the eucharist. There are many more.

Exactly. Joseph Smith did not restore Christianity. He invented Mormonism

 

[Jay53]

PaulC
Look, I have no doubt that you became a Mormon in entirely good faith and that you probably live a devout life. I feel for you here. Your most basic beliefs are being attacked which is never pleasant, particularly for Mormons because your social lives are so closely tied to your faith.

Evanfaust comments,
Paul C…You are right, I am a devout Mormon, but I am not a new member. I have served in many different capacities within the church. Honestly speaking, I grow in faith and knowledge during these debates. This is not may first place to debate, I also have debated in many other communities, including the Jewish and Muslims.

I like the opposition…they make me see other angle of things!

I’m just curious with regard to this post: If you are not a new member, then why did/do you believe that the Mormon “Heavenly Mother” refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary?