J
Jerusha
Guest
Correction.Joseph Smith says 1+ 1+ 1 = 3. The Church says 1x1x1=1. The Church is correct. God bless:thumbsup:
- Status
J
Janderich
Guest
Rebecca,
This is rather a flimsy argument you bring up. Let me explain whyā¦
KJV:which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavenās sake.
NIV84: others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.
Iām not sure what version you are using. However, I reviewed 33 different translations of the verse and only three times did I see the term ārenounce marriageā. The NIV84 I provided above adds a footnote, āOr have made themselves eunuchsā. And in the latest NIV it is given as, āand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.ā The Douay-Rheims 1899 says, āwho have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.ā Perhaps there is an old manuscript with this translation. Iām not sure. At any rate this word ārenounceā is not well grounded.
As I previously explained, Jesus is not telling a person to outright renounce marriage but quite the opposite. He is praising those who have kept the covenant of marriage to such an extent that they will not re-marry if divorced. Do you not see how strict the law of marriage is? Here is my earlier comment:
Now, I ask you to address my points:
**Question One: Do you believe Jesus founded his doctrine on the disciples confusion? **
You said earlier:
For some reason you feel Jesus was agreeing to the disciples comment about it being not good to marry, but why? Do you believe Jesus founded his doctrine on the disciples confusion? Do you not see that he is referring to the word of God which says, āWherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunderā.
**Question Two: If marriage is simply an earthly union why would Jesus say that it is against the law of God to marry someone who is divorced? **
Why isnāt an earthly divorce valid for an earthly union? Do you not see that there is a higher law at stake here? Do you not see that the scripture is about keeping the covenant under all circumstances and not about remaining unmarried? Again from my earlier post,
J
Janderich
Guest
This is simply an oppinion. You have not even tried to ground it in the Bible, yet I have explained it verse by verse. This comment holds no weight.
J
Janderich
Guest
Again, this is your opinion. You have given no specifics. Carry your false view if you must but until you try to at least base what you say on scripture you have no leg to stand on, much less a foundation to criticize what I have said.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Actuallyit is fact. I have asked you to prove your point and you can;t. Yu are left to a church where one must take verses out of context, change the meaning of verses, add words to verses, take words away from verses, and believe on the non-existant just to be able to accept their doctrineā¦
J
Janderich
Guest
Wow, so you wont even use the Bible to establish your belief when specifically asked? I have the Bible, The Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price and I will use any one of them to establish truth. In this specific instance Rebecca confined me only to the words of Christ as given in the New Testament and I have presented a very compelling argument for Eternal Marriage. If I had all of Godās word to work with the truth would be even more obvious.
P
Porknpie
Guest
J
Janderich
Guest
If you answer me this question I will answer yours. How do you know the apostle Peter spoke the truth?Janderich -
How do you know that Joseph Smith spoke the truth?
P
Porknpie
Guest
I will answer your question but I did ask first.
J
Janderich
Guest
How do we know the truth of any subject? A person may speak to us of religion, history, science or geography but their words alone do not indicate what they say is true. Even if 10,000 people believe it to be so it still does not make it true.Janderich -
How do you know that Joseph Smith spoke the truth?
To ultimately know I must investigate the matter myself. In science I perform experiments. In geography I visit a location. Religion is similar, Jesus, speaking of gospel doctrine says, āIf any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myselfā (John 7:17). Here then is the test. Exercise enough faith to follow what someone says is true. If one follows actually wanting to know the truth one will receive it in their mind and heart. The person will then know independent of others words.
This then is how I know Joseph Smith spoke the truth. I tested his words myself. Not with the intent to discredit but to find the truth. I read the Book of Mormon he claimed to have translated through the gift and power of God. I lived the laws and commandments he said came from God. And I prayed to know if it was true. As I have done these things I have felt the truth for myself over and over again and need not another man to tell me. For I have lived it, I have felt it, and I have experienced it, and though all men tell me otherwise it does not change the fact that I know.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
First of all, again yes I am on agreement that Jesus is explaining that once a person is married, they canāt marry again.
You do some manipulation of the text in order to say Jesus is not answering the disciples directly after they make the comment it is better to not marry. You have to view Jesusā following statement as rather random. What? Weāre talking about the permanency of marriage (in this life) and now all of the sudden were talking about eunuchs. Your understanding of the passage is no understanding at all. You are forcing what you want to believe onto the text.
As for the translation, the literal is eunuchs, but there are no Biblical scholars who take it literally, that is, that Jesus is describing an option where men literally choose to castrate themselves for God. I seriously hope you donāt believe this yourself.
It is figurative for those who have chosen a celibate life. If a person āmakes themselves a eunuch for the Kingdom of heavenās sakeā, they are in fact renouncing marriage, as a eunuch in the society in which Jesus lived, did not marry. Marriage needing to be made complete by consummation.
The best argument you could possibly have is that Jesus is saying those who have been unwillingly divorced by their spouse have chosen to not remarry, based on the teachings in this passages we are discussing, which teaches they should not remarry.
However, as I already stated, you need to be able to support your position based on the whole of scripture. As someone has already posted Paulās teachings regarding choosing marriage verses a single life devoted to God, you could go back and answer that post.
As I said above, you seem to be ignoring the chronology of the communication that is taking place.
Jesus replying to a statement does not imply that his teachings do not come from himself. Your question is illogical.
A) Marriage does not have to exist eternally in order for it to have importance in this life.
B) Jesus taught that there is no marriage in heaven.
C) if you really believe that marriage continues after death, then you should not remarry after a spouse dies because you are committing adultery.
C
Callvenus
Guest
The problem here is simple. How do we know the truth of anything? The LDS rely on something called āfeeling the spiritā. This is flawed though because feelings are very open to human influence. I can feel good about things that I associate with good things and that will make them true. I can make something true because I want it to be true in my brain.
Now, saying that you lived the commandments established by Joseph Smith and you have tested them and probably citing some blessing in your life does not make Mormonism true. Many of those commandments are not exclusive to Mormonism but also exist in Orthodoxy and Catholicism (i.e. saying you have been blessed by living the law of chastity, does not make mormonism true but it makes chastity a true principle).
I want you to read through the entire Bible and realize that it never tells you to pray about its truthfulness so why would the Book of Mormon need to do so. The way you know if something is true is by reading all accounts from history, philosophy and yes, even science, and deciding what makes more logical sense. The idea that a God from Heaven would come done and lose His established church based on the whims of mere mortals does not make logical sense. The idea that after 30 years of His death, the teachings would be so corrupt that they would need to be re-established again in 1800 years does not make logical sense. This is the God of the Universe and He can keep a church together.
You can not rely on feelings because feelings are so subjective. You can not go see a movie about the restoration and say you felt the spirit because you might not have felt the spirit. It could have just been great production value. A lot of people feel emotional when they watch and read dramatic works of fiction, yet they do not attest this to the spirit and say that the events in the movie actually happened.
I think it funny that Mormons say they dont care what anyone tells them, they will always believe in this. They actually use this a source of pride. Whereas, I think it is a source of weakness because that means that no matter how many documented facts are shown and established, they will ignore them and mold them into their own reality.
How do I know that the Apostle Peter was telling the truth as opposed to Joseph Smith?
1.) Because of the historical reality of what the Apostle Peter did with his life and the established historical reality of the hierarchy he helped establish.
2.) Because the Apostle Peter taught universal truths that most men will say are good things. Joseph Smith taught things that a lot of people find questionable.
3.) The Apostle Peter along with the rest of the apostles testified to one universal truth and were not driven by money, power, and women like Joseph Smith was.
4.) History shows that Christianity existed in a certain manner under Christ and that manner continues to this day in the form of the Catholic Church as well as, in most aspects, in the Orthodox Church.
Mormons love to say āby your fruits, ye shall know themā but if we are really comparing fruits, Mormons do not come close to those of the Catholic Church. Millions and Billions of witnesses, countless miracles and healings, many apparitions and visions of Our Lord and Our Lady and then, of course, the spiritual wellbeing of so many souls. Not to mention, the hundreds of thousands of missions, orphanages, schools, and hospitals. The millions fed and the millions cared for. The fruits of the LDS Church, while they do bear a lot of good, also show a side of corporate greed and deception. A 5 billion dollar mall and a āprophetā saying ālets go shoppingā while our country is in the worst economic recession in 90 years is not a good fruit no matter which way you want to spin it.
Now, saying that you lived the commandments established by Joseph Smith and you have tested them and probably citing some blessing in your life does not make Mormonism true. Many of those commandments are not exclusive to Mormonism but also exist in Orthodoxy and Catholicism (i.e. saying you have been blessed by living the law of chastity, does not make mormonism true but it makes chastity a true principle).
I want you to read through the entire Bible and realize that it never tells you to pray about its truthfulness so why would the Book of Mormon need to do so. The way you know if something is true is by reading all accounts from history, philosophy and yes, even science, and deciding what makes more logical sense. The idea that a God from Heaven would come done and lose His established church based on the whims of mere mortals does not make logical sense. The idea that after 30 years of His death, the teachings would be so corrupt that they would need to be re-established again in 1800 years does not make logical sense. This is the God of the Universe and He can keep a church together.
You can not rely on feelings because feelings are so subjective. You can not go see a movie about the restoration and say you felt the spirit because you might not have felt the spirit. It could have just been great production value. A lot of people feel emotional when they watch and read dramatic works of fiction, yet they do not attest this to the spirit and say that the events in the movie actually happened.
I think it funny that Mormons say they dont care what anyone tells them, they will always believe in this. They actually use this a source of pride. Whereas, I think it is a source of weakness because that means that no matter how many documented facts are shown and established, they will ignore them and mold them into their own reality.
How do I know that the Apostle Peter was telling the truth as opposed to Joseph Smith?
1.) Because of the historical reality of what the Apostle Peter did with his life and the established historical reality of the hierarchy he helped establish.
2.) Because the Apostle Peter taught universal truths that most men will say are good things. Joseph Smith taught things that a lot of people find questionable.
3.) The Apostle Peter along with the rest of the apostles testified to one universal truth and were not driven by money, power, and women like Joseph Smith was.
4.) History shows that Christianity existed in a certain manner under Christ and that manner continues to this day in the form of the Catholic Church as well as, in most aspects, in the Orthodox Church.
Mormons love to say āby your fruits, ye shall know themā but if we are really comparing fruits, Mormons do not come close to those of the Catholic Church. Millions and Billions of witnesses, countless miracles and healings, many apparitions and visions of Our Lord and Our Lady and then, of course, the spiritual wellbeing of so many souls. Not to mention, the hundreds of thousands of missions, orphanages, schools, and hospitals. The millions fed and the millions cared for. The fruits of the LDS Church, while they do bear a lot of good, also show a side of corporate greed and deception. A 5 billion dollar mall and a āprophetā saying ālets go shoppingā while our country is in the worst economic recession in 90 years is not a good fruit no matter which way you want to spin it.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Janderich -
First, Callvenus gave you an excellent reply to question of why one can believe St. Peter. I would add to or supplement his thoughts:
Public Revelation - St. Peter and the other 11 disciples traveled with Jesus for 3 years. They were both students and witnesses of the Lord 24 hours a day.
Scripture Itself - the canon of the bible is consistent in the ministry of Jesus, this includes the Gospel of Mark (Gospel of Mark commonly attributed to St. Peter, written by his scribe and his āsonā, Mark, 1 Peter 5:13) and there is much commonality and consistency between the sypoptics of Markās Gospel, Matthew and Luke but also with the rest of scripture. There are no contradictions.
Early Church Writings / Apostolic Succession - again, amazing consistency on who Christ was and his teachings. All consistent with St. Peterās writings.
Biblical Canon - the church approved that canon as infallable which includes 1 + 2 Peter and the Gospel of Mark.
In the end, I believe St. Peter because there is consistency between his writings and the rest of scripture, the writings of the church through history & and that the church says him to be reliable. And I believe Jesus established his church on St. Peter, he is the rock and that Jesus would be with his church, guiding it infallably until the end of time. An excellent book on St. Peter is āThe Bones of St. Peterā by John E Walsh. It will take you through the excavation under St. Peters bascilica in Rome, where they have found St. Peters remains, directly under the high alter (a basilica that you can enter as a non-Catholic, no questions asked!).
On praying to know the truth. Hmmm. You do not have a monoply on praying or feeling. 1.3B Catholics who do the same and feel the truth. I feel the truth at home in the Lord, at Mass in our churches and at Eucharistic Adoration when Iām in front of the Lord himself. I too have lived it, felt it and experienced it. The question still is, was your prophet telling the truth? The bible says wolves will come in sheeps clothing and will lead many astray. You are trusting your infallible senses on a person that supposedly had a private revelation yet there are all kinds of contradictions that you dismiss, dismiss and dismiss.
J
Janderich
Guest
This comment about Jesusās teachings coming from himself is weak. Because he specifically says, āAll men cannot receive this sayingā. This leaves one of two options, he is either referring to the disciples comment or to Godās word.
Janderich said:
Regarding comment A: Indeed you are correct, marriage does not have to exist eternally in order to have importance in this life. However, that wasnāt really my point. My point is that in Jesus doctrine earthly divorce is not valid.
Regarding comment B: Your statement needs to be clarified. Jesus taught that no new marriages are performed after the resurrection. All such issues must be decided before the resurrection. He did not teach that there is no marriage after death. Nor did he teach that marriage does not continue after the resurrection.
Regarding comment C: This of course gets into another side of the discussion. But yes, one should not commit adultery.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Actually, all I need is the Bible. You have the Bible (the dusty book over under all the LDS books) the Book of Mormon (a book written copying from the Bible, and derived from several other books that has no support in the scientific community) the D&C that, if actually read, PROVES Joseph was a false prophet, and the Pearl of Great Price, a rambling narrative taken from papri that has been proven false.
And all I asked you was for Biblical proof and STILL you dodgeā¦
W
wussup
Guest
That is true, hence Paul teaches we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. It is a difficult thing to do, recognizing the difference between the spirit bearing witness and those normal human emotions.
That is true. One could argue that if one gets can recognized the testimony given for a generic principle such as chastity, similar teachings of the spirit regarding other matters such as, say the truth of the Book of Mormon as the word of God would be equally valid.
Sir, with all due respect, you are wrong. The Bible does urge us to pray for wisdom in all things, and most especially regarding Godās will. If you read other posts of mine, you will see I have nothing but the highest regard to the Faith of the Catholic. I respect them for what they are now. That being said, the history of the Catholic Church as a model for one to follow has been sorely lacking for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. One particularly well written book, E R Chamberlainās āThe Bad Popesā describes in nauseating detail some of these excesses. I suspect the spirit would have a difficult time validating the truth of their words. The apostacy of the church was clearly prophesied in many locations in the Bible.
Source of pride? I suppose so, though that is not as it should be. Fact is the Gospel is supposed to be difficult, a trial of faith, leading to your next statementsā¦
Again, how do you know they were witness? I submit it is NOT because the Bible tells you so, but because the Holy Spirit has born witness to you that the Bible is true and that Peter et al., were in fact true prophets. Even Judasā¦
Does that include Marcionās Canon?
Isnāt that exactly what your doing? The argument you are giving for the āTruth of the RC Faithā is exactly the same argument the Islamist defender gives for the Koranā¦
T
twopekinguys
Guest
How is that whole Mountain Meadows thing, or Priesthood thing working out for mormons these days?
How about JS practicing polygamy for 5 years before he got caught, and suddenly had a ārevelationā, or the fact that after the manifesto against polygamy was issued, mormon leaders still engaged in the practice?
How about JS being a convicted con man working out? Or the fact that he shot back and killed someone at Carthage. (Elder Reed Blake, 24 hours to Martyrdom, and History of the Church Vol 6.)?
Catholics have 2000+ years of history, and mormons have 180+/-. Seems to me the mormons are keeping up pretty well with their own ānauseatingā history.
The amazing thing about your statement is the fact that many, if not most, ex-mormons will tell you that the reason they left is they found out the church was lying/hiding their history. The Catholic Church however admits to itās history, warts and all.
Popes are human beings, and are fallible. They are only infallible when teaching on faith and morals.
The apostasy may have been prophesied in the Bible, but for some reason no mormon, or anyone else for that matter has been able to tell us when it was. Have you pinned it down?
J
Janderich
Guest
Porknpie and Callvenus,
Let me respond to both of you in this post. When I asked you how you knew Peter spoke the truth I received a few answers. Let me highlight your points and give you a few of my thoughts.
Do you not see that personal experience and personal revelation is the key? It opens the door and allows the spirit to confirm what one previously merely believed. By hearing the word, personally applying it, and then receiving confirmation from the Holy Ghost one can grow in truth. This process establishes a sure foundation in oneās life. Callvenus would paint revelation from the spirit as weak and easily confused with feelings. Perhaps when one first begins this process this may be the case. But I testify that by consistently following this process truth is clearly understood. Over years a foundation of understanding, as given by the Spirit, is formed.
Callvenus also points out that this process could be used to verify any commandment. I say, āIndeed it may, if it didnāt it would not be a useful toolā. He also points out that many churches may believe in a certain commandment and gives as an example the Law of Chastity. He points out that discovering the truth of this law does not make Mormonism true. I would say, āOf course it doesnāt. That is why a person must experiment on a truth that is uniquely a teaching of the LDS church, such as the Book of Mormon.ā Once someone knows The Book of Mormon was inspired by God, like the Bible, they will know the LDS church is true.
Reading the experiences of others, or the revelation given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:50)
The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer and obtain divine teaching. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:425)
Let me respond to both of you in this post. When I asked you how you knew Peter spoke the truth I received a few answers. Let me highlight your points and give you a few of my thoughts.
- History and what Peter established ā While history is a useful tool for learning, the truth of the history must be founded on truth first. Therefore it is not the basis of belief. There are many false histories, you do not believe them. Also, what Peter established may have changed over the years.
- What most men say is good ā Men say many things. Some are good some are not. Many men now say abortion is acceptable, many men say homosexuality should be accepted. Does that mean these men speak the truth?
- Peter testified of one universal truth ā This is a circular argument. You are telling me he testified of truth so it is true. Someone could ride this merry-go-round forever. This does not explain how you know what he said is true.
- Public revelation, Peter was a witness of Christ ā I can understand that he was a witness of Christ. However, this does not explain how you yourself know. Further it begs the question, how do you know if Christ is to be believed.
- Consistency in scripture and early writings ā It is good there is consistency, but there is consistency in many books. Consistency of itself is also no basis of belief. Once you know something is true consistency becomes important.
- Infallible cannon ā A church may approve all sorts of books and they do so. It does not make them true.
Do you not see that personal experience and personal revelation is the key? It opens the door and allows the spirit to confirm what one previously merely believed. By hearing the word, personally applying it, and then receiving confirmation from the Holy Ghost one can grow in truth. This process establishes a sure foundation in oneās life. Callvenus would paint revelation from the spirit as weak and easily confused with feelings. Perhaps when one first begins this process this may be the case. But I testify that by consistently following this process truth is clearly understood. Over years a foundation of understanding, as given by the Spirit, is formed.
Callvenus also points out that this process could be used to verify any commandment. I say, āIndeed it may, if it didnāt it would not be a useful toolā. He also points out that many churches may believe in a certain commandment and gives as an example the Law of Chastity. He points out that discovering the truth of this law does not make Mormonism true. I would say, āOf course it doesnāt. That is why a person must experiment on a truth that is uniquely a teaching of the LDS church, such as the Book of Mormon.ā Once someone knows The Book of Mormon was inspired by God, like the Bible, they will know the LDS church is true.
Reading the experiences of others, or the revelation given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:50)
The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer and obtain divine teaching. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:425)
W
wussup
Guest
Yeaaah, I remember you (guys)ā¦
Yawn, sure, Iāll bite,
The priesthood is alive and well, thank you.
As i have stated before, we are not pacifists. The story behind his final arrest in very brief; LDS were very strongly anti-slavery. The numbers of LDS moving into Missouri (a slave state) was creating a voting situation where MO would be anti-slave, upsetting the Missouri Compromise. Recognizing this the politicians of the state stirred up the locals about the LDS and created a mob environment, forcing the LDS to move to Nauvoo. Joseph was in MO and was captured, a mob was going to lynch him for his POLITICAL beliefs (using fabricated rumours to support their anger). Joseph attempted to defend himself.
-More catholics leave to become LDS
or
-More LDS leave to become catholic?
See? What did this accomplish? Doodly squat. I responded intelligently to vitriol, and will get back more vitriol.
Allow me to demonstrateā¦Second Thessalonians, ch 1 begins with the normal salutations, and then Paul dives into his commiseration with the Church in Thessaloniki, praising them for their āpatience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulationsā (1:4), followed by the promise of āvengenceā for those who āknow not Godā nor āthe gospel of our Lord Jesus Christā (1:8-9). Then he continues on (chapter 2) of the rewards at the ācoming of our Lord Jesus Christā (2:1), but then laments that that day, the aforementioned ācoming of our Lord Jesus Christā, will ānot come, except there be a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perditionā.
How does the RC interpret this?
Yawn, sure, Iāll bite,
The leader of the Nauvoo Legion responsible for the atrocity was executed, his 2nd in command turned states evidence and was excommunicated from the church. Nobody ever claims the MMM was a good thing.
The priesthood is alive and well, thank you.
When you phrase the question intelligently and without rancor so it can be answered, I will.
The only crime Joseph Smith was ever convicted of was for exorcising a demon, however, since it was determined after the trial that exercising a demon was not illegal, the conviction was overturned. I suppose one can argue he was putting a āconā on the one claiming to be demon possessed, but hey THIS IS AMERICA, we have the right to practice our religion as we see fit, so it is very difficult to prove such a thing. Especially when the one to whom the exorcism says it worked.
As i have stated before, we are not pacifists. The story behind his final arrest in very brief; LDS were very strongly anti-slavery. The numbers of LDS moving into Missouri (a slave state) was creating a voting situation where MO would be anti-slave, upsetting the Missouri Compromise. Recognizing this the politicians of the state stirred up the locals about the LDS and created a mob environment, forcing the LDS to move to Nauvoo. Joseph was in MO and was captured, a mob was going to lynch him for his POLITICAL beliefs (using fabricated rumours to support their anger). Joseph attempted to defend himself.
So, whats your point? The Church has NEVER sanctioned the genecide or ethnicide or any other hate crime. My family (French Huguenots) fled the catholics in france during the late 16th and early 17th century to escape being forcibly reconverted back to Catholicism or being executed (along with the 100s of thousands who had already been killed).
Interesting statistic, any actual verifiable research to support the assertion? Here is an interesting statistic to ponder. Which of the following is true-
-More catholics leave to become LDS
or
-More LDS leave to become catholic?
Yeah? Like saying its ok to kill the ~2 million french huguenot (per Robert J. Knecht, The French Religious Wars)? Yeah, that sounds infallible.
Actually, according to Paul, James, Peter, and John, the apostasy had already begun in their time.
See? What did this accomplish? Doodly squat. I responded intelligently to vitriol, and will get back more vitriol.
Allow me to demonstrateā¦Second Thessalonians, ch 1 begins with the normal salutations, and then Paul dives into his commiseration with the Church in Thessaloniki, praising them for their āpatience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulationsā (1:4), followed by the promise of āvengenceā for those who āknow not Godā nor āthe gospel of our Lord Jesus Christā (1:8-9). Then he continues on (chapter 2) of the rewards at the ācoming of our Lord Jesus Christā (2:1), but then laments that that day, the aforementioned ācoming of our Lord Jesus Christā, will ānot come, except there be a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perditionā.
How does the RC interpret this?
P
Porknpie
Guest
Janderich - go sequentially belowā¦
- I take Jesus words from the bible and tradition literally. āYou are Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my churchā (church = singular, established almost 2,000 years ago)
- āAnd the gates of hell shall not prevailā (Jesus protects his church from error in faith and morals)
- God the Father sent us the Holy Spirit āto guide you in all Truthā. The āyouā continues to be the Catholic church in this sentence. It is not speaking to private revelation. It is not speaking to the Mormon church.
- Truth exists from the church 1 Timothly 3:15: āthe pillar and bulwark of Truth is the churchā. Again, Catholic church, 2000 years old.
- I trust Jesus words: āhe who hears you, hears me. he who rejects you rejects me.ā The āyouā for nearly 2000 years again is the Catholic churchā¦are you hearing or rejecting his church?
- Status