MERGED Questions about Mormonism

[twopekinguys]

Yeaaah, I remember you (guys)…
Yawn, sure, I’ll 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.

But yet, nobody in authority ever apologized for it…hmmm

The priesthood is alive and well, thank you.

Nice dodge. You know very well I was referring to “Blacks” and the mormon priesthood.
Care to try again?
Interesting letter here.

When you phrase the question intelligently and without rancor so it can be answered, I will.

Aren’t you the artful dodger. This is a very typical mormon tactic. Instead of addressing the issue, attack the individual. Kind of an old tactic wouldn’t you say? I mean, we have seen it over and over.

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 ‘con’ 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.

Check again, see it here.

Also, the last I knew, when someone says they are like a lamb being led to the slaughter, they don’t fire back with an illegally obtained weapon, and kill someone.

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).

And you can back that up how? Remember, alot of things were done in the name of the Church, but not endorsed by the Church.

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?

Even better, talk to just about any ex mormon here, and they will tell you. Also, I have some family that defected. Good enough for me.

Yeah? Like saying its ok to kill the ~2 million french huguenot (per Robert J. Knecht, The French Religious Wars)? Yeah, that sounds infallible.

Did you happen to ignore the part about infallible when teaching on faith and morals?

Actually, according to Paul, James, Peter, and John, the apostasy had already begun in their time.

So, you admit you cannot provide a date. Somehow, I knew it would come to this.

See? What did this accomplish? Doodly squat. I responded intelligently to vitriol, and will get back more vitriol.

Please review your previous posts for charity and Christ like behavior, then we’ll talk.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

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).

And you can back that up how? Remember, alot of things were done in the name of the Church, but not endorsed by the Church.

No, the Church hasn’t sanctioned genocide, “ethnicide,” or any other hate crime. As you bring the the Huguenots, let’s talk about that.

First of all, please capitalize “Catholics” and “France” (yes, I am going to be this nit-picky) out of a sign of respect for us Catholics. Thank you in advance.

The Huguenots, a branch of Calvinism in France, were quite loud with their anti-Catholicism, which “upset the establishment” so to speak, just as the Reformation did everywhere. In the nations that were still predominately Catholic after the Reformation (like France), the Protestants who remained were seen as threats to society, just as the Catholics who remained in nations that were predominately Protestant (like Bohemia in the Holy Roman Empire. With the kings trying to maintain control over their monarchies despite the tension between the Catholics and Protestants rising and very violent ON BOTH SIDES (see the Defenestration of Prague), no wonder the wars broke out all over Western Europe (please note, I am not condoning the violent behavior of anyone). However, these instances were from kings and monarchs (supported by bishops, priests, and a Pope or two, possibly) but not the Church and Her Magisterium. Ever.

Oh, and do not bring up the Crusades, or the Inquisition, because this is nothing more than an ad hominum logical fallacy, just as bringing up the Huguenots was and is. This whole thread should drop the talk on numbers, the growth (or decline) of the religious groups, or horrible things the followers may have done (or the media lies about to make it look worse) in the name of their religion, as these really have nothing to do with anything, and are just logical fallacies designed to be red herrings from the actual debate.

 

[wussup]

Janderich - go sequentially below…

1. I take Jesus words from the bible and tradition literally. “You are Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my church” (church = singular, established almost 2,000 years ago)
2. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Jesus protects his church from error in faith and morals)

The starting point is do I believe Jesus was the Son of God? Yes. Do I believe he built a church, singular, on earth? Yes. I do believe that this is the Catholic church. It could not have been the Mormon church

1. God the Father sent us the Holy Spirit “to guide you in all Truth”. The “you” continues to be the Catholic church in this sentence. It is not speaking to private revelation. It is not speaking to the Mormon church.
2. Truth exists from the church 1 Timothly 3:15: “the pillar and bulwark of Truth is the church”. Again, Catholic church, 2000 years old.
3. I trust Jesus words: “he who hears you, hears me. he who rejects you rejects me.” The “you” for nearly 2000 years again is the Catholic church…are you hearing or rejecting his church?

I believe St Peter is true because of I believe in the public revelation of Jesus Christ and his church established on earth to the be the Catholic church, to be true. I do not believe anything above is false. As a Mormon or SDA, you believe in the private revelation of a false prophet, Joseph Smith. I reject private revelation. In JS case, the supposed private revelation is documented to be full of error, easily seen by non-Mormons and testified to very credibly by ex-Mormons. To the person, I witness them talking about how great they “feel” as Catholics, a “feeling” that far surpasses their experience as Mormons. But more importantly they have the Truth on their side, Truth established by Jesus 2000 years ago.

Thank you for your direct answer. Ultimately, this is the real question, does the Catholic Church have the Keys to the Kingdom of God, i.e., are the saving ordinances granted through the priesthood from God through the RC. Most protestant churches claim the scriptures as authoritative, and invest themselves with God’s authority.

You are of course referencing Matt 16:18-19. When I was young, before I joined the church, and before I was in the Navy (your welcome twoguysetal), I read this and my understanding of the scripture was totally different, and prompted me to the LDS church.

Look at the scripture in its entirety, all of chapter 16 of Matthew. Verses 1-4 Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for seeking after a sign. Vss 5-13 Jesus then councils the disciples to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It is logical to think he is referencing his aforementioned ‘seeking after sign being an evil and adulterous generation’ doctrine, is it not? Then 14-16 Jesus asks them whom do men say that I am, he gets various answers, but it is Peter who says the truth. VS 17 Jesus tell of how Peter knows the truth, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” i.e., it was not a sign you received, nor was it the Scriptures (though they do prophesy of Christ coming and mission), “but my Father which is in heaven”, i.e., the Testimony of Christ as the Son of the Living God was given to Peter by GOD, not by a sign seeking. Then in vs 18 Jesus says THAT, i.e., the Spirit of Personal Revelation, is the rock the Church shall be built upon, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The next vs Christ says he will give Peter et al, the Keys to bind in heaven and earth, etc…

Furthermore, it is the position of the Church that the Keys of the kingdom did not leave the earth, see the last verse in the chapter.

I understand you point of view. There are a number of ideas the church has regarding your, the rc, interpretation. First, the statement is amphibolic. Second, the statement is also taken out of context. Third, it is only through personal revelation can you know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Fourth, it is upon the rock of revelation the Church shall be known by, as opposed to the evil and adulterous generation seeking after a sign, or the words of others (in this case, the words of the sadducees and pharisees, the ‘church’ leaders who should have known the answer).

Finally, in respect to you quoting 1 Tim 3:15. Am I correct to infer you are suggesting the permanence of the church because contains the truth? We use the KJV of the Bible, your quotation is different. In the KJV it says “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” That is an incomplete building. What is the roof? The windows, etc… ‘The Truth’ is a much bigger thing than a pillar and ground, the church is just that. It is inconsistent to suggest the Church is the source of truth, and thus establish a permanence for a number of reasons:

1- As already explained, the next chapter the apostacy is laid out.
2- The aforementioned verses in Matthew were pre-church, and yet truth was still evident.

 

[TexanKnight]

Isn’t that exactly what your doing? The argument you are giving for the ‘Truth of the RC Faith’ is exactly the same argument the Islamist defender gives for the Koran…

actually, the argument you use to show Joseph was a prophet is the same argument Muslims use to show Mohammed was one…

 

[wussup]

No, the Church hasn’t sanctioned genocide, “ethnicide,” or any other hate crime.

The primary ‘player’ in these wars were the Catholic League, formed by Duke Henry of Guise, but it had the direct support of Pope Sixtus the V. The personal letters of Pope Sixtus the V to Cardinal de Bourbon and to the Duke of Guise, 15 July 1588, he says, “remain strong against the Huguenots and the indifference of Henry III”. Sounds like approbation to me.

First of all, please capitalize “Catholics” and “France” (yes, I am going to be this nit-picky) out of a sign of respect for us Catholics. Thank you in advance.

No offense meant. Sincerest apologies.

The Huguenots, a branch of Calvinism in France, were quite loud with their anti-Catholicism, which “upset the establishment” so to speak, just as the Reformation did everywhere. In the nations that were still predominately Catholic after the Reformation (like France), the Protestants who remained were seen as threats to society, just as the Catholics who remained in nations that were predominately Protestant (like Bohemia in the Holy Roman Empire.

Here you speak of the Affair of the Placards. Yeah, the protestants were a loud-mouthed lot even back then. Nice to have freedom of speech though.

With the kings trying to maintain control over their monarchies despite the tension between the Catholics and Protestants rising and very violent ON BOTH SIDES (see the Defenestration of Prague), no wonder the wars broke out all over Western Europe (please note, I am not condoning the violent behavior of anyone). However, these instances were from kings and monarchs (supported by bishops, priests, and a Pope or two, possibly) but not the Church and Her Magisterium. Ever…

Yes, the protestants were also culpable in the mess. And no, I wasn’t going to bring up anything else. If you may recall, it was someones else who brought up the infallibility of the Pope regarding morals etc…

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Yes, the protestants were also culpable in the mess. And no, I wasn’t going to bring up anything else. If you may recall, it was someones else who brought up the infallibility of the Pope regarding morals etc…

…which has nothing to do with warring nations. Infallible on faith and morals are what the Church teaches as a part of the deposit of faith, with the morality being on how we should act in life. Nobody ever said that the Pope actually had to live according to those morals documented (although he should). Pointing out “bad Popes” to disprove Papal infallibility shows a lack of understanding of what Papal infallibility is.

 

[wussup]

actually, the argument you use to show Joseph was a prophet is the same argument Muslims use to show Mohammed was one…

Actually, no it isn’t. While serving as a missionary in South Africa I had the good fortune to have a long discussion with ahmad deedat (no dead). He is a very famous Moslem apologist, even debated over here with Jimmy Swaggert. He was pointing out how he knew the Koran was true, basically because it reads so good and is so internally consistent, and because his parents told him it was true. He asked us how we knew the Bible to be the word of God given all its ‘errors’ (his word, not mine). He happened to have a Book of Mormon on his book shelf. I pointed to it and said because that book is a second testament of Jesus Christ and because God has told me it is true, so I know the Bible is also the word of God. I thought he was going to blow a gasket. Its been a while but i remember lotsa swearing, and I remember him saying the Koran is God’s last word to man, and that God doesn’t speak to man any more. I asked him how he knows this to be true, unless God told him the Koran was the last word of God to man. More swearing and we were invited to leave.
When asked how you know the RC to be God’s Church, or even how you know the Bible to be the word of God, I am hearing answers more similar to Deedats. How do you know the Bible to be true? No, really. I am curious.

 

[wussup]

…which has nothing to do with warring nations. Infallible on faith and morals are what the Church teaches as a part of the deposit of faith, with the morality being on how we should act in life. Nobody ever said that the Pope actually had to live according to those morals documented (although he should). Pointing out “bad Popes” to disprove Papal infallibility shows a lack of understanding of what Papal infallibility is.

Oh. I get it. Abraham and Moses had similar issues (infallibility because they were human), that didn’t keep them from being Prophets. Thanks.

 

[TexanKnight]

Actually, no it isn’t. While serving as a missionary in South Africa I had the good fortune to have a long discussion with ahmad deedat (no dead). He is a very famous Moslem apologist, even debated over here with Jimmy Swaggert. He was pointing out how he knew the Koran was true, basically because it reads so good and is so internally consistent, and because his parents told him it was true. He asked us how we knew the Bible to be the word of God given all its ‘errors’ (his word, not mine). He happened to have a Book of Mormon on his book shelf. I pointed to it and said because that book is a second testament of Jesus Christ and because God has told me it is true, so I know the Bible is also the word of God. I thought he was going to blow a gasket. Its been a while but i remember lotsa swearing, and I remember him saying the Koran is God’s last word to man, and that God doesn’t speak to man any more. I asked him how he knows this to be true, unless God told him the Koran was the last word of God to man. More swearing and we were invited to leave.
When asked how you know the RC to be God’s Church, or even how you know the Bible to be the word of God, I am hearing answers more similar to Deedats. How do you know the Bible to be true? No, really. I am curious.

Actually, it is. I, too, served a mission, so your experience is not that impressive. And as to your talk with a Muslim, again, not too impressive. I work at Muslim firm. The majority of the folks are Muslim. I read the Koran, cover to cover. We talk about it daily. They respect that I am Catholic and I repsect they are Muslim. What they say about Mohammed is almost exactly what Mormons say about Joseph (and what I was taught at the MTC about Joseph).

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Oh. I get it. Abraham and Moses had similar issues (infallibility because they were human), that didn’t keep them from being Prophets. Thanks.

Not sure if I want to agree with this or not because of the statement infallibility because they were human.

No, they were infallible because they were Prophets in a time were the Prophets of the Old Testament were the, not only defenders and interpreters of the faith, but also the revelers of G-d’s Revelation to man. That did not make them impeccable, or sinless, because they were human

 

[wussup]

Actually, it is. I, too, served a mission, so your experience is not that impressive. And as to your talk with a Muslim, again, not too impressive. I work at Muslim firm. The majority of the folks are Muslim. I read the Koran, cover to cover. We talk about it daily. They respect that I am Catholic and I repsect they are Muslim. What they say about Mohammed is almost exactly what Mormons say about Joseph (and what I was taught at the MTC about Joseph).

Not trying to impress anyone, just give an anecdotal explanation from a very learned Muslim. Islam does not teach anything about the Holy Spirit. whatever.

 

[wussup]

Not sure if I want to agree with this or not because of the statement infallibility because they were human.

No, they were infallible because they were Prophets in a time were the Prophets of the Old Testament were the, not only defenders and interpreters of the faith, but also the revelers of G-d’s Revelation to man. That did not make them impeccable, or sinless, because they were human

That is what I was saying. Abraham and Moses (and all Prophets) were human and subject to the ‘none perfect save God’ statement. That did not mean they could willfully be licentious though. They were human and had failings. The revealed word of God was not one.

 

[TexanKnight]

Not trying to impress anyone, just give an anecdotal explanation from a very learned Muslim. Islam does not teach anything about the Holy Spirit. whatever.

I said nothing about the Holy Spirit. You are attempting to change the dialogue to escape the point.

I am specifically talking about two guys who proclaim visitations that make them the only true prophet. How they are led to write books. How they convinced followers.

Of course, the Bahai claim the same thing. My muslims friends say Bahai is false. That their prophet is a false prophet. They say that Bahia is to Islam what Mormons are to Catholics…

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

That is what I was saying. Abraham and Moses (and all Prophets) were human and subject to the ‘none perfect save God’ statement. That did not mean they could willfully be licentious though. They were human and had failings. The revealed word of God was not one.

But they could willfully be licentious, it just did not detract from the Truth they were saying…

 

[wussup]

(and what I was taught at the MTC about Joseph).

so, what did you learn about Joseph Smith at the MTC, or more specifically, related to Mohammed.

 

[wussup]

But they could willfully be licentious, it just did not detract from the Truth they were saying…

I don’t know about that…who was licentious?

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

I don’t know about that…who was licentious?

Abraham, even with Sarah’s permission, had sex with a woman not his own wife…that’s pretty licentious, and hence, from then on circumcision was mandatory. Essentially: this is what you sinned with, now watch it bleed. I am in control (G-d) not you.

And even if I couldn’t find any more examples (Jacob and 2 concubines other than his 2 wives, David and Bathsheba etc) still does not detract that they COULD be licentious, but as men of G-d, they chose not to.

 

[TexanKnight]

so, what did you learn about Joseph Smith at the MTC, or more specifically, related to Mohammed.

I just explained that. I respectfully ask you to read my posts before questioning me about those posts.

 

[wussup]

I just explained that. I respectfully ask you to read my posts before questioning me about those posts.

fuhgetaboutit.

 

[TexanKnight]

fuhgetaboutit.

Don’t blame you. Hard to defend the LDS Church

Be Blessed