Mormon Claims

[catholic-rcia]

Hello catholic-rcia. Good day to you.

When you study the Book of Mormon, you will find that it is speaking of the same Jesus as Luke, Matthew, or Paul. It is not a different doctrine as people would like you to believe. It is not a different type of God. The Arians did not put forth a different “type” of Jesus from a different bible but that which hailed from Luke, Matthew, and Paul. Similarly, Joseph Smith did not as well. Whereas, Joseph Smith’s revelation is not Trinitarian nor Arian, it still stems from the same Bible that you hold in your hands.

The Book of Mormon is exactly what you stated. *“They are not adding anything new to what Jesus has done or whom Jesus is, they are witnesses to what took place. If you witnessed a wreck along with 11 others why would the officer want to speak to all 11? He wants to make sure they all saw the same thing.” *

The only difference is - whereas you believe that the only people who God revealed himself to was the people depicted in the Books of the Old Testament and the New Testament, we believe that he revealed Himself to more than just those people. But then, that’s a matter of faith. Nobody can prove either position.

Regardless, the message that God revealed to the OT and NT folks and the other folks in the Book of Mormon is exactly the same. Jesus is the Christ and through His atonement lies our salvation. Of course, you don’t have to believe that even if I do.

I have no comment other than in all honesty the differences are extremely black and white
You are either very innocent or …well… I will leave it at that.
www.utahmission.com
www.chooseyourcross.com

 

[why_me]

I am a pretty intelligent guy. It will be a never-ending embarrassment to me that I fell for the LDS faith. I believed that a guy with 9 versions of a vision could just pick his favorite and go with it. That I believed that God was once a sinful man, that I could accept a book written in King James English from an American in the 1800s about a land no one can find. That I followed a man who made up polygamy, a practice that was ended when God decided he liked money than an “eternal” concept.

It is my solemn prayer that the real Holy Spirit converts our LDS brothers and sisters away from the false prophets and into truth

I wouldn’t call it nine versions of the first vision. I would call it nine ways to tell the story without straying from the details. I think that joseph smith was a robot just repeating the same story over and over again. I guy who writes a book like the book of mormon, planning on conning people into believing the new faith would make sure that he got his story straight like a robot.

You claim to be intelligent guy…also Joseph Smith was no dummy if he set out to con the world. He would have gotten his story vebatim. But for Joseph Smith, the first vision was not as important as the message given during the first vision: to join none of the churches. Much more important was bring forth the book of mormon and establishing the church of christ on this earth.

There is a part of me Tom who still thinks that you have a soft spot for the lds faith and that you are not really sure what to think. But…since you post as you do about the mormon church you are trying to convince yourself that it is false, with the help of catholics on this forum. When you were on Mad downing the catholic faith, your posting style was the same. Attack, attack, attack. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was disagreeing with you a about the catholic church and yet, agreeing about the pro-abortion catholic politicians.

The point is: it doesn’t really matter what you believe. The mormons have a book, complete with 11 witnesses who saw the book and 8 of them actually saw and touched the plates. And none ever denied their testimony even on their deathbeds. And at the end of the day, that speaks much. The rest is just fluff.

It is a fact: the more a person questions something, the more they doubt. It is the same as in the catholic faith.

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20january%201985%20.htm/joseph%20smiths%20recitals%20of%20the%20first%20vision.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Like Paul, Joseph Smith did not relate all the details of his profound experience of 1820 at any one time. When Paul found that his Gentile ministry was in question, he recalled (years after his vision) how the Lord had outlined his mission to the non-Jewish nations at the time of his first vision. (See Acts 26:16–18.)** Similarly, in the most complete account of the First Vision (one prepared in 1838 as part of a major history of the Church), the Prophet concluded that “many other things did [the Savior] say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.” (JS—H 1:20.) As a matter of fact, we do not have a full account today of the First Vision. At no time did the Prophet disclose everything that he learned during his vision near Palmyra.** Nevertheless (as with the four Gospels and the three versions of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus), by combining all known accounts of the First Vision written by the Prophet, we may gain a more complete understanding of his theophany of 1820.

The above is from the lds church magazine Ensign.

We still don’t know everything that was said in the first vision. See my point?

 

[why_me]

The epistles, once completed, give us what we need to know. That’s the way it was intended but you’re trying to separate them as if they weren’t all essential parts of the cohesive whole.

With all of them, we need nothing else.

I don’t know if I buy into this. Paul said and wrote much but much is lost. He could not keep a church together with the epistles that are included in the bible. I think that the poor guy was writing many things to the churches but these letters are lost. The early church was having many problems in holding together. And Paul alludes to this fact. To think that he would have written one epistle about it would be a stretch. Someone picked and chose what to go into the bible. And we have a pretty good book because of it. But it can not be complete. The apostles were going around talking to the people all the time, giving instructions about this or that and James and Peter also were out and about. We certainly can not have everything that they said and wrote. To keep the early church afloat took time and energy and much instruction.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Where does it say that?

By his loving obedience to the Father, “unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will “make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities” (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

“…looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Hebrews 12:2

“…having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
Colossians

 

[catholic-rcia]

I don’t know if I buy into this. Paul said and wrote much but much is lost. He could not keep a church together with the epistles that are included in the bible. I think that the poor guy was writing many things to the churches but these letters are lost. The early church was having many problems in holding together. And Paul alludes to this fact. To think that he would have written one epistle about it would be a stretch. Someone picked and chose what to go into the bible. And we have a pretty good book because of it. But it can not be complete. The apostles were going around talking to the people all the time, giving instructions about this or that and James and Peter also were out and about. We certainly can not have everything that they said and wrote. To keep the early church afloat took time and energy and much instruction.

Here is a vital part of the Catholic Mass, This instuction you are speaking about. The Catholic Church has not lost this instruction. This is are Mass.

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[Stephen168]

LDS believes that God inspired Budha, Mohammed, Martin Luther and others. That however, does not mean that Budhism, Islam and Protestantism only teach correct principles. They received portion of the light of God for a certain mission, but that does not qualify these religions as authoritative or being the representation of God on the earth.

I was summarizing pinay’s answer to Post #452. You seem to disagree with pinay’s answer: the Mormon Church accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to decide which books go into the New Testament and the authority of Church of England to translate it into English.
Do have a better answer for the question in post #452: How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

 

[evanfaust]

I was summarizing pinay’s answer to Post #452. You seem to disagree with pinay’s answer: the Mormon Church accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to decide which books go into the New Testament and the authority of Church of England to translate it into English.
Do have a better answer for the question in post #452: How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

I agree with Pinay’s response. His response agrees with mine. He just used different words, but meaning the same thing. God inspires men from all faiths to accomplish His designs. The way I understand authority is to have the priesthood or authority given by God to act in his name like it was given to Peter. In that sense I understand the Catholic church not to have such authority. To acknowledge that, in my view, is to endorse the Catholic Church as the Church of God, which I don’t of course. But as Pinay explained, they were guided by the light or inspiration of God to preserve the records and combine them into canonical books. Even though such work is not perfect, it is a marvelous legacy that caused good influence on millions of the children of God since then.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I wouldn’t call it nine versions of the first vision. I would call it nine ways to tell the story without straying from the details.

lol…9 ways to tell a story? So if I tell one person I was 14, another I was 15…if I tell one person a man was in my vision, another person there were two men, another person there were angels, another person there was one angel, another person etc etc etc…that is NOT 9 ways to tell a story…that os 9 versions. 9 very distinct versions that are incompatible with each other. Nice try

I think that joseph smith was a robot just repeating the same story over and over again. I guy who writes a book like the book of mormon, planning on conning people into believing the new faith would make sure that he got his story straight like a robot.

Ah…so to tell the truth, you believe a person must be a robot? I would LOVE to have 12 people just like you on the jury when I defend criminals. Most crimonals have more than version that they have told over time…they tell the police one thing, then they testify something different, etc. I suspect you would free every criminal because it would be just different ways to tell ONE story…

You claim to be intelligent guy…also Joseph Smith was no dummy if he set out to con the world. He would have gotten his story vebatim.

Not true. Maybe he knew that there would always be people like you who would findf ways to patch the holes in his story with faulty apologetics

But for Joseph Smith, the first vision was not as important as the message given during the first vision:

which message? Each version has a different message. If we go with the very first version, God said no such thing. He just said that his sins were forgiven. Would that be the message you are talking about?

There is a part of me Tom who still thinks that you have a soft spot for the lds faith and that you are not really sure what to think. But…since you post as you do about the mormon church you are trying to convince yourself that it is false, with the help of catholics on this forum. When you were on Mad downing the catholic faith, your posting style was the same. Attack, attack, attack. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was disagreeing with you a about the catholic church and yet, agreeing about the pro-abortion catholic politicians.

Ah…there you go again…when you are at a loss, you go back to a time where I have admitted my life was in shambles and I even considered suicide. Do you know how sad it is for a person to go back and focus on a time that a person had admitted they were a mess? Is that truly the kind of person you are? How very sad for you.

And yes, I will always have a soft spot in my heart. But I do not need to be convinced, God has already convinced me

The point is: it doesn’t really matter what you believe. The mormons have a book,

of fiction

complete with 11 witnesses who saw the book and 8 of them actually saw and touched the plates.

not really true. We have already debunked the alleged witnesses (who were family and friends of Joe) that even Joe called liars.

The rest is just fluff.

The whole church is just fluff

It is a fact: the more a person questions something, the more they doubt. It is the same as in the catholic faith.

Not true. Well, it is true with the LDS faith…

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20january%201985%20.htm/joseph%20smiths%20recitals%20of%20the%20first%20vision.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Like Paul, Joseph Smith did not relate all the details of his profound experience of 1820 at any one time. When Paul found that his Gentile ministry was in question, he recalled (years after his vision) how the Lord had outlined his mission to the non-Jewish nations at the time of his first vision. (See Acts 26:16–18.)** Similarly, in the most complete account of the First Vision (one prepared in 1838 as part of a major history of the Church), the Prophet concluded that “many other things did [the Savior] say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.” (JS—H 1:20.) As a matter of fact, we do not have a full account today of the First Vision. At no time did the Prophet disclose everything that he learned during his vision near Palmyra.** Nevertheless (as with the four Gospels and the three versions of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus), by combining all known accounts of the First Vision written by the Prophet, we may gain a more complete understanding of his theophany of 1820.

The above is from the lds church magazine Ensign.

sigh.,…again with the lame comparison to Luke. Luke had TWO versions, Joe had 9. We do not know who told his story, if it was Paul himself or someone else, Joe told ALL 9 versions. Then you have two stories in Luke told hundreds and hundreds of years ago in a different language and translated a gazillion times and you have Joe, who said everything in English less than 200 years ago. Could you please give a relevant example and stop with the lame apologetics?

We still don’t know everything that was said in the first vision

True. Had Joseph not died, we might have had 30 or 40 versions.

. See my point?

I see where you keep valiently defending the indefensible

 

[dianaiad]

By his loving obedience to the Father, “unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will “make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities” (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

“…looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Hebrews 12:2

“…having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
Colossians

Where in these verses, especially considering who WROTE them, is there any indication that public revelation from Jesus Christ would cease, and that there would be nothing more needing to be said?

Here’s the problem: Yes, Jesus Christ is the 'author and finisher of our faith." The problem is, He evidently continued TO ‘author’ stuff…in that He gave revelation to His apostles, including Paul, after His death and resurrection.

Where is there anything, in any scripture, anywhere, that tells us that He would stop doing that?

Can you see the circular problem here, of using Paul as ‘proof’ that Jesus would stop talking to us? You have him saying, basically, “Well, there isn’t going to be any more revelation, and He has stopped talking to us, and I know this because He just told me so?”

Uhmn…I see a problem with this position. Do you?

Remember, Paul wasn’t one of the original twelve. There is no evidence at all to show that he knew Jesus personally, or had met Him. Paul persecuted Jesus’ followers for quite some time before Jesus Himself told him to lay off.

Therefore is it really odd, at least to me, that Paul’s words are being interpreted as saying that Jesus didn’t talk to anybody after His death or resurrection. In fact, the idea that this is what Paul meant is an idea that shouts ‘paradox’ at me. Paul is the very epitome of the sort of thing you are claiming that did not exist, and that you are also claiming his words prove does not exist!

So, since Paul recieved revelation from Jesus, where is there any hint that this would end, and why?

 

[SteveVH]

Where in these verses, especially considering who WROTE them, is there any indication that public revelation from Jesus Christ would cease, and that there would be nothing more needing to be said?

Here’s the problem: Yes, Jesus Christ is the 'author and finisher of our faith." The problem is, He evidently continued TO ‘author’ stuff…in that He gave revelation to His apostles, including Paul, after His death and resurrection.

Where is there anything, in any scripture, anywhere, that tells us that He would stop doing that?

Can you see the circular problem here, of using Paul as ‘proof’ that Jesus would stop talking to us? You have him saying, basically, “Well, there isn’t going to be any more revelation, and He has stopped talking to us, and I know this because He just told me so?”

Uhmn…I see a problem with this position. Do you?

Remember, Paul wasn’t one of the original twelve. There is no evidence at all to show that he knew Jesus personally, or had met Him. Paul persecuted Jesus’ followers for quite some time before Jesus Himself told him to lay off.

Therefore is it really odd, at least to me, that Paul’s words are being interpreted as saying that Jesus didn’t talk to anybody after His death or resurrection. In fact, the idea that this is what Paul meant is an idea that shouts ‘paradox’ at me. Paul is the very epitome of the sort of thing you are claiming that did not exist, and that you are also claiming his words prove does not exist!

So, since Paul recieved revelation from Jesus, where is there any hint that this would end, and why?

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Paul did not receive a “different” revelation. He, who was persecuting Christ by persecuting His Church, received THE revelation of Jesus Christ. The apostles speak and witness to the one revelation, the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the ONE for which the world had been waiting. They did not each have different revealtions, but shared in the ONE.

The world was not waiting for Joseph Smith, it was waiting for Jesus Christ. We are no longer waiting for the Messiah. He has come and has revealed the Father (“He who sees me has seen the Father”) and has redeemed the world. There is nothing more for which to wait except His second coming.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Where in these verses, especially considering who WROTE them, is there any indication that public revelation from Jesus Christ would cease, and that there would be nothing more needing to be said?

Here’s the problem: Yes, Jesus Christ is the 'author and finisher of our faith." The problem is, He evidently continued TO ‘author’ stuff…in that He gave revelation to His apostles, including Paul, after His death and resurrection.

Where is there anything, in any scripture, anywhere, that tells us that He would stop doing that?
quote]

**He speaks to us everyday in prayer, He helps us up each morning. He guides us to Mass, to the Scaraments. Each day is a gloriuse day with Him in good times as well as in times of suffering. He never stopped speaking to us Catholics. There is just nothing more to add to what He has done for us. **

We have posted Hebrews
In times past God spoke to the Prophets of old .,…………now through Jesus

We Hold Jesus in such High esteem that He is the fulfillment of all revelation in what He has done to get us home with the Father. Because of Him we have every thing we need regarding our salvation. The Church and her Sacraments of healing.

We have mentioned that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, us from within regarding the things of Christ, that as Catholics we have the same revelation that the Apostles had regarding Jesus because these truths are unchanging

That as the years have passed the truth of Christ remains the same, we just come to a fuller knowledge of these truths one soul at a time. Let me put it this way………

What I have come to love about the Catholic Church is her Creed and every one of her Doctrines. Its not like a target that moves……

We have the Most Holy Eucharist in all of it wonder, authenticity, depth and reverence. With the Holy Scriptures and our Church Tradition to keep it safe, the Holy Spirit to help us discern it, to allow it to sustain us. It is a daily miracle , Our Daily Bread.

We have the Great Sacrament of Confession to remind us of the love God has for us when we turn to Him with trust and humility, in sincerity, and honesty. To admit we are sinners, a smile that says “you know I love you right” A few tears, a nod, a returned smile and then the “Oh yes my Lord, I do know this my Lord” Then the freedom to move on, to continue on the road that is always about healing from our fallen nature, always loving us back home to the Father.

Continued on…

 

[catholic-rcia]

The Communion of Saints, all of which had stood in this line we call confession, to be with them at all times and them with us at all times. But never stronger than at each Mass performed where we not only remember what Jesus has done for each of us, but actually attend the One Sacrifice, where it becomes present to us in the here and now. Where the Eucharist among the symbols become as real today as it was 2000 years ago. The perpetual Sacrifice where we proclaim the death of Christ until He comes again. This death that brings us new life.

Marriage where we learn to love in units, within our families to teach us the Love within the Most Holy Trinity to prepare us for un measured love tp come. Where love will no longer be measured as it is in the family, where it will be poured out in equal measure, yet not measured at all. Where God will be our God and we will be His Children.

We have the Cross, the greatest symbol for all Christians. The Cross that Satan hates because it not only symbolizes what Jesus has done for us but is a perpetual reminder of Satan’s defeat. The Cross in the Catholic Church, with Christ in his agony reminds us of our sin, what we have done, what we have failed to do, and what Christ has done for us. We ask the Church, all the saints and angels to pray for each of us to the Lord our God. That Crucifix shows us how much our God loves us by laying down His life for us. By pouring out His love and mercy to all who come face to face with their own sin, He teaches us forgiveness. The Cross teaches us humility, which is the opposite of pride. It reminds us of who Christ is, and who we are. “Jesus came to pay a debt He didn’t owe, because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay” - Unknown. utahmission.com/pages/Cross_scripture.html

And oh my Lord how can we not mention our adored Mother Mary who continually points to Her son saying “do as He asks” She is with each of us at every moment of our day, but her presence is never so great as it is at Mass. Our lives in Christ built on the shoulders of the Holy Family, the Family of Saints, and the “family” that makes up the “community” of Christ.

Now I am going to get serious, understanding why Jesus would over turn the tables …. How dare you come here and speak of these things dear to us as apostasies. We already know we are sinners, do you not know that you will be judged as you yourself judge others?

Everything about Christ’s Church is here to remind us all of the sacrifice made to bring the “family of man” out of sin’s bondage (Heb. 12:1),

could you face Jesus Himself today and tell Him about this apostasy you speak to us about? I would suggest not doing that, I would suggest you fall to your knees together with us saying “Lord Jesus have mercy on me a sinner”

In Christ and with Love from Him
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[catholic-rcia]

From Dinadad:
Can you see the circular problem here, of using Paul as ‘proof’ that Jesus would stop talking to us? You have him saying, basically, “Well, there isn’t going to be any more revelation, and He has stopped talking to us, and I know this because He just told me so?”

What you are saying here is a complete distortion of reality in the life of a Catholic Christian. Your writing does not come from the Holy Sprit, step back and read what you have written. I know that it does not originate form within your heart.

It was God who spoke to me from a life time of events even before I was Baptized. . He has always been at my side speaking to me. He led me to Baptism where my sins were forgiven and where I received the same Holy Spirit from Jesus just as the Apostles received at Pentecost.

I have this spirit in me to guide me at each moment of the day, to speak to me, to continue to give me insight and revelation as to whom Jesus is, what His Church is, how to best serve others, how to love others, how to see others as God sees them, how God loves others just as much as He loves me… Stopped talking to us?

One of the most profound experiences I had after I was Baptized was that God sat me down and said this “All I want from you Rich is to empty your mind and spend some quiet time with ME. Just be with me in the silence so that I can be with you in the silence, that in the end that is all I want from you. The rest will just take care of its self naturally.

Its hard to do with our busy lives, but God does speak to us when we can step aside ourselves, and just spend some quiet time with Him. When you get better at this you can hear God even through all of the noise throughout our busy lives.

Each soul receives revelation from God, this is how I became Catholic. What was amazing to me is it was not new revelation as all of a sudden I was around 2000 years of Saints and Sinners like me who received the same. It does not change. I come over the same hill and I see the same glorious ocean for the first time, the same ocean that others have seen before me. But there is no first and last to see it. But seeing it is one thing, as you immerse your self into the Catholic way of life you end up swimming in it.

 

[dianaiad]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Paul did not receive a “different” revelation. He, who was persecuting Christ by persecuting His Church, received THE revelation of Jesus Christ. The apostles speak and witness to the one revelation, the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the ONE for which the world had been waiting. They did not each have different revealtions, but shared in the ONE.

The world was not waiting for Joseph Smith, it was waiting for Jesus Christ. We are no longer waiting for the Messiah. He has come and has revealed the Father (“He who sees me has seen the Father”) and has redeemed the world. There is nothing more for which to wait except His second coming.

The 'world was not waiting for" Paul and Peter, either, but you have no problem paying attention to them when they tell you about Jesus.

Remember, we are not claiming that Joseph Smith was any sort of Messiah. We do not equate him with Jesus. We DO equate him with Paul, Peter and the other apostles, in that he did exactly what they did; they recieved revelation that told us about Jesus. Not a ‘different’ one, the original one.

Just as most of the letters written in the NT were written by apostles to groups that were already going off the doctrinal rails, we claim that revelation isn’t so much about ‘new information,’ as it is about keeping people true to the original word.

Remember, we do not claim that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in order to send Christianity down a different path. We claim that He did so to restore Christianity to that original one. In other words, if there IS a ‘different Jesus’ involved here, or “another gospel” being preached other than the one preached in the NT, we aren’t the ones doing it. That is our claim.

And there is NO reason, mentioned in scripture, for such revelation for that purpose to have ceased. None. In fact, there are many reasons for it to continue. Think about it; since most of those letters WERE written to people who were making doctrinal errors even while the original apostles where alive and able to guide the congregations through revelation, what miracle happened to everybody that suddenly kept them from going off the path after they died?

I don’t see one.

There isn’t one…

 

[SteveVH]

what miracle happened to everybody that suddenly kept them from going off the path after they died?

The promise of Christ that He would remain with His Church always, and would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. It is your church that denies that this promise was kept, and it depends upon this denial for its very existence.

The Church was not on its own, dependent upon the holiness or worthiness of man. Christ was and is its Head, and He promised never to leave it orphaned.

 

[DominicSavio23]

And there is NO reason, mentioned in scripture, for such revelation for that purpose to have ceased. None. In fact, there are many reasons for it to continue. Think about it; since most of those letters WERE written to people who were making doctrinal errors even while the original apostles where alive and able to guide the congregations through revelation, what miracle happened to everybody that suddenly kept them from going off the path after they died?

I don’t see one.

There isn’t one…

This is why we have the Magesterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. The writings of various councils are the letters written to guide the Church and make clear doctrinal errors. These are guided by the Holy Spirit. But we do not call them Scripture. They are not Divine Revelation. They’re just part of how God works in guiding His Church. They’re still binding. But they are not Scripture.

 

[Mike2010]

The promise of Christ that He would remain with His Church always, and would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. It is your church that denies that this promise was kept, and it depends upon this denial for its very existence.

The Church was not on its own, dependent upon the holiness or worthiness of man. Christ was and is its Head, and He promised never to leave it orphaned.

Exactly! To say that Jesus would abandon His Church, that He would not be with His Church until the end of time, and that the gates of hell would prevail against it would be calling Jesus a liar - for Jesus Christ said that he would never abandon His Church, and said that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against it.

 

[SirThomasMore]

The 'world was not waiting for" Paul and Peter, either, but you have no problem paying attention to them when they tell you about Jesus.

Remember, we are not claiming that Joseph Smith was any sort of Messiah. We do not equate him with Jesus.

Funny…because Joe himself equated himself with Jesus

We DO equate him with Paul, Peter and the other apostles, in that he did exactly what they did; they recieved revelation that told us about Jesus. Not a ‘different’ one, the original one.

Except Joe DID receive revelation about a different Jesus. Joe is not on the same plane as Peter and Paul, but on the plane of James…James Jones…

Just as most of the letters written in the NT were written by apostles to groups that were already going off the doctrinal rails, we claim that revelation isn’t so much about ‘new information,’ as it is about keeping people true to the original word.

Except that Joe did NOT keep the original word…we see that from your organiozation, the odd prophesies, the scary conduict and revelations and quotes, the Eucharist, the nature of True God, etc…

Remember, we do not claim that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in order to send Christianity down a different path.

In Joe’s various versions of his vision, he was not told to do anything. Then, in the one he finally settled on, it absolutely led him down a path away from Chritianity

And there is NO reason, mentioned in scripture, for such revelation for that purpose to have ceased.

Only if you believe Jesus was not enough

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons seem to view Jesus as a person who “was” and “will be”.

Jesus eternally IS.

Nothing that is His is lost.

 

[dianaiad]

This is why we have the Magesterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. The writings of various councils are the letters written to guide the Church and make clear doctrinal errors. These are guided by the Holy Spirit. But we do not call them Scripture. They are not Divine Revelation. They’re just part of how God works in guiding His Church. They’re still binding. But they are not Scripture.

If they are not the result of Divine revelation, then they are not the result of God guiding, because the definition of God guiding IS ‘revelation,’ and the definition of God guiding leaders of the church for the purpose of all the members of that church is PUBLIC revelation. The definition of written revelation is “scripture.”

You can’t HAVE this both ways.