S
- Status
B
barnesms
Guest
Taking verses out of context is your claim and yet not one of these verses has been taken out of context. It is possible that there is a different interpretation, but when you accuse another there are always three fingers pointing back at yourself. Who decided to change the organization that was clearly instituted by Christ according to Paul? Why did they change it to the current structure you propose in the Catholic Church? Is there any written Tradtion that explains what happened to prophets in the CC?
B
barnesms
Guest
You obviously think that repeating claims is a manner to increase strength; in repeating them they become more true. The LDS Church strives to teach all scripture in context. Better yet, it strives to instruct the people of the world to do as Peter of old did, to obtain knowledge of Christ through the work of the Spirit. You will recall Christ’s words, “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” We do not seek to reason as man, but to be lead by the Spirit in all truth. There is nothing more important than to have a testimony by the Spirit of Truth. Would you agree?
E
evanfaust
Guest
I think you should read Amos chapter 3 again! God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God had prophets in the Old Testament, in the New Testament and in the latter days.
The scripture is clear, it is not limited to gifts, but also to positions in the church…pastors and teachers are titles and so are apostles and prophets!
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers”
The Book of Revelation tells us that there would be Prophets in the latter days! Not in the Catholic church though!
"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth" Rev 11:3
“*And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because **these two prophets **tormented them that dwelt on the earth.” *Rev11:10
Of course…You just proved my point! Here is a clear example of disrespect to the scriptures! Alteration of doctrines! That is why the Catholic Church does not resemble the Church Christ established! It is another organization. That is why you should not equate the Catholic Church to the primitive Church of Christ!.
Here you are trying to convince me that apples are oranges! Bishops are Bishops and Apostles are Apostles. Do not try to equate the two! The foundation of the Church of Christ is on Apostles prophets and the Catholic Church is on bishops.
You are denying the scriptures to adjust yourself to the Catholic doctrine!
**“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” **Eph 2:20
How clear do you want the scripture to be?..and then you tell me that LDS Church does not interpret the scriptures in context!!
W
why_me
Guest
You have a good point. But the lds case is a little different. When Joseph was murdered there were people who came forward to claim leadership. Not unusual giving the circumstances. And a leader was chosen by the memberhip by extraordinary means, if you know the story of brigham’s voice becoming the voice of Joseph Smith.
But with luther it wasn’t about leadership but about policy. I don’t think that Luther was right in all areas and yes, he could have attempted reform from the inside, if he would survive such a intrareformation. But the question: was god pleased with the catholic church? is a question that would be interesting to read a discussion on.
C
campeador
Guest
“As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ” (1 Cor 12:12).
The Church is the Body of Christ.
Can God be displeased with himself??
W
why_me
Guest
I don’t know…but I do know that he could be displeased with those who act in his name if these actions contradict love for others and charity toward others. And if church policy no longer follows his will but the will of men.
I know of one mormon poster on a different forum who believes that Jospeh Smith was killed because he was not following the will of god. I don’t agree with this. But it is out there among a very select minority of former mormons.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Does Amos 3:7 really speak as a guide forever? No. Taken in context (and not split apart from the chapter) Amos is giving a litany of things that he sees as definites in HIS day, what lions do, what things do, etc. It is not meant to be an exposition on the future, but what he has seen in the past.
So you propose that the word of God is limited and that god will not speak to prophets any longer; just in Amos’ day? It does not say that it is limited to only the past. It clearly states that God talks to his servants his prophets. Further, your position might make sense if the scriptures then never talked about prophets ever again. However, that is not the case. Let’s continue and see what the scriptures say.
I do not believe anyone limited God. And you are taking something someone said in the present sense thousands of years ago and claiming that since it is in the present sense, it must be present now. That is like reading Genesis and because Noah says, in the present sense, that the water is high, it must mean the water is high now. God knew their woiuld be frauds, like Joseph Smith, James Jones, etc. So, to protect his people, he made it easy…no other propehts after Jesus.
In Ephesions 2, Paul is looking at the past. He say in verse 17, “for he came and preached to you…” This was in the past. And then Paul goes on to state how it had been built. NOWHERE does Paul say it would be that way on into the future.
Christ builds his church upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: This is Christ, the Son of God who made this perfect foundation for his body on the earth. You want to say that this perfect structure is somehow…temporary? And who will then produce the improved version of Christ’s organization? Man and that only after hundreds of years. This is a drastic departure from scripture.
No. The Church was not temporary. But it is a bit silly to not believe that you could not have the nsame structure with billions as you had with hundreds. Even the LDS Church, which claims to have the structure, fails at this. They have 15 apostles, not 12. As I explained, what we call Bishops, are descendants, if you will, to the Apostles.
In Ephesians 4, Paul is talking about gifts given what what they were. It was not a blueprint for the future Church.
This scripture is clear, they are gifts of the church of Christ to a) perfect the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. This perfect organization with its attendant offices could not be improved. Jesus founded it by his own hand. Who dares to change it?
No, Paul was talking about back then. It seems you want to pick and choose what to emulate. You have 15 apostles…why did you dare change it? Jesus walked everywhere…I bet that you fly and drive…Jesus did not earn a living…I bet you have a job. I know the LDS Apostles live very well and fly everywhere…why not walk like Jesus did? YOu see, things change as the world changes. God gave us the changes we have…why not use them?
In all these examples, what the LDS is famous for doing is taking a verse out of context and developing a doctrine around it. When read in context, rarely does it mean what they want it to mean.
What Even does not realize is that Catholic Bishops ARE Apostles. Each Bishop can trace his Apostolic Authority back to an Apostle. No other Church can do that…And that is because The Catholic Church is THE true Church.
So you propose that the word of God is limited and that god will not speak to prophets any longer; just in Amos’ day? It does not say that it is limited to only the past. It clearly states that God talks to his servants his prophets. Further, your position might make sense if the scriptures then never talked about prophets ever again. However, that is not the case. Let’s continue and see what the scriptures say.
I do not believe anyone limited God. And you are taking something someone said in the present sense thousands of years ago and claiming that since it is in the present sense, it must be present now. That is like reading Genesis and because Noah says, in the present sense, that the water is high, it must mean the water is high now. God knew their woiuld be frauds, like Joseph Smith, James Jones, etc. So, to protect his people, he made it easy…no other propehts after Jesus.
In Ephesions 2, Paul is looking at the past. He say in verse 17, “for he came and preached to you…” This was in the past. And then Paul goes on to state how it had been built. NOWHERE does Paul say it would be that way on into the future.
Christ builds his church upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: This is Christ, the Son of God who made this perfect foundation for his body on the earth. You want to say that this perfect structure is somehow…temporary? And who will then produce the improved version of Christ’s organization? Man and that only after hundreds of years. This is a drastic departure from scripture.
No. The Church was not temporary. But it is a bit silly to not believe that you could not have the nsame structure with billions as you had with hundreds. Even the LDS Church, which claims to have the structure, fails at this. They have 15 apostles, not 12. As I explained, what we call Bishops, are descendants, if you will, to the Apostles.
In Ephesians 4, Paul is talking about gifts given what what they were. It was not a blueprint for the future Church.
This scripture is clear, they are gifts of the church of Christ to a) perfect the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. This perfect organization with its attendant offices could not be improved. Jesus founded it by his own hand. Who dares to change it?
No, Paul was talking about back then. It seems you want to pick and choose what to emulate. You have 15 apostles…why did you dare change it? Jesus walked everywhere…I bet that you fly and drive…Jesus did not earn a living…I bet you have a job. I know the LDS Apostles live very well and fly everywhere…why not walk like Jesus did? YOu see, things change as the world changes. God gave us the changes we have…why not use them?
In all these examples, what the LDS is famous for doing is taking a verse out of context and developing a doctrine around it. When read in context, rarely does it mean what they want it to mean.
What Even does not realize is that Catholic Bishops ARE Apostles. Each Bishop can trace his Apostolic Authority back to an Apostle. No other Church can do that…And that is because The Catholic Church is THE true Church.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” II Tess 2:3
This does not speak of a total apostasy. In fact, this could be a prophesy about Joseph Smith and that Joseph brings the falling away and he is revealed as that man of sin. This is speaking of a more personal falling away for someone who is deceived. Nowhere does this say a total apostasy. Especially taken in context with the rest of the chapter
How can you tell that the verse does not address a total apostasy? You state that it does’t, but is that your interpretation or are reading something that is not there? No where does this say it is a personal apostasy or even a half an apostasy. Context is vital, please use it.
Because it is clear that it is about “THAT man of sin”. How can it be a total Apostasy when it is a warning about a man? I believe that man could be Joseph Smith And yes, context IS vital…that is why I have exhorted you in many posts to stop taking ONE verse and making doctrine from it. So, YOU use it. Ok?
The Lord allowed the Saints (members of the Church of Christ) be defeated!
"As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them Dan 7:21
Wow…not sure where, in reading the whole chapter, you get that the Church Jesus established was defeated, even after Christ had said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. This says nothing of the sort. God’s “saints” have been defeated on numerous occasions thru the old and new testament. This was nothing about His Church.
The Church falls into an apostasy for a period of time:
“The woman (Church) fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.” Rev 12:6
This does not talk about an Apostasy, but rather speaks of God caring for His persecuted Church. The desert was always a place of refuge. This is not about Apostasy, but just the opposite, God caring for His Church
Again, is this your interpretation?
Not really. It is using the Bible and researching desert, and what desert is. The Bible is rife with people feeing into the desert for refuge. Again, you have to study. Donlt accept things just because some LDS leader found a verse that, taken out of context seems to support you.
Christ and the Apostles talk about a restoration of everything before the second coming of Christ:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. " Acts 3:19-21
Are you serious? Thjis does not speak of a restitution of His Church…this says of ALL things…this is a restitution of the world to the way it was before sin. This is not an apostasy.
Please keep your comments charitable and assume good faith from other editors.
My comments have been charitable. Despite a few digs from you. I never assume anything.
time of refreshing that comes from the Lord. What would need to be refreshed? We learn that Jesus will come again, but a time of restitution of all things. LDS interpret this time of refreshing and a restitution of all things addresses the restoration of the Church of Christ and that it would resemble the perfect church that he instituted. All we can do here is share each other’s divergent interpretations and learn each other’s belief. Neither of us can claim to speak for the Holy Spirit or God.
No…it says a restitution of all things. In context, it talks about restoring things to how things were at the beginning. This says nothing about an Apostasy, no matter how badly you need it to
“Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:3-13)
Ditto for here. This is not talkiing about restoring His Church. Read the verse in context.
Again, what Mormons do is pluck specific verses out of chapters and out of context and try to make them fit into doctrine.
Catholics try to mod themselves to God Word, Mormons try to mold God;s Word to themselves. It is a dangerous road to walk.
I exhort you to read these verses in context.
No, sir. I have. I exhort YOU to. I am not the one plucking specific verses and declaring what the one verse means. I am the one explaining what those verses mean in context.
You obviously think that repeating claims is a manner to increase strength; in repeating them they become more true. The LDS Church strives to teach all scripture in context.
No sir. It doesn;t. I was LDS. I know how it teaches. I know how it takes a single verse it likes and plucks it out. Like the two sticks verse MUST mean the Book of Mormon and The Bibler, but taken in context, it can’t mean that. It is what LDS do.
There is nothing more important than to have a testimony by the Spirit of Truth. Would you agree?
Absolutely. That is why, when the Spirit of Truth led me OUT of the LDS Church and eventually to the Catholic Church…I had no choice but to follow…wouldn’t you agree?
This does not speak of a total apostasy. In fact, this could be a prophesy about Joseph Smith and that Joseph brings the falling away and he is revealed as that man of sin. This is speaking of a more personal falling away for someone who is deceived. Nowhere does this say a total apostasy. Especially taken in context with the rest of the chapter
How can you tell that the verse does not address a total apostasy? You state that it does’t, but is that your interpretation or are reading something that is not there? No where does this say it is a personal apostasy or even a half an apostasy. Context is vital, please use it.
Because it is clear that it is about “THAT man of sin”. How can it be a total Apostasy when it is a warning about a man? I believe that man could be Joseph Smith And yes, context IS vital…that is why I have exhorted you in many posts to stop taking ONE verse and making doctrine from it. So, YOU use it. Ok?
The Lord allowed the Saints (members of the Church of Christ) be defeated!
"As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them Dan 7:21
Wow…not sure where, in reading the whole chapter, you get that the Church Jesus established was defeated, even after Christ had said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. This says nothing of the sort. God’s “saints” have been defeated on numerous occasions thru the old and new testament. This was nothing about His Church.
The Church falls into an apostasy for a period of time:
“The woman (Church) fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.” Rev 12:6
This does not talk about an Apostasy, but rather speaks of God caring for His persecuted Church. The desert was always a place of refuge. This is not about Apostasy, but just the opposite, God caring for His Church
Again, is this your interpretation?
Not really. It is using the Bible and researching desert, and what desert is. The Bible is rife with people feeing into the desert for refuge. Again, you have to study. Donlt accept things just because some LDS leader found a verse that, taken out of context seems to support you.
Christ and the Apostles talk about a restoration of everything before the second coming of Christ:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. " Acts 3:19-21
Are you serious? Thjis does not speak of a restitution of His Church…this says of ALL things…this is a restitution of the world to the way it was before sin. This is not an apostasy.
Please keep your comments charitable and assume good faith from other editors.
My comments have been charitable. Despite a few digs from you. I never assume anything.
time of refreshing that comes from the Lord. What would need to be refreshed? We learn that Jesus will come again, but a time of restitution of all things. LDS interpret this time of refreshing and a restitution of all things addresses the restoration of the Church of Christ and that it would resemble the perfect church that he instituted. All we can do here is share each other’s divergent interpretations and learn each other’s belief. Neither of us can claim to speak for the Holy Spirit or God.
No…it says a restitution of all things. In context, it talks about restoring things to how things were at the beginning. This says nothing about an Apostasy, no matter how badly you need it to
“Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:3-13)
Ditto for here. This is not talkiing about restoring His Church. Read the verse in context.
Again, what Mormons do is pluck specific verses out of chapters and out of context and try to make them fit into doctrine.
Catholics try to mod themselves to God Word, Mormons try to mold God;s Word to themselves. It is a dangerous road to walk.
I exhort you to read these verses in context.
No, sir. I have. I exhort YOU to. I am not the one plucking specific verses and declaring what the one verse means. I am the one explaining what those verses mean in context.
You obviously think that repeating claims is a manner to increase strength; in repeating them they become more true. The LDS Church strives to teach all scripture in context.
No sir. It doesn;t. I was LDS. I know how it teaches. I know how it takes a single verse it likes and plucks it out. Like the two sticks verse MUST mean the Book of Mormon and The Bibler, but taken in context, it can’t mean that. It is what LDS do.
There is nothing more important than to have a testimony by the Spirit of Truth. Would you agree?
Absolutely. That is why, when the Spirit of Truth led me OUT of the LDS Church and eventually to the Catholic Church…I had no choice but to follow…wouldn’t you agree?
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
No, it is not "Bishops are Bishops and Apostles are Apostles. You seem to think things can only change if your church wants them to.
Ok…if you wish to be so set on following what the Bible says and mirroring exactly the set up in 33ad., tell me…
- Why do you have 15 Apostles instead 12?
- Why do you have a President the the Quroum of the 12? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you have a first presidency? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you have Mission Presidents? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you send out, for the most part, only 19 year olds and golden-age missionaries? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you have Sunday School Presidency? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you have a Patriarch who gives Patriarchal blessings? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible as part of the Church Jesus orgainzed in 33 AD
- Why do you have 70s Presidency? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you have Elder’s Quorum Presidency? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you have a Bishopric with counselors? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you send females on missions? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
- Why do you have Relief Society? Never saw that mentioned in the Bible
J
Jay53
Guest
Off topic, but a quick correction. I think you have me confused with someone else. I have always been Catholic. (And I have no idea what a “Mish” is.
)
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Mish = Missionary (Usually of the mormon variety)Off topic, but a quick correction. I think you have me confused with someone else. I have always been Catholic. (And I have no idea what a “Mish” is.
K
Kdesiel
Guest
Sorry Jay…my mistake I did get you mixed up with someone else. My apologies.Off topic, but a quick correction. I think you have me confused with someone else. I have always been Catholic. (And I have no idea what a “Mish” is.
J
Jay53
Guest
No problem!!
J
Javl
Guest
On the subject of prophets, Islam claims that Muhammed is God’s prophet. What is the LDS position/opinion of this claim?
PAX DOMINI
Shalom haMeshiach
PAX DOMINI
Shalom haMeshiach
L
lax16
Guest
I also believe that both the Mormons and Muslims consider Noah a prophet, but the Jews do not. Anybody know more about it?On the subject of prophets, Islam claims that Muhammed is God’s prophet. What is the LDS position/opinion of this claim?
PAX DOMINI
Shalom haMeshiach
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Sometimes, the stories of Joseph Smith and Mohammed are very similar.
And so are some of their ideas…
coime to think of it, there is more to this than meets the eye…
9/11------- Mormons salughter innocent civilians at MMM (1857)
9/11------- Muslims slaughter innocent civilians in the TT (2001)
Has anyone ever looked into the similarities before? Might be interesting. Dunno, never thought of till just now. I am not one to see conspiracies everywhere, but this DOES look a little coincidental
No offense intended to anyone…I am genuinly interested in these similarities. Any insight is welcome
Be Blessed!
W
why_me
Guest
Nice try. Lets look at MMM if we may. Why were these civilivians killed? No of course, the mormons settlers involved made a mistake. But we also need to remember that many of the mormons involved experienced mental and emotional pain before they entered Utah. Many saw friends and family killed and suspicion of outsiders was ripe among some mormons. As was fear. Psychological trauma was a possibility.
What is amazing Tom, is how you ignore the persecution of mormons. You seem to ignore that aspect of mormon history. So your ‘Mormons slaugther innocent civilians’ rings hallow. But it was a nice try in demonizing mormons.
F
Florentine
Guest
Early Christians would rather be martyred for their faith than kill innocents.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
- Status