Mormon FAQ!

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zerenius,

Would you please answer one question for me?

My number one biggest problem with the Mormon ‘religion’ is the assertion by Joseph Smith that the church had to be restored due to some widespread apostasy.

How could this be? IT CAN’T!! Jesus said he was building his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Was Jesus a liar or confused or… ???

(I believe that if you stop and listen for just a moment, really listen, that still, small voice will tell you that Joseph Smith was a liar and an opportunist.:hmmm: )
 
so when amgid/zerinus couldn’t defend his position here he started his blog so that he could post unfounded assertions and then here just link to it and say “I already answered that in my blog, no further response is required”.

So is that the mormon version of apologetics? :rolleyes:
 
Philothea53 said:
Zerenius,

Would you please answer one question for me?

My number one biggest problem with the Mormon ‘religion’ is the assertion by Joseph Smith that the church had to be restored due to some widespread apostasy.

How could this be? IT CAN’T!! Jesus said he was building his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Was Jesus a liar or confused or… ???

(I believe that if you stop and listen for just a moment, really listen, that still, small voice will tell you that Joseph Smith was a liar and an opportunist.:hmmm: )
Click to expand...
You must understand that zerinus does not base his assertions on either history or logic. He has a form of ecclesiastical heartburn called"burning in the bosom" which tells him that he is right. In mormon apologetics, this is the highest form of proof. If you need to reach for a Rolaids, you have assurance that you are correct. Zerinus has gone through the trouble of creating his own blog, upon which he can post his flapdoodle and avoid having to slug it out with us. Reading that blog is very much like reading the North Korean news, he/they are soooooo serious and sooooo full of malarkey.
 
Weird!

Shortly after I had created my Blog “Mormon FAQ,” some idiot guy has gone and created a blog to mimic the exact look and appearance of my Blog, and called it “Mormon FAQ’s”. He has probably done it thinking to derail my Blog. The date of the latest blog at the top is faked. He must be one of the nutcases on this board. Hazard a guess? The monkey guy comes to mind! He missed it though. Everybody know zerinus. Who is JDB?

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Weird!

Shortly after I had created my Blog “Mormon FAQ,” some idiot guy has gone and created a blog to mimic the exact look and appearance of my Blog, and called it “Mormon FAQ’s”. He has probably done it thinking to derail my Blog. The date of the latest blog at the top is faked. He must be one of the nutcases on this board. Hazard a guess? The monkey guy comes to mind! He missed it though. Everybody know zerinus. Who is JDB?

zerinus
Click to expand...
That is just hilarious. Im not sure how you would be able to fake the time of the blog posting…after all isnt it by a clock you cant control??? …However, I do believe it is faked because if you look at all the blog entries at the end of each entry they start at at 9:41PM and each ‘newer’ post is about 15 min later, all on the same day :p.

It was pretty hilarious however whoever decided to make that blog. 😃

UPDATE—I just read through that and the owner doesnt appear to be anti-LDS, infact he appears to be a proud LDS…if anything, it seems clear to me it was Zerinus himself that invented this new blog and thats is how you even “knew” about it it in the first place…😉
 
Zerinus, you really need one of those kewl tin foil hats. I’ll make you one, where do I send it? It would look very sporting on you I’m sure…
 
MelanieAnne said:
Zerinus, you really need one of those kewl tin foil hats. I’ll make you one, where do I send it? It would look very sporting on you I’m sure…
Click to expand...
Or was it you who had done it? I wouldn’t be surprised! :eek:

zerinus
 
Zerinus I am truly touched! You said you had me on ignore! But you didn’t! HOW SWEET 😊

But in answer to your question ~ of course not, don’t be silly, I have no interest in blogs, much less creating one for Mormons or about Mormons, what a terrible waste of time! So no, I didn’t set up a parallel blog. I hope you don’t believe that you are that important to me because, sorry, you’re not.

I did find it rather comical for a while that you appeared to believe that someone had hijacked your site tho’. Showed a total lack of understanding about the internet, so I guess it wasn’t a big plus for you, but it WAS entertaining!!!

How is that site doing anyway? I’m not interested enough to visit it, but please keep us up to date on your traffic!
The peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...
Phillippians 4:7
 
#13 zerinus said:
…{snip}

If what you are saying is true, how come the Bible itself mentions other (legitimate) gods? For example, in Exodus 7:1 the Lord says to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”. If what you are saying is true, this would be a blasphemous statement, which of course it is not.

zerinus
Click to expand...
My Bible says: “And the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you AS God to Pharaoh…” (meaning with an authority from God).
(( Navarre Bible - Pentateuch ))

I understand you are commited to your polytheism, but that is not a particularly powerful “proof” of your point.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
 
zerinus said:
No, you are forcing it. You are reading something into it which is not there. The Contemporary English Version (CEV) translates it as: “Do not worship any god except me.” And the New International Reader’s Version (NIRV) translates it as: “Do not put any other gods in place of me.” The context of the KJV translation is: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any ***likeness ***** of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth *”. The second sentence clarifies the meaning of the first sentence. Deuteronomy adds the following additional context: “Ye shall not ***go after ****** other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you”. The meaning is clear: it means, “Don’t worship idols, or false gods”. You have to stretch it quite a bit to get to mean what you are trying to say it means. If what you are saying is true, how come the Bible itself mentions other (legitimate) gods? For example, in Exodus 7:1 the Lord says to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”. If what you are saying is true, this would be a blasphemous statement, which of course it is not.

zerinus

Colin Donovan, Catholic apologist and canon lawyer, addressed just this passage on the Open Line show on EWTN radio today.
It was in the 1st 30 min. of the show. You can listen to it by going to the EWTN.com site
ewtn.com/
Click on Radio, slide down to Open Line and click again. Then, just search for the date of the show.

I think he gives great answers and is a good listener, too. Open Line has a different host every day, but it is usually broadcast live. You are welcome to call in with your questions.

Mimi
Click to expand...
 
Mimi said:
Colin Donovan, Catholic apologist and canon lawyer, addressed just this passage on the Open Line show on EWTN radio today.
It was in the 1st 30 min. of the show. You can listen to it by going to the EWTN.com site
ewtn.com/
Click on Radio, slide down to Open Line and click again. Then, just search for the date of the show.

I think he gives great answers and is a good listener, too. Open Line has a different host every day, but it is usually broadcast live. You are welcome to call in with your questions.

Mimi
Click to expand...
I don’t have questions; I just have good answers! 😃 He can call in here, and I will answer his questions if he likes! 😛

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
I don’t have questions; I just have good answers! 😃 He can call in here, and I will answer his questions if he likes! 😛
zerinus
Click to expand...
Sorry, zerinus, I am new here but I was wondering why you persist in posting your silliness dressed as dialogue with the rest of us.

Reviewing your posts I have noticed that you NEVER answer a direct question and engage in name calling quite a bit.

And it is interesting that you save your bile for posters who were once mormon. Although in fairness you do tend to attack your mormon buddies when they disagree with you about mormon history or doctrine.

But I will give you credit: you are in the right place: “Non-Catholic Religions.” Why? Because mormonism doesn’t follow Christian doctrine or history, it is sui generis, created out of whole cloth so to speak.

And I did visit your blog. The guy who calls himself “Joseff Smythe” said it all. Your ‘reasoning’ defies sense and logic.

I’ll pray for you, zerinus, you seem a troubled soul, but I don’t know how much my prayers will help since I am an apostasized and (in a prior post of yours from January 07) “going to Hell” Catholic.

Good luck

Robert
Click to expand...
 
Hi zerinus,

I want to paste some of your blog then ask a question about it

But that scripture is misunderstood. If it is analyzed a bit more carefully, it will be seen that it doesn’t mean what they assume it means. The first thing to note is that God did not build His Church on Peter. God does not build His church on a mortal man. If the Church had been built on Peter, then when Peter died the church must have died with him, because there has been no Peter on earth for the past nearly 2,000 years for him to be the rock on which the church is built. If the church was built on Peter, then where there is no Peter, there could be no church.

If I use the analogy of my ancestry, e.g let’s say my surname is Smith, then the Smith who started my family is long gone, but his family still live on in me.
Just because Peter died, doesn’t mean the Church did, as Jesus also gave Peter the power to hand on the keys to others, which is what we call papal succession.

So how do you argue that?

And its nice to see you again, its been ages since I have spoken to you, I hope you have been well.
 
kellie said:
Hi zerinus,

I want to paste some of your blog then ask a question about it

But that scripture is misunderstood. If it is analyzed a bit more carefully, it will be seen that it doesn’t mean what they assume it means. The first thing to note is that God did not build His Church on Peter. God does not build His church on a mortal man. If the Church had been built on Peter, then when Peter died the church must have died with him, because there has been no Peter on earth for the past nearly 2,000 years for him to be the rock on which the church is built. If the church was built on Peter, then where there is no Peter, there could be no church.

If I use the analogy of my ancestry, e.g let’s say my surname is Smith, then the Smith who started my family is long gone, but his family still live on in me.
Just because Peter died, doesn’t mean the Church did, as Jesus also gave Peter the power to hand on the keys to others, which is what we call papal succession.

So how do you argue that?

And its nice to see you again, its been ages since I have spoken to you, I hope you have been well.
Click to expand...
That is possible; but if that is so, where are your Twelve Apostles? Peter was a figurehead. He was the chief of the Apostles; but still only one of them. The “keys of the kingdom,” which consisted of the sealing power, so that whatever he should “bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:” and whatsoever he should “loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19), belonged to all of the Twelve Apostles (and only to them) not just to Peter (see Matthew 18:18). I agree that the office of Peter was to be continued; but so was that of the Twelve Apostles. Paul writes: “And [ye] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). The institution of the Twelve Apostles was intended the foundation, and was intended to continue. It was never intended to be done away with. That is why when one of the Twelve died, another was appointed to succeed him. Where there is no Twelve Apostles (which includes Peter, or his legitimate successor), then there is no “keys of the kingdom,” and hence no true church.

I have discussed this with non-LDS before; and they say that the Apostles passed on their keys to the Bishops. That of course is not true. A bishop is not an Apostle, and does not have the apostolic authority that goes with it. The Apostles had general jurisdiction over the whole church. They could go to any city, region, or province, and depose a bishop and appoint a new one. The bishop’s calling, on the other hand, was very limited and purely local. The bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over Rom; the bishop of Antioch over Antioch; and the Bishop of Jerusalem over Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome couldn’t go to Antioch and tell the bishop of Antioch what to do; and the bishop of Antioch couldn’t go to the Jerusalem and tell the bishop of Jerusalem what to do. It is only after the Apostles had died, and the Apostasy had set in, that the bishops of larger provinces started to gain political (and hence ecclesiastical) influence over those of the smaller provinces, and to exercise authority over them.

At the time of Constantine, the bishop of Rom was a relatively unimportant figure, and had zero authority or influence over the Eastern (Greek speaking) churches—where the majority of church members, and its ecclesiastical authority was concentrated. If the bishop of Rom had authority over the whole church, why did Constantine convene the Council and Nicaea (and preside over it) instead of the bishop of Rome? I always say that Constantine was the first Catholic Pope, because he organized the first ecumenical council of the Christian church and presided over it! It is only later on (and for purely political reasons) that the bishop of Rome gained power over the whole church, and began to exercise authority over it.

So in answer to your question, the answer is yes; it is true that the office of Peter was intended to continue and be perpetuated in the church; but so was that of the Twelve Apostles. He was the head of the Twelve. The Pope is not Peter, and does not perpetuate that office. He has assumed that mantle spuriously and has no divine authority to represent it whatsoever. The office of Peter disappeared when Peter died, and the Twelve Apostles with him. That office currently resides in the LDS Church, where it (together with that of the Twelve) has been restored by angelic ministration. The Catholic Church does not have a particle of it left.

zerinus
 
  1. If the “office of Peter was intended to continue and be perpetuated in the church,” why do you deny the apostolic succession from the Bishops of Rome to Benedict XVI?
  2. “The Pope is not Peter,” you are correct, he is the Vicar of Christ.
  3. The Pope “has no divine authority to represent it whatsoever.” Where in the Bible do you get your authority?
  4. “The office of Peter disappeared when Peter died” even though St Peter “laid hands” (confirmed) St Linus as his successor? How to reason this one away?
  5. “restored by angelic ministration.” And NOT by God? If this is true, then, Islam has MORE claim of authority and authenticity than the LDS church.
THEIR angel (one whose name is recognizable to ALL Christians) came BEFORE your angel (Moroni).

Plus, there was NO translation from “reformed Egyptian” into King James Version Jacobean English, it was straight Arabic (without the diacritical marks, of course!).

Sorry, Zerinus, the Moslems have primacy over the Mormons using your logic and reasoning.

Robert
 
zerinus said:
That is possible; but if that is so, where are your Twelve Apostles? Peter was a figurehead. He was the chief of the Apostles; but still only one of them. The “keys of the kingdom,” which consisted of the sealing power, so that whatever he should “bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:” and whatsoever he should “loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19), belonged to all of the Twelve Apostles (and only to them) not just to Peter (see Matthew 18:18). I agree that the office of Peter was to be continued; but so was that of the Twelve Apostles. Paul writes: “And [ye] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). The institution of the Twelve Apostles was intended the foundation, and was intended to continue. It was never intended to be done away with. That is why when one of the Twelve died, another was appointed to succeed him. Where there is no Twelve Apostles (which includes Peter, or his legitimate successor), then there is no “keys of the kingdom,” and hence no true church.

I have discussed this with non-LDS before; and they say that the Apostles passed on their keys to the Bishops. That of course is not true. A bishop is not an Apostle, and does not have the apostolic authority that goes with it. The Apostles had general jurisdiction over the whole church. They could go to any city, region, or province, and depose a bishop and appoint a new one. The bishop’s calling, on the other hand, was very limited and purely local. The bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over Rom; the bishop of Antioch over Antioch; and the Bishop of Jerusalem over Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome couldn’t go to Antioch and tell the bishop of Antioch what to do; and the bishop of Antioch couldn’t go to the Jerusalem and tell the bishop of Jerusalem what to do. It is only after the Apostles had died, and the Apostasy had set in, that the bishops of larger provinces started to gain political (and hence ecclesiastical) influence over those of the smaller provinces, and to exercise authority over them.

At the time of Constantine, the bishop of Rom was a relatively unimportant figure, and had zero authority or influence over the Eastern (Greek speaking) churches—where the majority of church members, and its ecclesiastical authority was concentrated. If the bishop of Rom had authority over the whole church, why did Constantine convene the Council and Nicaea (and preside over it) instead of the bishop of Rome? I always say that Constantine was the first Catholic Pope, because he organized the first ecumenical council of the Christian church and presided over it! It is only later on (and for purely political reasons) that the bishop of Rome gained power over the whole church, and began to exercise authority over it.

So in answer to your question, the answer is yes; it is true that the office of Peter was intended to continue and be perpetuated in the church; but so was that of the Twelve Apostles. He was the head of the Twelve. The Pope is not Peter, and does not perpetuate that office. He has assumed that mantle spuriously and has no divine authority to represent it whatsoever. The office of Peter disappeared when Peter died, and the Twelve Apostles with him. That office currently resides in the LDS Church, where it (together with that of the Twelve) has been restored by angelic ministration. The Catholic Church does not have a particle of it left.

zerinus
Click to expand...
And by the way, I forgot to mention that this post should not distract from the main thesis of my Blog article that you had referred to—that the “rock” on which the Church was built was not Peter, nor even the “office” of Peter perpetuated in the Church. The “rock” was the testimony of the Holy Ghost which he bore. That thesis still remains valid, irrespective of what I had said in the above post.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top