Mormonism "currently" the true Church?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Interesting little word slipped in there: “currently.” As if God sits up in heaven spinning a wheel–let’s see which church the arrow points to this morning. Oh–the LDS–OK, you guys get to be the true Church today, and tomorrow maybe it will be the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Primitive Baptists!

I do know what you mean by this, but I think it’s an attempt to cover up your obvious lack of historical continuity. It’s utterly unconvincing.

Edwin

Hi Edwin, what in the world is “two seed”?

 

[zerinus]

but some of these ‘dispensations’ contradict RCC and jewish beliefs. How can two opposing views be true?

The are not all equally true. Where LDS and other doctrines contradict, LDS is true. In some cases it can also be that the differences are not as big as they are made to appear.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Good Question! What is the point. God just likes to shake things up every once in awhile and give us a contradictory set of doctrines?

No. When one dispensation apostatizes, a restoration beomes necessary.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I wonder what he thinks about islam. Was it also a true church at some point in time?

Who knows; perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t! I am LDS, and I defend the LDS position. I am not concerned about Islam. Moslems can defend Islam if they want to.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

Who knows; perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t! I am LDS, and I defend the LDS position. I am not concerned about Islam. Moslems can defend Islam if they want to.

zerinus

mormonism is on a par with islam, both false and ultimately destuctive.

 

[Harpazo]

No. When one dispensation apostatizes, a restoration beomes necessary.

zerinus

If Christ told his followers that he wouldn’t allow anything to happen to His Church, and that Church was the Catholic Church, how could it possibly apostasize? You would basically have to call Christ a liar.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[rpp]

The are not all equally true. Where LDS and other doctrines contradict, LDS is true. In some cases it can also be that the differences are not as big as they are made to appear.

zerinus

The Catholic Church does not contradict Judaism. If LDS is the successor to Catholicism, it should not contradict it either.

No. When one dispensation apostatizes, a restoration beomes necessary.

zerinus

God does not change. God may correct His fallen away people, but He never throws them away. He did not throw away the Jews or Judaism. Why would He throw away the Catholic Church?

 

[rpp]

If Christ told his followers that he wouldn’t allow anything to happen to His Church, and that Church was the Catholic Church, how could it possibly apostasize? You would basically have to call Christ a liar.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Another excellent point!

 

[zerinus]

The bolded text above demonstrates the fallacy of this position. The Catholic Church did emerge from Judaism with the advent of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not spontaneously appear outside of Judaism and neither did Christianity. Why? Because God loves His people and wanted to lead those faithful and sincere Jews into the New Covenant, even if it was only a minority of Jews.

LDS did spontaneously appear completely outside of the Church. But it appeared in a manner that did not lead Catholics to it. If the LDS really is supposed to be the “successor” of the Catholic Church, it would have emerged from the Church in a similar way the Church emerged from Judaism. Didn’t God love the faithful Catholics of that time?

A better case would be made for certain Protestant Churches, such as the Lutheran Church, which did form directly from the Catholic Church. None of them, however, claim new Divine revelations.

If you want to look at it that way, Mormonism also emerged within the framwork of Christianity. Joseph Smith and his family worshipped God, went to church, and read the Bible. Joseph Smith was led to inquire of the Lord after he had read the Epistle of James (when he received his First Vitsion). But just as Jesus in His time established laws, practices, and doctrines that were not the same as those held by the Jews; the Lord also at this time has revealed laws, practices, and doctrines that are not identical to those held by traditional Christianity (or the apostate version of it that existed at that time, and still exists today).

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

If Christ told his followers that he wouldn’t allow anything to happen to His Church, and that Church was the Catholic Church, how could it possibly apostasize? You would basically have to call Christ a liar.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

He didn’t.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

The Catholic Church does not contradict Judaism. If LDS is the successor to Catholicism, it should not contradict it either.

Jesus taught doctrines that contradicted Jewish ones. Read the Sermon on the Mount to find out.

God does not change. God may correct His fallen away people, but He never throws them away. He did not throw away the Jews or Judaism. Why would He throw away the Catholic Church?

God does not change. But man can apostatize from the teachings of God and change them.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Another excellent point!

Another silly point, actually.

zerinus

 

[rpp]

He didn’t.

zerinus

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Jesus Christ did say the Church will endure.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Matthew 16:18 (NIV)

19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)

 

[rpp]

Another silly point, actually.

zerinus

Let’s remain charitable here, please.

 

[Harpazo]

Another silly point, actually.

zerinus

How is it silly? You can claim it’s silly, but you have yet to give a substantial reason as to why. If Christ promised his Church to not stray or be defeated by the powers of Hell, and you claim that it was (the need for a reinstituted “church”) then you are essentially saying that Christ lied. You cannot make the claim that you are making without calling Jesus Christ a liar.

It’s simple logic and reason is all. No sillyness whatsoever.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[hosemonkey]

How is it silly? You can claim it’s silly, but you have yet to give a substantial reason as to why. If Christ promised his Church to not stray or be defeated by the powers of Hell, and you claim that it was (the need for a reinstituted “church”) then you are essentially saying that Christ lied. You cannot make the claim that you are making without calling Jesus Christ a liar.

It’s simple logic and reason is all. No sillyness whatsoever.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

You are just going to have to get used to zerinus making preposterous comments. He is programmed to automatically spout mormon absurdities. You’ll get used to it.

 

[zerinus]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Jesus Christ did say the Church will endure.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Matthew 16:18 (NIV)

How is it silly? You can claim it’s silly, but you have yet to give a substantial reason as to why. If Christ promised his Church to not stray or be defeated by the powers of Hell, and you claim that it was (the need for a reinstituted “church”) then you are essentially saying that Christ lied. You cannot make the claim that you are making without calling Jesus Christ a liar.

It’s simple logic and reason is all. No sillyness whatsoever.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

I have already addressed that in this post.

zerinus

 

[rpp]

You are just going to have to get used to zerinus making preposterous comments. He is programmed to automatically spout mormon absurdities. You’ll get used to it.

Let’s remain charitable here, please.

 

[exiled]

Zerinus,
Can you please tell me how the priesthood the Son of God established apostacized after less than 100 years, yet the one established by Joseph Smith has lasted 100+?
Does this not say that Joseph Smith is a more capable servant of God than Jesus Himself was?
Or…is this another of my hard to follow notions that you won’t bother to answer?

 

[rpp]

I have already addressed that in this post.

zerinus

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the following premise from your blog. Not because I do not believe it, but because the logic appears to be flawed.

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.

This does not make logical sense. It is also self-defeating because the it can be altered in this way.

The first thing to note is that God did not build His Church on Joseph Smith. God does not build His church on a mortal man. If the Church had been built on Joseph Smith, then when Joseph Smith** died** the church must have died with him, because there has been no Joseph Smith on earth for the past more than 100 years for him to be the rock on which the church is built. If the church was built on Joseph Smith, then where there is no Joseph Smith, there could be no church.

Please note that I replaced references to Saint Peter with Joseph Smith and adjusted the time mentioned

You see your own logic can be used to claim that LDS is not the “‘current’ true Church” as well.

God uses mortal men to carry out His will for mortal men. Of course he can build his Church on mortal men. He built the Jews on Abraham.