Mormonism "currently" the true Church?

[Harpazo]

I have already addressed that in this post.

zerinus

You can discuss it here, you know. I glanced over it, and I can’t even ttake it seriously. First of all, I don’t know if “commenest” is a word. Secondly, the verse that Catholics use is Matthew 16:18-20. You have it saying Mark.

Also, you make the same claim my Fundamentalist Protestants and Evangelicals make. How can any reasonably minded Catholic come to a conclusion that Mormonism is from God, if it takes interpretations that are nearly, if not exactly, identical to Protestantism? Doesn’t add up for me.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[zerinus]

I am sorry, but I cannot accept this statement:

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

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.

I am afraid you had misunderstood my statement completely. We never claim that God had built His church on Joseph Smith; therefore the comparison is not applicable.

zerinus

 

[rpp]

I am afraid you had misunderstood my statement completely. We never claim that God had built His church on Joseph Smith; therefore the comparison is not applicable.

zerinus

Really? But even if you do not, it does not matter. You claim he built His church, LDS, on mortal men. When those men died, LDS ceased to be the True Church, according to your logic.

Tell me, when Aaron, the brother of Moses and the first high priest of the Jewish people, died, did the Jews cease to have priests?

 

[zerinus]

Really? But even if you do not, it does not matter. You claim he built His church, LDS, on mortal men. When those men died, LDS ceased to be the True Church, according to your logic.

Tell me, when Aaron, the brother of Moses and the first high priest of the Jewish people, died, did the Jews cease to have priests?

We do NOT claim that God built His Chruch (LDS) on Joseph Smith.

zerinus

 

[rpp]

rpp;2688213:

Really? But even if you do not, it does not matter. You claim he built His church, LDS, on mortal men. When those men died, LDS ceased to be the True Church, according to your logic.

Tell me, when Aaron, the brother of Moses and the first high priest of the Jewish people, died, did the Jews cease to have priests?

We do NOT claim that God built His Chruch (LDS) on Joseph Smith.

zerinus

You did not answer my questions. I will repeat and amplify them.

Since you claim God used Mormon leaders to supplant the Catholic Church, would your church cease to exist with the death of those men with the same logic.

And just saying is doesn’t apply is not a sufficiant answer. Please explain why the same logic does not apply the LDS as it does to the Catholic Church.

Did the Jewish preisthood end with the death of Aaron? If it did not then there is president for mortal men passing on a holy institution.

Finally, your article does not address why God utterly abandoned the Catholic Church. Sure, the Jews had apostates, but God still formed the Church from Judaism. Church teaching has not ever changed. Why would God throw away the Catholic Church without giving it the clear opportunity to repent like Jesus did with the Jews?

Please answer the questions directly. Use more than one post if you like.

 

[zerinus]

You can discuss it here, you know. I glanced over it, and I can’t even ttake it seriously. First of all, I don’t know if “commenest” is a word. Secondly, the verse that Catholics use is Matthew 16:18-20. You have it saying Mark.

Also, you make the same claim my Fundamentalist Protestants and Evangelicals make. How can any reasonably minded Catholic come to a conclusion that Mormonism is from God, if it takes interpretations that are nearly, if not exactly, identical to Protestantism? Doesn’t add up for me.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Thank you for correcting my typo. “Mark” had been corrected; but I couldn’t find “commenest”. Where does it occur?

zerinus

 

[rpp]

Thank you for correcting my typo. “Mark” had been corrected; but I couldn’t find “commenest”. Where does it occur?

zerinus

There was a typo while correcting a typo!

He meant “commonest”, which is not a word. A correct rendering would be “most common”. It is in the first paragraph.

 

[zerinus]

You did not answer my questions. I will repeat and amplify them.

Since you claim God used Mormon leaders to supplant the Catholic Church, would your church cease to exist with the death of those men with the same logic.

No, it wouldn’t; but we don’t claim that God built His Church on these men either. They were merely instruments in the hand of God to establish His Church in our time; just as Peter (and the rest of the Apostles) were instruments in His hand to build His Church at that time; or Moses was an instrument in His hand to build His Church in Moses’ day.

And just saying is doesn’t apply is not a sufficiant answer. Please explain why the same logic does not apply the LDS as it does to the Catholic Church.

See above.

Did the Jewish preisthood end with the death of Aaron? If it did not then there is president for mortal men passing on a holy institution.

Yes, the Priesthood did pass on from Moses to his successors, and it does set a precedent for priesthood succession. I am not questioning that.

Finally, your article does not address why God utterly abandoned the Catholic Church. Sure, the Jews had apostates, but God still formed the Church from Judaism. Church teaching has not ever changed. Why would God throw away the Catholic Church without giving it the clear opportunity to repent like Jesus did with the Jews?

That article addresses a very specific and narrow question. It does not attempt to address the broader questions that you are now asking. That article addresses specifically the issue you had raised initially (and may other have raised)—that because the Lord said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it,” therefore the Catholic Church could not have apostatized. In that article I have tried to show why that reasoning is fallacious. It does not address the broader questions that you are now asking regarding the Apostasy of the early Christian church. If you want me to address all the issues that you are now raising, I will have to do it one ting at a time. If you try to mix all the concepts together, it becomes confusing. But I am quite willing to answer the questions you have raised—one thing at a time!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

There was a typo while correcting a typo!

He meant “commonest”, which is not a word. A correct rendering would be “most common”. It is in the first paragraph.

“Commonest” is a perfectly good English word. Google for “commonest” and see what you get!

zerinus

 

[rpp]

No, it wouldn’t; but we don’t claim that God built His Church on these men either. They were merely instruments in the hand of God to establish His Church in our time; just as Peter (and the rest of the Apostles) were instruments in His hand to build His Church at that time; or Moses was an instrument in His hand to build His Church in Moses’ day.

See above.

Yes, the Priesthood did pass on from Moses to his successors, and it does set a precedent for priesthood succession. I am not questioning that.

This is still a logical contradiction. Now you say there is priestly succession (we call it Apostolic). Next you say that God used the the Apostles, including Peter, I presume, to build his Church. This is logically inconsistent with what you wrote in your blog. You claimed there that the Catholic Church ended with the death of Peter.

But much more importantly, you claimed that God does not build a church on mortal men. That is, in fact, your premise. I mean this charitably and with respect, but I do not believe this is a logical premise. And it is seriously inconsistant to apply it to the Catholic Church but not LDS.

That article addresses a very specific and narrow question. It does not attempt to address the broader questions that you are now asking. That article addresses specifically the issue you had raised initially (and may other have raised)—that because the Lord said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it,” therefore the Catholic Church could not have apostatized. In that article I have tried to show why that reasoning is fallacious. It does not address the broader questions that you are now asking regarding the Apostasy of the early Christian church. If you want me to address all the issues that you are now raising, I will have to do it one ting at a time. If you try to mix all the concepts together, it becomes confusing. But I am quite willing to answer the questions you have raised—one thing at a time!

zerinus

This is the issue I initially raised. In response to this, you cited your article. I only pointed out the issues regarding Peter after you cited your article.

zerinus;2687470:

I never said that LDS is a “follower” of RCC. LDS is a “successor” to RCC, which is a different thing. LDS is a new dispensation of the gospel, revealed directly from heaven. It did not emerge from the RCC.

And of course, their doctrines (and practices) are going to be different. What would be the point of having a new dispensation of the gospel revealed from heaven, if everything was going to remain unchanged?

zerinusThe 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.

I would like to see you respond to this, please.

 

[rpp]

“Commonest” is a perfectly good English word. Google for “commonest” and see what you get!

zerinus

Hmm… It appears you are right. However, I think my editor (I am a published author) would not like it if I used that word. I will pass this by her.



It is good to keep things light. And I really appreciate the respectable dialog on this thread.

I do not generally nitpick people’s grammar or spelling. My authoring is pretty, my forum posts are terrible. My most common ( ) error is that I think faster than I type and I leaver out words. After that it is going back to edit a sentence before posting, changing the tense but not changing all the words to match the change in tense.

But that is a bit off topic…

 

[zerinus]

This is still a logical contradiction. Now you say there is priestly succession (we call it Apostolic). Next you say that God used the the Apostles, including Peter, I presume, to build his Church. This is logically inconsistent with what you wrote in your blog. You claimed there that the Catholic Church ended with the death of Peter.

Do you have difficulty understanding English? If you are going to keep misrepresenting what I say, then we won’t get very far. I did NOT say that the Catholic Church “ended with the death of Peter”. I said that IF the Lord had built His church on Peter, then when Peter died the church SHOULD have died with him. But as it happens, He hadn’t, and it didn’t.

But much more importantly, you claimed that God does not build a church on mortal men. That is, in fact, your premise. I mean this charitably and with respect, but I do not believe this is a logical premise.

It is a logical premise. If God builds His church on perishable, mortal man, then when that man dies His church must die with him. That is logical. Hence God did not, does not, and will not build His church on any man. He did no do it in the days of Moses; He did not do it in the days of Peter; and He did not do it in the days of Joseph Smith.

And it is seriously inconsistant to apply it to the Catholic Church but not LDS.

It is not “inconsistant” (sic! ). I am not applying double standards here between the LDS and Catholic Church. God did NOT build His church on a man in either dispensation—neither on Peter nor on Joseph Smith.

I would like to see you respond to this, please.

I answered that in post #29 above. What is your problem? Can’t you read?

zerinus

 

[rpp]

Do you have difficulty understanding English? If you are going to keep misrepresenting what I say, then we won’t get very far.

{snip}

This is the second time you insulted me personally.

Since you are able to neither speak charitably nor apply logic uniformly, this discussion is at an end.

 

[exiled]

This is the second time you insulted me personally.

Since you are able to neither speak charitably nor apply logic uniformly, this discussion is at an end.

rpp, don’t take it personally. Zerinus called me illogical and incoherent when he couldn’t answer a question I posed. He’s ignored me ever since.

 

[hosemonkey]

rpp, don’t take it personally. Zerinus called me illogical and incoherent when he couldn’t answer a question I posed. He’s ignored me ever since.

Consider yourself blessed. Zerinus has done more to give mormons a bad name on these forums than anyone else I’ve known. I think that if the boys in SLC knew what he was doing, they would pull his card. No godhood for you, zerinus.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I learned all about mormonism on south park last night? forgive me for my childish ways!

 

[hosemonkey]

I learned all about mormonism on south park last night? forgive me for my childish ways!

Trust me, you will learn more about mormonism on South Park than you will from zerinus, more truthful anyway.

 

[exiled]

Consider yourself blessed. Zerinus has done more to give mormons a bad name on these forums than anyone else I’ve known. I think that if the boys in SLC knew what he was doing, they would pull his card. No godhood for you, zerinus.

That is so funny! I was thinking exactly the same thing after posting to rpp!

 

[zerinus]

This is the second time you insulted me personally.

Since you are able to neither speak charitably nor apply logic uniformly, this discussion is at an end.

OK, my apologies for being uncharitable! When was the first time?

zerinus

 

[AgnosTheist]

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

how is mormonism destructive?