Mormonism, Polygamy, and Warren Jeffs

[Cowboy_Pete]

Sudden? How old are you? We’ve been chummy since 1993.

So are you saying that Catholics never mistake their own opinions for doctrine?

 

[lax16]

Sudden? How old are you? We’ve been chummy since 1993.

So are you saying that Catholics never mistake their own opinions for doctrine?

What happened in 1993?

And yes, sudden. I live in Utah and there is not a Catholic here who will tell you that things have always been chummy - in fact, far from it.

 

[lax16]

Sudden? How old are you? We’ve been chummy since 1993.

So are you saying that Catholics never mistake their own opinions for doctrine?

What LDS opinions have been mistaken for doctrine?

 

[rock17]

OK, for the third time, this seems to be the view of the current LDS scholarship, replacing Talmage’s earlier opinions from “The Great Apostasy”

The Catholic church is not an “apostate church.”

WOW! Cowboypete this means that you do not believe that the priesthood was taken from the earth and did not need restoring! And about the catholic church emerging in 300 i have text from the ancient church that show the passing on of the papacy from peter to linus so it was way before 300 try when jesus gave the keys to peter. without an apostasy there is no mormon church! and the true universal church remains standing. Christ did not lie when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!

 

[NewSeeker]

Trying to rebut your arguments would probably constitute proselytizing, but I hope I’ve made my point that the LDS Church position is not that the Catholic Church was responsible for the apostasy.

Hi CowboyPete, I understand that’s your current understanding of the LDS Church position, but I doubt that position is universally believed, even among the Brethren. Regardless, even if it were to become accepted universally, what Mwok said about my post is correct. The evidence suggests continuity of common teaching, authority, and practice within the ancient, liturgical churches. It doesn’t matter whether Roman Catholicism emerged out of the the original apostate church centuries after the fact or whether the Catholic Church was responsible. Either position assumes an apostasy occurred at some point. The weight of the historical evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

WOW! Cowboypete this means that you do not believe that the priesthood was taken from the earth and did not need restoring!

Sorry. That I’ve been crystal clear about. Click my name and follow my posts: I’ve been entirely consistent on that position. can’t modify actual doctrine to make friends.

without an apostasy there is no mormon church!

That’s true.

Either position assumes an apostasy occurred at some point.

That’s right.

Either position assumes an apostasy occurred at some point.

Keep telling yourself that.

And about the catholic church emerging in 300 i have text from the ancient church that show the passing on of the papacy from peter to linus so it was way before 300 try when jesus gave the keys to peter.

Keep telling yourself that.

Christ did not lie when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!

Of course Christ doesn’t lie. And if you want to believe He was referring to your church, feel free to see it that way. This is, after all, a Catholic Website, and I won’t argue otherwise here.

 

[mwok]

Sorry. That I’ve been crystal clear about. Click my name and follow my posts: I’ve been entirely consistent on that position. can’t modify actual doctrine to make friends.

Okay, I’m lost on this response.

Was the priesthood taken or not?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Okay, I’m lost on this response.

Was the priesthood taken or not?

Clearly yes. Otherwise the Apostles would have continued to replenish the Quorum of the Twelve, as they did at the beginning of the Book of Acts. No apostles, no Christian priesthood, and definitely no “apostolic” church.

How else can you explain the cessation of scripture?

When has God’s authority ever been present on earth without the generation of holy writ?

 

[mwok]

Clearly yes. Otherwise the Apostles would have continued to replenish the Quorum of the Twelve, as they did at the beginning of the Book of Acts. No apostles, no Christian priesthood, and definitely no “apostolic” church.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

How else can you explain the cessation of scripture?

When has God’s authority ever been present on earth without the generation of holy writ

To answer your question, I believe it is the Catholic teaching that Jesus was the living Word of God. It is also a belief that Jesus Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of scripture. So, because Jesus was the incarnation of scripture, no further scripture was needed. And that is what I believe the NT is all about, giving a testimony of what was witnessed by observing the Word of God made flesh.

 

[mwok]

I would also like to add that St. Luke was not an apostle, but his witness is considered as one of the Gospels.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons claim their Apostles hold the key of Priesthood Authority which the Catholic Church lost; demonstrated by the fact there are no more Apostles in Orthodox Christianity. The problem with this claim is Mormon history itself.

In 1830, Joseph Smith started the Latter-Day-Saint Movement by making himself First Elder and Oliver Cowdery ‘Second Elder.’ They both claimed to be given the ‘Keys.’ Smith established the First Presidency, Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon, to run the Church in 1832. This High Council was the chief judicial and legislative body of the church supervised by the First Presidency. The Presiding High Council was established in 1834 by the First Presidency.

In 1835, Smith told Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, to select the Twelve Apostles to head the missionary work of the Church. The first apostles were: Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Lyman E. Johnson, David W. Patten, Orson Hyde, William E. M’Lellin, Luke S. Johnson, William Smith, John F. Boynton, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Thomas B. Marsh.

In 1835, The Book of Commandments was rewritten to be Doctrine and Covenants as Smith invented the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith claimed he received the ‘keys of the kingdom’ from Peter, James and John.
By the end of 1835, the Church was run by the Elders in the First Presidency who was over the Elders in the Presiding High Council who was over the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. ‘The Keys’ were held by the First Presidency who were not ‘Apostles.’

In 1837, the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society, a bank founded by church leaders, led to widespread dissent.
In 1838, Thomas Marsh, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, William M’Lellin, and John Boynton were excommunicated. And John Patten was killed. They were replaced by John Page, and John Taylor leaving the church with eight apostles.

In 1839 Wilford Woodruff, and George Smith were added to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles to make the total number ten.

In 1840, Willard Richards made the number of apostles eleven.

In 1841, Lyman Wight was added to restored the number of apostles to twelve.

In 1842 Orson Pratt was excommunicated and replaced by Amasa Lyman.

At the time of Joseph Smith’s death the First Presidency included: Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. The head of the Presiding High Council was William Marks. The head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was Brigham Young. After the Smith’s were killed, only Sidney Rigdon remained in the First Presidency.


As the member of the First Presidency (holder of the keys) Rigdon claimed to be guardian of the church and Apostle John Page and Elder William Marks supported him in that claim.
Brigham Young as the head Apostle claimed Joseph Smith was an Apostle and held the keys. Because Young was the head Apostle he claimed to replace Smith as the holder of the keys. This was the first time any Mormon thought of an Apostle as being a key holder.
The Church membership voted for Young, as leader of the third level church council, to lead the church; and raise the Quorum of Twelve Apostles over the Presiding High Council while taking over the First Presidency.
In 1848, Oliver Cowdery said a ‘Holy Angel’ came down and gave the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood.

To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys of the kingdom’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Okay, I’m lost on this response.

Was the priesthood taken or not?

Yes!

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

What are you pretending that I’m trying to deflect?

Please get to the point that you pretend that I’m trying to avoid.

Don’t just prance around the place like Tinkerbelle in heat, giving me accusatory looks.
If you’re going to make an accusation, just make it.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

You claim that I’m dodging the point, but when I ask you point blank what that point is, you dodge!
"Pete:

If you’re going to make an accusation, just make it.

I need not do so - you have just done a finer job than I could by using ad hominem in a spectacularly rude fashion.

Boo hoo. You were accusing me of dishonesty. My response was not more “rude” than what you said, it was merely more creative, interesting, and coherent.

Not for the first time either in this or other threads as many have observed.

So when I ask you what I’m deflecting, you deflect, by whining about the rudeness to your vague and unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty.
:whacky:

 

[hosemonkey]

Don’t just prance around the place like Tinkerbelle in heat, giving me accusatory looks.
If you’re going to make an accusation, just make it.

What a classy response. First you take refuge in lies and misinformation, then resort to tap-dancing and finish up with ad hominem attacks on a real gentleman, who has been posting here for a long time with scholarly explanations of Catholic truth. You ought to be ashamed of your poor example of mormon apologetics. You have run up the true flag of mormon error. Any credibility that you may have had is certainly gone. Too bad.

 

[Denise1957]

Clearly yes. Otherwise the Apostles would have continued to replenish the Quorum of the Twelve, as they did at the beginning of the Book of Acts. No apostles, no Christian priesthood, and definitely no “apostolic” church.

How else can you explain the cessation of scripture?

When has God’s authority ever been present on earth without the generation of holy writ?

I don’t know about Acts saying that there has to be a quorum of twleve, but the original Apostles did baptize many of the faithful, including leaders who continued the priesthood. I would hope that you would have a further interest in investigating this for yourself.

You mention the cessation of scripture, but it should be pointed out that Jesus Himself did not write anything down, nor did he ask or tell His Apostles to write anything down. Rather, He told the Apostles to go out to all nations, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to teach all that He had taught them. That is precisely what His Catholic Church has always done, since the beginning. That there is still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which still holds to what He commanded and taught is miraculous. Objective truth does not change, so of course the teachings of the Catholic Church do not change, except in matters of discipline, and clarifications.

So even though Our Lord did not write anything down, nor instructed His Apostles to do so, His teachings were written down so as to have an account of what He instructed, to avert and prevent error. Our Catholic faith is based on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. It is only His Catholic Church that has the authority to teach and baptize, to interpret Sacred Scripture, and to continue to go out to all nations. Our Lord set up a heirarchical structure, beginning with St. Peter, the first Pope, because a governing heirarchy and structure was, and still is needed to properly carry out Our Lord’s mission here on earth - which is ultimately for the salvation of souls.

If any other Catholics here can further clarify this, or point out if I’ve gotten something wrong, I’d appreciate it.

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t know about Acts saying that there has to be a quorum of twleve, but the original Apostles did baptize many of the faithful, including leaders who continued the priesthood. I would hope that you would have a further interest in investigating this for yourself.

You mention the cessation of scripture, but it should be pointed out that Jesus Himself did not write anything down, nor did he ask or tell His Apostles to write anything down. Rather, He told the Apostles to go out to all nations, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to teach all that He had taught them. That is precisely what His Catholic Church has always done, since the beginning. That there is still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which still holds to what He commanded and taught is miraculous. Objective truth does not change, so of course the teachings of the Catholic Church do not change, except in matters of discipline, and clarifications.

What you have written is exactly true. mormonism disputes these facts because if these things are true, then mormonism stands indicted as a false religion that is the product of the fevered imagination of one man, the con-artist Joseph Smith. CowboyPete MUST defend his specious “religion” otherwise it can bear no examination and falls like the house of cards that it is. The Holy Catholic church alone possesses the Truth and always has.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

What a classy response. First you take [snip more vague and unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty] and finish up with ad hominem attacks on a real gentleman, who has been posting here for a long time with scholarly explanations of Catholic truth.

was just painting a picture of me and Coptic "farting around a camp-fire."scholarly gentleman

While that latest B-movie allusion does show improvement in the creativity of Jharek’s ad-homeniems, it did seem a little adolescent and puerile.

Not to mention, Jharek is still dancing around, refusing to answer my simple question:
*
What specifically was I trying to “deflect”?*

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I don’t know about Acts saying that there has to be a quorum of twleve, but the original Apostles did baptize many of the faithful, including leaders who continued the priesthood. I would hope that you would have a further interest in investigating this for yourself.

You mention the cessation of scripture, but it should be pointed out that Jesus Himself did not write anything down, nor did he ask or tell His Apostles to write anything down. Rather, He told the Apostles to go out to all nations, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to teach all that He had taught them. That is precisely what His Catholic Church has always done, since the beginning. That there is still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which still holds to what He commanded and taught is miraculous. Objective truth does not change, so of course the teachings of the Catholic Church do not change, except in matters of discipline, and clarifications.

So even though Our Lord did not write anything down, nor instructed His Apostles to do so, His teachings were written down so as to have an account of what He instructed, to avert and prevent error. Our Catholic faith is based on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. It is only His Catholic Church that has the authority to teach and baptize, to interpret Sacred Scripture, and to continue to go out to all nations. Our Lord set up a heirarchical structure, beginning with St. Peter, the first Pope, because a governing heirarchy and structure was, and still is needed to properly carry out Our Lord’s mission here on earth - which is ultimately for the salvation of souls.

If any other Catholics here can further clarify this, or point out if I’ve gotten something wrong, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you for getting right to the point and explaining your church’s position on the issue of scriptural authority, Denise. I would also be interested to hear other Catholics confirm or elaborate on what you’ve said. I’d never heard it said that the Apostles took up the writing of scripture on their own initiative. That would explain why some Catholics seem to view tradition nearly on the same level as scripture. (If I’ve got the last part wrong, please correct me).

 

[hosemonkey]

Your scholarly gentleman

was just painting a picture of me and Coptic “farting around a camp-fire.”

While that latest B-movie allusion does show improvement in the creativity of Jharek’s ad-homeniems, it did seem a little adolescent and puerile.

Not to mention, Jharek is still dancing around, refusing to answer my simple question:
*
What specificall*y was I trying to “deflect”?

I stand by my statement, yours is a poor example of mormon apologetics. mormon “apologists” consistantly sidestep the truth, consistantly dissemble when confronted with gaping holes in mormon theology and history and then play the victim card when boxed in. Poor show.