Mormonism-The Benefits of "Living Prophets and Apostles"

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Telstar said:
I haven’t been on the forums in quite a while, but I was about to ask him who he was, and what happened to the real TK. :confused:
Click to expand...
Certainly not the TK whom we know has an intense disdain and even hatred of anything Mormon. 🤷
 
TexanKnight said:
Actually, it is very valid. And I can see why you backtrack.

It is ok. I just find it odd. That is all.
Click to expand...
Livingwater showed why your argument is invalid based on Catholic claims.
Your answer here does nothing to refute his argument.
Your argument only makes sense based on Mormon claims; a Mormon point of view.
 
Stephen168 said:
Livingwater showed why your argument is invalid based on Catholic claims.
Your answer here does nothing to refute his argument.
Your argument only makes sense based on Mormon claims; a Mormon point of view.
Click to expand...
ah…so the Catholic Church does not claim to be the only true Church and does not claim to be led by someone who is infallible.

My bad.

Please excuse…
 
TexanKnight said:
ah…so the Catholic Church does not claim to be the only true Church and does not** claim to be led by someone who is infallible**.

My bad.

Please excuse…
Click to expand...
C’mom, TK, you KNOW that Catholics do not believe that the Pope is infallible. You KNOW what the actual dogma is.

Why are you distorting what dogma of infalliblity is really all about? You, of all people?
 
Marie5890 said:
C’mom, TK, you KNOW that Catholics do not believe that the Pope is infallible. You KNOW what the actual dogma is.

Why are you distorting what dogma of infalliblity is really all about? You, of all people?
Click to expand...
from Catholic Answers;

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

How have I distorted?
 
I encourage everyone to please remain on the actual topic of the thread (the moderators have been alerted and will handle off topic derailing and trolling). My argument is quite clear. I have also demonstrated why it does not apply to Catholics, who are not making the argument that many LDS do, as presented in the OP. No need to continue down that rabbit hole, we are all familiar with how this works, having viewed it in the opposite direction for a long time.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
I encourage everyone to please remain on the actual topic of the thread (the moderators have been alerted and will handle off topic derailing and trolling). My argument is quite clear. I have also demonstrated why it does not apply to Catholics, who are not making the argument that many LDS do, as presented in the OP. No need to continue down that rabbit hole, we are all familiar with how this works, having viewed it in the opposite direction for a long time.
Click to expand...
I apologize. I had no idea you did not want the same scrutiny as you have applied to others. I can understand your reluctance to do so.

Now…about that mote…🙂
 
LivingWaters7 said:
One of the many issues that many LDS bring up in reference to why someone should become a member of the LDS church is that of having “living apostles and prophets”. Mormons believe that the LDS church is headed by a prophet (just like Moses Noah, Abraham, etc), along with a quorum of twelve apostles. They claim that anciently, the office of apostle was lost, Heaven was closed (God stopped speaking), and Christianity fell into apostasy with the priesthood gone from the world, falling into disarray, with many competing denominations.

But when one actually looks at Joseph Smith’s restoration, we see the same things that LDS apologists often accuse traditional Christianity. For example, the Salt Lake City-based LDS church is only one of a multitude of Joseph Smith-related organizations that sprung up in the last 184 years. See here:

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

Then one can look at teachings of these prophets and apostles. Instead of a purported clarity that comes with following the prophets and apostles, we find confusion. Some LDS prophets have taught that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Some LDS believe this, others reject it. It is said that no one knows where the priesthood/temple ban of blacks came from, yet some LDS prophets and apostles taught that it was due to direct command from the Lord, that it is a doctrine of the church, etc. Some taught that it was due to the conduct of blacks in the pre-mortal existence. LDS also believe that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother. Some prophets have taught that the Father actually has many wives, in accordance with plural marriage. Such an idea would never be taught today.

So, I fail to see how the LDS restoration brought a stability to Christianity that was apparently lost, according to Mormonism itself. It seems as if the “living prophets and apostles” bring more confusion to the LDS faith itself, and God speaking once again (if we entertain the LDS view on the Heavens being closed prior to the 1800s) resulted in dozens more churches stemming from Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...
I have had Mormons claim that splintering and changing doctrine were signs of the Great Apostasy but they fail to notice the same failings in their own church.
 
Stephen168 said:
I have had Mormons claim that splintering and changing doctrine were signs of the Great Apostasy but they fail to notice the same failings in their own church.
Click to expand...
Indeed. One argument I have seen is that without the living apostles and prophets, ordinances were changed, such as the mode of baptism (I should note here that they always say that Catholics changed the mode of baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The reality is that Catholicism has always accepted and practiced immersion as a valid way to baptize, and also included pouring as another way, which is apparently very early in Christian history). Curiously, within the LDS church itself, we see changing of the form of ordinances. The example I always use is that of the Initiatory washing and anointing. Originally, this was done by a full bath/washing. It then changed into dabbing water and oil on specific body parts. Finally, it changed into the mode that I participated in, where the temple worker puts water on your forehead and oil on your hand, and “symbolically” washes and anoints you. So, even with the living apostles and prophets, we see a clear example of changing the mode of an ordinance, something they accuse apostate Christianity of doing as well. Of course, once this is realized, the argument then changes from simply changing the mode of an ordinance to unauthorized changing (i.e. moving the goal posts).
 
TexanKnight said:
from Catholic Answers;

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

How have I distorted?
Click to expand...
The pope is a man. Men are not infallible. So yes, it is incorrect to say the pope is an infallible person. He’s not, and no Catholic believes he his. His office is gifted with the charisma of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals. The man who is pope, is just a man.

Good to “see” you posting again
 
Stephen168 said:
I have had Mormons claim that splintering and changing doctrine were signs of the Great Apostasy but they fail to notice the same failings in their own church.
Click to expand...
I have read that Catholics claim all the splintering in their Church means nothing, and fail to see that as a possibility in the LDS Church
 
RebeccaJ said:
The pope is a man. Men are not infallible. So yes, it is incorrect to say the pope is an infallible person. He’s not, and no Catholic believes he his. His office is gifted with the charisma of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals. The man who is pope, is just a man.

Good to “see” you posting again
Click to expand...
I never said The Pope is in infallible “person”. I said the Pope is infallible. I was told He is not and I was wrong, so I posted what this site says. How did I distort?
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Indeed. One argument I have seen is that without the living apostles and prophets, ordinances were changed, such as the mode of baptism (I should note here that they always say that Catholics changed the mode of baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The reality is that Catholicism has always accepted and practiced immersion as a valid way to baptize, and also included pouring as another way, which is apparently very early in Christian history). Curiously, within the LDS church itself, we see changing of the form of ordinances. The example I always use is that of the Initiatory washing and anointing. Originally, this was done by a full bath/washing. It then changed into dabbing water and oil on specific body parts. Finally, it changed into the mode that I participated in, where the temple worker puts water on your forehead and oil on your hand, and “symbolically” washes and anoints you. So, even with the living apostles and prophets, we see a clear example of changing the mode of an ordinance, something they accuse apostate Christianity of doing as well. Of course, once this is realized, the argument then changes from simply changing the mode of an ordinance to unauthorized changing (i.e. moving the goal posts).
Click to expand...
We can also start a list of things that have changed on the Catholic Church…we can start, for example, with Indulgences. Where did they come from? Who started them? Why? If there is no Revelation n the Catholic Church, then that must have been from man…under whose authority?

All I am saying is…be fair in your scrutiny.
 
gazelam said:
The LDS view is that the Bible is divinely inspired and is part of the LDS canon. The Book of Mormon reaffirms the divinity of the Bible. The LDS view is that the Bible as originally written is correct and that some errors have crept in over the centuries. I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Not really, considering the source of the Bible being the Catholic Church. The only way that I think could resolve this is if the LDS Church obtained original texts of scripture and then translated and compiled their own Bible to insure that it is correct. Otherwise one is just “cherry picking” texts that one says is correct and others are errors that “crept in.” One can not have a document from an apostate church that would in any way be reliable. If the book is divine then so are its sources (God and the Catholic Church).
 
DCNBILL said:
Not really, considering the source of the Bible being the Catholic Church. The only way that I think could resolve this is if the LDS Church obtained original texts of scripture and then translated and compiled their own Bible to insure that it is correct. Otherwise one is just “cherry picking” texts that one says is correct and others are errors that “crept in.” One can not have a document from an apostate church that would in any way be reliable. If the book is divine then so are its sources (God and the Catholic Church).
Click to expand...
So, you discount guidance from the Spirit on this? Are you saying the only way to determine is the way that YOU accept?
 
TexanKnight said:
So, you discount guidance from the Spirit on this? Are you saying the only way to determine is the way that YOU accept?
Click to expand...
What I am trying to understand is why the LDS, believing that the Catholic Church is apostate, would accept any document coming out of that church.

I fully believe that the Church is and always has been guided by the Holy Spirit and that Holy Scripture is the work of God through the Catholic Church but cannot understand why the LDS would also believe this of an apostate church.
 
LivingWaters,
Having read Early Christians in Disarrray, I recall a number of arguments being made. One of the essays even traced various beliefs in apostasy as presented in the CoJCoLDS from its early days to Nibley and now beyond Nibley. So, it would seem that you have chosen to attack one of the premises offered in that book and one that no LDS here has chosen to offer as the strongest case for the apostasy (or for the importance of having Apostles/Prophets at the head of ones church).
Your thesis was/is that LDS cannot claim that the splintering of Christianity was the product of an absence of Apostolic leadership because with what LDS claim is Apostolic leadership we have what you claim is splintering.
I told you that while not granting the validity of your thesis, I thought the presence of Apostles/Prophets was a MARK of the true church in that God leads His church via INSPIRED …

Now, IMO it is impossible to assess you thesis without setting it into a historical context. The Church we both believe was led by Christ (and Apostles) chose as an Apostle someone who betrayed Christ. The Bible when read critically presents great conflict and splintering in the Apostle lead church. Paul resists the so-called “Pillars” in Jerusalem. More than half the letters in the Bible are devoted to correcting errors in local churches. In fact errors aside if you read only half of the New Testament you would get little evidence there was any single church but rather a handful of churches. The other half IMO (and presumably in yours) makes the case for One Church, but the case has not been so compelling that the majority of New Testament believers think Oneness is a mark of the true church.

So, lest what I call “setting in a historical context” is interpreted by you as attacking the disarray in other traditions in response to your accusation that may tradition is in disarray let me just say this.

If any current LDS, or any former LDS other than you, believes that the existence of Apostles/Prophets at the headship of God’s church will prevent any splintering; they are wrong. If any current LDS believes that an absence of perfect unity within a church purportedly lead by Apostles/Prophets is absolute evidence of no valid Apostles/Prophets and they refuse to re-evaluate this belief, the evidence indicates they should cease to be a LDS.

Let me make another positive claim about the UNITY of the CoJCoLDS, the contrast will likely be obvious to those who have any historical sense at all. Your link of folks who split from the CoJCoLDS contains a number of churches that recognize Joseph Smith as a Prophet on some day in 1830 and fail to recognize Thomas S. Monson as the Prophet in 2015. That being said, easily 95% of the folks who currently believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet on some day in 1830 belong to the CoJCoLDS with Thomas S. Monson at its head. So while in our fallen world there are many folks who choose to believe many things, the church I believe is headed by God’s Prophet is in the minds of most believers the valid and unified successor of the Prophet Joseph Smith. And IMO 95% is a good unity indicator.

The Bible presents approvingly the words of Rabbi Galaliel:
“And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
I suggest that most of the organizations you have in your link have suffered “this work be of men, it will come to nought.” But the CoJCoLDS has 95% of the folks who believe Joseph Smith was a prophet on some day in 1830 as members, and is a long way from “coming to nought.” If one were to base their decision upon the Biblical premise of Rabbi Galaliel, I submit one must conclude that the CoJCoLDS “be of God.” And the unity of the CoJCoLDS as the successor of Joseph Smith is positive evidence for this assessment IMO.

Charity, TOm
 
DCNBILL said:
What I am trying to understand is why the LDS, believing that the Catholic Church is apostate, would accept any document coming out of that church.

I fully believe that the Church is and always has been guided by the Holy Spirit and that Holy Scripture is the work of God through the Catholic Church but cannot understand why the LDS would also believe this of an apostate church.
Click to expand...
The Bible did not come from the Catholic Church. It was ORGANIZED by the Catholic Church. The Bible came from God.

I can believe, for example, that my wife was an awful wife and never truly loved me, but that there are things she taught that I will carry forward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top