Mormons 17 Points of True Church

[PaulDupre1]

I would not count your years at a loss - as I understand it, the LDS missionaries have most of their sucuess with the ‘unchurched’ and culturally there are good virtues in the LDS.

Now that you’ve experienced the LDS church - perhaps you have been given the knowlage to reach them with the Gospel. It would be a way of redeaming those years in a way.

Oh yes, I believe that God brought me through the LDS church to make me a better Catholic. I do not at all regret me time in as a LDS.

Paul (Formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[Marie5890]

I’m not sure how “sound” their arguments are, but they are for the most part reasonable and therefore worthy of discussion.

)

I agree. It IS worthy of discussion and should not be quickly dismissed.

 

[Marie5890]

Oh yes, I believe that God brought me through the LDS church to make me a better Catholic. I do not at all regret me time in as a LDS.

Paul (Formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I do see myself in the same way. I am a very devout Catholic because of my being a very devout Mormon.

Mormonism taught me that being a credible disciple of Christ is a way of being, a way of living. Not just a Sunday thing.

My love of prayer and scripture comes from my Mormon years and training. Call it “Egyptian gold” if you will (those who know of St Augustine will understand that comment) yet “Egyptian gold” it is.

Praise be Yeshuah.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I do see myself in the same way. I am a very devout Catholic because of my being a very devout Mormon.

Mormonism taught me that being a credible disciple of Christ is a way of being, a way of living. Not just a Sunday thing.

My love of prayer and scripture comes from my Mormon years and training. Call it “Egyptian gold” if you will (those who know of St Augustine will understand that comment) yet “Egyptian gold” it is.

Praise be Yeshuah.

Egyptian Gold. I like that. So true.

 

[rmcmullan]

Hmmmm. Funny. I was pretty clear. I understand if it underwhelms you so much that you know you have no response.

The tough thing for you is this:

a lot of the 17 points are very subjective and hold no water.

A lot of them are claimed by every church…so?

and ALL of them are accompanied by verses that do not say what the point says it says.

Finally, each one was proven wrong…whether you like it or not.

Still underwhelmed.

 

[Marie5890]

Still underwhelmed.

Does being underwhelmed=dismissal outright for you?

Or are you still willing to engage in discussion even if you are “underwhelmed”

Im trying to understand what appears as the male need for competition, even in matters of ecclesiology.

 

[Robyn_p]

Still underwhelmed.

Do you at least have a response to his arguments? Maybe could you explain why they are unconvincing? I’m genuinely interested.

 

[RebeccaJ]

How does Paul the apostle fit into apostolic succession? Isn’t it a fact that he was appointed an apostle directly by the Holy Spirit? The other apostles consented but I don’t believe that Catholicism takes proper account of the ‘Paul factor’.

The apostolic foundation of the Church is the Twelve and Paul.

 

[drac16]

Interesting points. Of course ‘Jesus Christ’ is merely the Anglicization of the Greek translation of the Hebrew equivalent words, Yeshua a variant of Yehoshuah meaning ‘Jehovah is salvation’, (cf. yasha` - to save) and Mashiyach meaning the anointed one.

I’d doubt that reformed Egyptian would have had any such word as Yehoshuah.

Mind you, those golden plates … it’s all a hoax of course, as has been well documented on sundry web sites.

Yeah, I already knew that he had a hebrew name. Lots of jewish prophets have ‘El’, which means ‘God’, in their names (Elisha, Elijah, Samuel, etc). However, in the case of Yeshua/Jesus, he has God’s proper name in it-- which consists of four hebrew letters (although it’s commonly transliterated as “YHWH”). Very interesting.

 

[LivingWaters7]

OK, TK, thanks for posting that. I was sort of wondering what you meant when you referred to it in the other thread. Sorry, but I am a little underwhelmed, I know space is limited but I don’t think you really addressed the 17 issues but instead rushed to the earliest most convenient criticism.

I guess I could say something along the lines that maybe in your mind you demolished the 17 points of the true church but I don’t think you did. And we’ve discussed these issues forever here in this forum.

<>

Looking at the specific points and scriptures referenced by the 17 issues, it is clear, at least from the Catholic perspective, that many of them are based on false premises (for example, “the true church must have no paid ministry”, or “The true church must teach that God and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct individuals”), while others condemn the LDS church itself (such as having the “same organization”, or having no “paid ministry”). Quite frankly, I’m underwhelmed by this list, and don’t find it convincing at all, especially when coupled with the fact that the Catholic Church continues on beliefs and practices not only from Biblical Judaism and New Testament Christianity, but is quite clearly the Church that we read about in ancient post-New Testament Christianity as well, most especially in the belief in the Real Presence. Further, the very fact that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is so foundational to Catholicism, as well as the fact that Heavenly messengers have been prevalent throughout Catholic history, led me to reconsider what I left, and realize that many of the things Mormonism claims about itself are already found in Catholicism, an no restoration was really needed (since no total apostasy of Christ’s Kingdom was ever predicted anyway).

 

[zaffiroborant]

OK, TK, thanks for posting that. I was sort of wondering what you meant when you referred to it in the other thread. Sorry, but I am a little underwhelmed, I know space is limited but I don’t think you really addressed the 17 issues but instead rushed to the earliest most convenient criticism.

I guess I could say something along the lines that maybe in your mind you demolished the 17 points of the true church but I don’t think you did. And we’ve discussed these issues forever here in this forum.

<>

Others in the thread have also addressed the 17 points all combined I see valid counters to the 17. I also don’t see what’s wrong with starting with the easiest and most convenient counter to the points. It certainly doesn’t try to end the conversation as much as your blowing off TK does.

 

[rmcmullan]

Do you at least have a response to his arguments? Maybe could you explain why they are unconvincing? I’m genuinely interested.

It’s sort of difficult to address all 17 points in a single thread. Even TK could only to give a cursory rebuttal to each. As I have said, these are points that have been discussed over the years here at these forums and I don’t see us opening up any new ground. One of the 17 points, baptism for the dead is one that you can read many old threads one. I pick that one not for its significance but because it’s fairly distinct. TK (TexanKnight) dismisses it without much discussion by arguing that the Bible doesn’t say it was necessary. However, considering the role it plays in what Mormons call the God’s Plan of Happiness, it is essential. There’s an entire discussion that goes with it. And there are 16 more points.

Anyway, most of TK’s “counter-arguments” might be convincing to him but not to me. Not many of them give a serious enough consideration of the issue from both sides. On the other hand, I have noticed that the missionaries don’t seem to haul these out anymore so he might have a point. However, it is still a pretty good list, however defensible, of the difference between Mormons and Christianity at large.

 

[TexanKnight]

It’s sort of difficult to address all 17 points in a single thread. Even TK could only to give a cursory rebuttal to each. As I have said, these are points that have been discussed over the years here at these forums and I don’t see us opening up any new ground. One of the 17 points, baptism for the dead is one that you can read many old threads one. I pick that one not for its significance but because it’s fairly distinct. TK (TexanKnight) dismisses it without much discussion by arguing that the Bible doesn’t say it was necessary. However, considering the role it plays in what Mormons call the God’s Plan of Happiness, it is essential. There’s an entire discussion that goes with it. And there are 16 more points.

Anyway, most of TK’s “counter-arguments” might be convincing to him but not to me. Not many of them give a serious enough consideration of the issue from both sides. On the other hand, I have noticed that the missionaries don’t seem to haul these out anymore so he might have a point. However, it is still a pretty good list, however defensible, of the difference between Mormons and Christianity at large.

This is just a head scratcher. YOU bring up the list on another thread. So, I respond on this thread only to have you respond like this.

I challenged you to respond. You can’t.

I challenged you to at least show me where the verses provided with each point actually state what the point alleges. You can’t because they don’t.

Each point says you “must” do something or have something, yet no verse provided supports that.

You claim I was cursory, yet I provided more than the points themselves

And there is no reason to be verbose when each point can be debunked in just a few words

Finally, you specifically mentioned baptism for the dead I find that odd. I actually gave about as much info in response as is mentioned in the bible. You claim it was not enough for an answer, yet you built a whole false doctrine on about the same number of words.

Your problem is, you know we are right and you can’t go against it

 

[rmcmullan]

This is just a head scratcher. …Your problem is, you know we are right and you can’t go against it

Huh, yeah, sure.

I’ll give you credit for making an attempt and putting it out there for people to examine, that takes some courage. The weakness of your rebuttal to the 17 Points makes me think they’re still pretty good if they can stand up to critics unscathed.

Have you ever tried writing a 17 Points for the Catholic church? Now that I would be interested in.

 

[TexanKnight]

Huh, yeah, sure.

I’ll give you credit for making an attempt and putting it out there for people to examine, that takes some courage. The weakness of your rebuttal to the 17 Points makes me think they’re still pretty good if they can stand up to critics unscathed.

Have you ever tried writing a 17 Points for the Catholic church? Now that I would be interested in.

The Catholic Church does not need to produce a list of 17 points because it is the True Church. it is wannabe’s that feel the need to drum up stuff that they think makes it look good.

You claim my responses are weak (yet they are, in fact, stronger than the points themselves, as I have shown), yet you provide nothing to back up your contention, and, in fact, continue to run from the challenges.

I believe your conduct actually proves my points, and the points of others who chimed in, are very strong.

 

[benjohnson]

1. The true church must have no paid ministry (Acts 20:33-34; John 10:11-13)

This point of the LDS seems contrary to the Word of God.

Galatians 6:6
One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.

Paul reminds us that our minters should be frugal as to be more effective.

1 Corinthians 9:18-19
What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

 

[benjohnson]

The Catholic Church does not need to produce a list of 17 points because it is the True Church.

Perhaps our LDS friends should concentrate on the 4 marks of the Church per the Nicene creed to find their way home.

 

[TexanKnight]

I won’t do a list of points, but long before the LDS developed their non-substantiated list, someone made one for the Catholic Church…

The 15 Marks of the Catholic Church

Developed by St. Robert Bellarmine,1542-1621, Doctor of the Church

1. The Church’s Name, Catholic, universal, and world wide, and not confined to any particular nation or people.
2. Antiquity, in tracing her ancestry directly to Jesus Christ.
3. Constant Duration, in lasting substantially unchanged for so many centuries.
4. Extensiveness, in the number of her loyal members.
5. Episcopal Succession, of her Bishops from the first Apostles at the Last Supper to the present hierarchy.
6. Doctrinal Agreement, of her doctrine with the teaching of the ancient Church.
7. Union, of her members among themselves, and with their visible head, the Roman Pontiff.
8. Holiness, of doctrine in reflecting the sanctity of GOD.
9. Efficacy, of doctrine in its power to sanctify believers, and inspire them to great moral achievement.
10. Holiness of Life, of the Church’s representative writers and defenders.
11. The glory of Miracles, worked in the Church and under the Church’s auspices.
12. The gift of Prophecy found among the Church’s saints and spokesmen.
13. The Opposition that the Church arouses among those who attack her on the very grounds that Christ was opposed by His enemies.
14. The Unhappy End, of those who fight against her.
15. The Temporal Peace and Earthly Happiness of those who live by the Church’s teaching and defend her interests.

 

[LivingWaters7]

It’s sort of difficult to address all 17 points in a single thread. Even TK could only to give a cursory rebuttal to each. As I have said, these are points that have been discussed over the years here at these forums and I don’t see us opening up any new ground. One of the 17 points, baptism for the dead is one that you can read many old threads one. I pick that one not for its significance but because it’s fairly distinct. TK (TexanKnight) dismisses it without much discussion by arguing that the Bible doesn’t say it was necessary. However, considering the role it plays in what Mormons call the God’s Plan of Happiness, it is essential. There’s an entire discussion that goes with it. And there are 16 more points.

Anyway, most of TK’s “counter-arguments” might be convincing to him but not to me. Not many of them give a serious enough consideration of the issue from both sides. On the other hand, I have noticed that the missionaries don’t seem to haul these out anymore so he might have a point. However, it is still a pretty good list, however defensible, of the difference between Mormons and Christianity at large.

Huh, yeah, sure.

I’ll give you credit for making an attempt and putting it out there for people to examine, that takes some courage. The weakness of your rebuttal to the 17 Points makes me think they’re still pretty good if they can stand up to critics unscathed.

Have you ever tried writing a 17 Points for the Catholic church? Now that I would be interested in.

I think it’s best not to lump “Mormonism” vs “Christianity at large”. Just like how there are many sects within the LDS movement that have diverse beliefs on a number of foundational matters (including the nature of God), traditional Christianity also differs on a number of matters. Therefore, it is best to compare one church to another (especially when the Catholic Church claims that it is the “true church”, with all other churches having some degree of imperfection, some more or less than others). It would therefore not be logical to lump things together to compare and contrast. When we look at the 17 Points list from the Catholic perspective, it isn’t convincing, especially when a number of the points apply to the Catholic Church, and others are based on misrepresentations/misunderstandings of Catholic teachings. From an objective perspective, the list does not stand up to critics, especially when it has already been demonstrated that some of the verses cited in the list don’t actually say what they want it to say (no interpretation necessary to come to that conclusion). The very fact that the list condemns the LDS Church itself (for example, when it claims that the true church must have no paid ministry, when it has been well established, including by LDS apologetic sources, that the General Authorities of the LDS Church receive a living stipend, and are therefore paid ministers) causes skepticism as to its validity as real points necessary for the true church.

As well, it would be helpful if you could at least address a few of the points being brought up by multiple people, instead of waving the hand and dismissing it. I used to do similar things when I posted here as an active believing LDS, so I understand.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Here’s my semi-random list, maybe I’ll expand on it with specific Biblical verses when I have more time:

Points of the True Church-Catholic

1. The true church must be established by Jesus Christ.
2. The true church must have authority given to her by Jesus Christ.
3. The true church must be built on the foundation of apostles and prophets.
4. The true church must have authority from the apostles through succession by the laying on of hands.
5. The true church must be guided by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.
6. The true church, the Kingdom of God, cannot ever apostatize and be taken off the earth.
7. The true church must practice baptism.
8. The true church must confer the Holy Spirit.
9. The true church must believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
10. The true church must have a priesthood conferred through the laying on of hands by those that have authority.
11. The true church must have priests that have the power and authority to forgive sins, as given them by Jesus Christ.
12. The true church must have miracles occurring throughout its history, including healing, visions, prophecy, Heavenly visitations, etc.
13. The true church is a communion of saints.
14. The true church prays for the dead.
15. The true church honors Mary, the Mother of God.
16. The true church regularly interacts with angels and Heavenly saints.
17. The true church goes to all nations with the Gospel.
18. The true church believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct Persons, and also believes in one God.