Mormons 17 Points of True Church

[PaulDupre1]

TexanKnight:

Ah…so, despite the fact that God told JS EVERYTHING js needed to know God’s new Church, God simply forgot to tell JS and let it slide for awhile while telling JS so many other things…I get it

Actually, I think poor Joseph was so “busy” with young girls and married women that he just didn’t have time to worry about the name of the church. Poor exhausted Joseph. :roll eyes:

 

[PaulDupre1]

1. The true church must be a restored church (Acts 3:19-20)

Sabacthani: " times of refreshing …he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you"
Mormons interpret this as a prophesy that the teachings of Christ would be preserved but that the authority would need to be restored. I have no interest in arguing the point with you; merely explaining what the LDS view is.

TK: Refresh and restore are two different things. In fact, refresh proves no restoration was needed…

The dictionary is our friend. As one who prefers clarity to agreement, the dictionary is often helpful to me.
The Dictionary:

re·fresh
riˈfreSH/Submit
verb

1. give new strength or energy to; reinvigorate.
   “the shower had refreshed her”
   synonyms: reinvigorate, revitalize, revive, restore, fortify, enliven, perk up, stimulate, freshen, energize, exhilarate, reanimate, re-energize, wake up, revivify, inspirit; blow away the cobwebs; informal: buck up, pep up
   “the cool air will refresh me”

Restore is one of many synonyms for “refresh”, though seen in the context of the other synonyms it does not seem to imply the sort of “restoration” the LDS like to associate with the word “refresh”.

Also, the passage that Sabacthani quoted above is universally (except for LDS) understood as a reference to the 2nd coming of Jesus, not the coming of Joseph Smith.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Sabachtani,

“Christening” is not an alternative term for “baptism”. Christening is a different ceremony which is usually done in conjunction with baptism.

To “christen” means to anoint, in this case with blessed olive oil. The oil is always blessed by the bishop of the diocese. There is another beautiful ceremony associated with that. The ancient term for this oil is “chrism”. I hope you know that Jesus is called “Christ” because “Christ” means “the anointed one” (see Daniel 9:26).

Prior to the baptism, the bishop, priest or deacon anoints the forehead of the infant with oil by drawing a cross on the forehead with oil. Then the parents and godparents do the same, by virtue of the common priesthood of the baptized which all validly baptized Christians hold. This has always been done in the Catholic Church.

For older people who are baptized into the Catholic Church, there is another ceremony where, before the baptism, during mass, the sponsor of the catechumen anoints the catechumen’s forehead , eyes, ears, hands and feet with oil. This is also called a christening. This christening of the catechumens is another 2000 year-old Catholic practice that the Early Church Fathers wrote about.

I was privileged to perform this rite on my adult son Paul when he converted to the Catholic Faith. It is one of my most cherished memories.

Same with anointing of the sick with oil and the laying on of hands. Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years.

Most of the stuff LDS folks think makes them special, they stole from the Catholic Church.

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sabacthani: That’s a horrid misrepresentation of LDS views. Mormons don’t believe that the Bible contains “apostate errors.” The term Apostate error is a contradiction in terms because apostasy is an intentional struggle against the apostles for power, while error is just error. Mormons think the Bible may contain some errors in translation. Lots of Christians share that view. But the reason for the Book of Mormon wasn’t to correct errors in the Bible, but to clarify some “plain and precious” doctrines which the Bible didn’t make clear. And even Catholicism agrees that some things such as God’s substance aren’t clear; that was the reason for the Nicean Creed; to clarify and establish certain points not made

Theme
The Doctrine and Covenants contains many plain and precious truths restored to the earth through Joseph Smith.

Theme Analysis
A.
Through the devil’s work of apostasy, many of God’s plain and precious truths have been taken from the Bible.

1. These truths were left out through carelessness or removed by evil and designing men who were anxious to change the biblical text.
2. As a result the Bible can sometimes be a stumbling block to the children of God.
   B.
   As part of the work of the Restoration, God provided the means of removing this stumbling block by giving “other books.”

1. The Doctrine and Covenants helps in this important work of restoration.
2. The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible also contain many of the “plain and precious truths” which have been restored.

…

Teachings, p. 327. Why does the Bible contain many errors?

…

“We are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of translators; but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it. Guided by the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Spirit of the Lord,** it is not difficult for one to discern the errors in the Bible.**

…

“The revision of the Bible which was done by Joseph Smith at the command of the Lord was not a complete revision of the Bible. There are many parts of the Bible in which the Prophet did not change the meaning where it is incorrect. He revised as far as the Lord permitted him at the time, and it was his intention to do more, but because of persecution this was not accomplished. However, all that he did is very helpful for the major errors have been corrected.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:191.)

lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-instructors-guide-religion-324-325/plain-and-precious-truths-restored-lesson-27-sections-74-77-86-91-113?lang=eng

 

[taylorf]

Sabacthani: That’s a horrid misrepresentation of LDS views. Mormons don’t believe that the Bible contains “apostate errors.” The term Apostate error is a contradiction in terms because apostasy is an intentional struggle against the apostles for power, while error is just error.

Not really. LDS.org defines apostasy as “A turning away from the truth by individuals”. I’ve never heard anything about struggling against the apostles for power. Also from lds.org…“During the Great Apostasy…Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost”. So, the early church fell into apostasy from which came the bible. Therefore, those errors in the bible must be apostate errors since they were produced by an apostate church.

Mormons think the Bible may contain some errors in translation.

Wrong. They don’t believe they “may” contain errors. What was the point then of the JST then?

Lots of Christians share that view.

Actually, the vast majority of Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Sorry, Mormons don’t count as Christians.

But the reason for the Book of Mormon wasn’t to correct errors in the Bible, but to clarify some “plain and precious” doctrines which the Bible didn’t make clear.

I love the general statements regarding plain and precious truths. What plain and precious truths were clarified by the Book of Mormon? There is nothing unique to LDS beliefs in the Book of Mormon. That all came from the mind of Joseph Smith.

And even Catholicism agrees that some things such as God’s substance aren’t clear; that was the reason for the Nicean Creed; to clarify and establish certain points not made

Wrong again. Councils were established to combat heresies and reinforce beliefs that were already in place, not establish points not made.

 

[Sabacthani]

A.
Through the devil’s work of apostasy, many of God’s plain and precious truths have been taken from the Bible.

So you proof-texted, rearranged the words, and argued that mormons think that apostasy is present in the Bible. When the original words actually argued that apostasy had caused key information (perhaps whole books and letters) to disappear?

Do you understand the difference between what was said and how you presented it?

 

[Sabacthani]

Not really. LDS.org defines apostasy as “A turning away from the truth by individuals”. I’ve never heard anything about struggling against the apostles for power.

Check out: “Warring against the Saints of God” by Stephen Robinson, on LDS.org. This is the updated LDS view on the apostasy, and outright rejects earlier theories by Apostle James Talmage.

Also from lds.org…“During the Great Apostasy…Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost”. So, the early church fell into apostasy from which came the bible. Therefore, those errors in the bible must be apostate errors since they were produced by an apostate church.

Make up your mind. If it’s individuals, then how could there be such a thing as an “apostate church”? That’s a contradiction in terms.

Wrong. They don’t believe they “may” contain errors. What was the point then of the JST then?

Mainly restoration of some information that had been lost. But the JST isn’t finished and went through … unreliable hands, so there isn’t much emphasis on it.

[snip dogmatic pronouncement that Mormons aren’t Christians]

I love the general statements regarding plain and precious truths. What plain and precious truths were clarified by the Book of Mormon? [snip dogmatic pronouncements about LDS beliefs.]

rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-which-my-father-saw/5-nephis-vision-and-loss-and-restoration-plain-and-precious

Mainly that ancient prophets had known much more clearly and specifically about Christ’s coming than we had previously understood.

Key messages found in the plain and precious truths Nephi recorded may best be described by passages he has chosen to include in his writings. He tells us “for we labor diligently to write, and to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). We are told, through the words of Jacob recorded in Nephi’s writings, “And now . . . seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off”, individually or collectively, spiritually or physically (2 Nephi 10:20). Therefore, “come . . . every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come buy and eat; yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price. . . . oh then . . . come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that . . . the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel . . . and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. And whoso knocketh, to him will he open” (2 Nephi 9:50, 41–42).

So a clearer understanding of faith and works, for one.
A clear and correct understanding of the fall, for another. See 2 Nephi 9.

lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/what-is-the-role-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Apostasy, Restoration, Joseph Smith, priesthood authority

1 Nephi 12–14

2 Nephi 3; 26–29

Mosiah 18

The Plan of Salvation

The “great plan of the eternal god,” including the Fall of Adam, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Judgment

2 Nephi 2; 9

Mosiah 3; 15

Alma 12; 40–42

The Gospel of Jesus Christ

Faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end

2 Nephi 31–32

3 Nephi 11; 27

The Commandments; Laws and Ordinances

Ordinances such as baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination, and the sacrament

3 Nephi 11:22–28; 18

Moroni 2–6

 

[TexanKnight]

Check out: “Warring against the Saints of God” by Stephen Robinson, on LDS.org. This is the updated LDS view on the apostasy, and outright rejects earlier theories by Apostle James Talmage.

I am not surprised. Old LDS apostles and prophets are tossed under the bus all the time. Thank goodness they are false prophets. I would hate to see true prophets treated like past LDS “prophets”

Make up your mind. If it’s individuals, then how could there be such a thing as an “apostate church”? That’s a contradiction in terms.

You missed the point. Not surprised

Mainly restoration of some information that had been lost. But the JST isn’t finished and went through … unreliable hands, so there isn’t much emphasis on it.

ah. The unfinished work excuse. Got it

rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-which-my-father-saw/5-nephis-vision-and-loss-and-restoration-plain-and-precious

 

[Sabacthani]

To finish off my reply to Taylor,

The Book of Mormon also clarifies two of what the Apostle Peter called “damnable heresies” and what the BoM calls “abominations” which have arisen from ambiguities in the New Testament text:

1. The heresy that an unbaptized child goes to hell. (This was commonly taught in most of the churches in the NY area when Joseph Smith first went to the Lord to ask which church was true). Moroni 8 speaks emphatically against this doctrine.
2. The heresy that God’s plans for us preclude any kind of free will of our own, i.e. that most people are predestined to go to hell while an elect are predestined to heaven. Alma 31 addresses this doctrine. This too was a common, almost universal doctrine among Christians at the time of Joseph Smith. Many Catholics even believed it back then. Today, fortunately this doctrine is all but extinct, clung to by a few Calvinists and the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[LivingWaters7]

1. The heresy that God’s plans for us preclude any kind of free will of our own, i.e. that most people are predestined to go to hell while an elect are predestined to heaven. Alma 31 addresses this doctrine. This too was a common, almost universal doctrine among Christians at the time of Joseph Smith. Many Catholics even believed it back then.

Please provide evidence that this was Catholic doctrine back then. Thank you. If it wasn’t, then it is irrelevant if “many Catholics” (evidence?) believed this false teaching.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Sabachtani,

“Christening” is not an alternative term for “baptism”. Christening is a different ceremony which is usually done in conjunction with baptism.

To “christen” means to anoint, in this case with blessed olive oil. The oil is always blessed by the bishop of the diocese. There is another beautiful ceremony associated with that. The ancient term for this oil is “chrism”. I hope you know that Jesus is called “Christ” because “Christ” means “the anointed one” (see Daniel 9:26).

Prior to the baptism, the bishop, priest or deacon anoints the forehead of the infant with oil by drawing a cross on the forehead with oil. Then the parents and godparents do the same, by virtue of the common priesthood of the baptized which all validly baptized Christians hold. This has always been done in the Catholic Church.

For older people who are baptized into the Catholic Church, there is another ceremony where, before the baptism, during mass, the sponsor of the catechumen anoints the catechumen’s forehead , eyes, ears, hands and feet with oil. This is also called a christening. This christening of the catechumens is another 2000 year-old Catholic practice that the Early Church Fathers wrote about.

I was privileged to perform this rite on my adult son Paul when he converted to the Catholic Faith. It is one of my most cherished memories.

Same with anointing of the sick with oil and the laying on of hands. Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years.

Most of the stuff LDS folks think makes them special, they stole from the Catholic Church.

Paul

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[Sabacthani]

Please provide evidence that this was Catholic doctrine back then. Thank you. If it wasn’t, then it is irrelevant if “many Catholics” (evidence?) believed this false teaching.

Relevant to what? You’d have to show you understood my point before you could have anything meaningful to say as to whether a fact was “relevant.”

Everything is relevant to something.

If you think that something can just be “irrelevant” objectively without reference to what is or is not being related to, then you fundamentally misapprehend what relevance and irrelevance means.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Sabacthani, I was hoping you could address some of my posts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabacthani
2. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23)

In Apostolic and post-apostolic times, the Church’s name was “the Way”, “Christian”, and “Catholic.”

You see, again, WE have actual REAL history to back up our beliefs.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Relevant to what? You’d have to show you understood my point before you could have anything meaningful to say as to whether a fact was “relevant.”

Everything is relevant to something.

If you think that something can just be “irrelevant” objectively without reference to what is or is not being related to, then you fundamentally misapprehend what relevance and irrelevance means.

So are you not able to provide evidence of your assertion (as well, I’m still waiting for evidence for the use of the phrase “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ” in the baptismal formula in “many other Christian sects…for centuries before the D&C was written”)?

You claimed that the Book of Mormon clarifies certain “plain and precious truths”, such as “The heresy that God’s plans for us preclude any kind of free will of our own, i.e. that most people are predestined to go to hell while an elect are predestined to heaven. Alma 31 addresses this doctrine. This too was a common, almost universal doctrine among Christians at the time of Joseph Smith. Many Catholics even believed it back then.” So, I am asking for evidence that the Catholic Church taught such a heresy. If it didn’t, then I’d like evidence that “many Catholics” believed said heresy, presumably against the actual teachings of the Catholic Church (and if so, then this is nothing new; people today still believe things that their religion doesn’t teach). The point is, the Book of Mormon wasn’t necessary to clarify this, since it was already clear long before the Book of Mormon was written. Indeed, the Catholic Church condemned “double predestination” in the 1500s, long before Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, at the Council of Trent.

 

[Sabacthani]

Your claim is that because the Church has divine authority, it must keep all authority solely to itself? It can’t delegate any part of it?

My claim is that it is not proper to delegate the holy sacrament of baptism to *heretics *and unbelievers. Some other things might be delegated in other circumstances.

My objective is to clarify the LDS view and my own view, which is mostly but not entirely LDS. Therefore I try not to get drawn into advocacy or polemics.

 

[Sabacthani]

So are you not able to provide evidence of your assertion (as well, I’m still waiting for evidence for the use of the phrase “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ” in the baptismal formula in “many other Christian sects…for centuries before the D&C was written”)?

I don’t recall promising to deliver such proof. I’ve seen it done in Protestant sects, in real life and in films. The difference was that they dunked the poor guy three times, once for the Father, once for the Son, once for the Holy Ghost. I googled the phrase and only LDS references popped up, so I can’t give you proof. But that’s not going to convince me to take Google over what I’ve seen with my own eyes.

I was apparently misinformed that the Catholics use the commissioned wording too. That I hadn’t seen for myself. Thank you for correcting me on that point.

Am I correct that you don’t believe authority is necessary to baptize, but you do believe that authority is necessary to bestow the holy ghost? Or do you have another explanation for the Simon the sorcerer story from Acts?

So, I am asking for evidence that the Catholic Church taught such a heresy.

It’s offensive and misleading to demand proof for an assertion that I never made.

(and if so, then this is nothing new; people today still believe things that their religion doesn’t teach).

Of course. That’s true of Catholics, and true of Mormons as well. Some people seem to spend half their lives trying to misrepresent the opinions of some Mormons as the teaching of the LDS church.

My point was that many people of many different denominations believed in those two damnable heresies, and that the Book of Mormon’s plain and precious truths were aimed at dispelling those two abominations and also in teaching the other doctrines I listed above.

I was answering a direct question above about what plain and precious truths that the Book of Mormon restored.

You seem to assume that the Book of Mormon was written in order to refute Catholicism, and your responses seem to assume that I believe such a silly thing.

I’m not even certain JS ever met a Catholic priest before age 20.

 

[TexanKnight]

Relevant to what? You’d have to show you understood my point before you could have anything meaningful to say as to whether a fact was “relevant.”

Everything is relevant to something.

If you think that something can just be “irrelevant” objectively without reference to what is or is not being related to, then you fundamentally misapprehend what relevance and irrelevance means.

Translation:

Sabacthani: I cannot provide the evidence you have have rightfully requested.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I don’t recall promising to deliver such proof. I’ve seen it done in Protestant sects, in real life and in films. The difference was that they dunked the poor guy three times, once for the Father, once for the Son, once for the Holy Ghost. I googled the phrase and only LDS references popped up, so I can’t give you proof. But that’s not going to convince me to take Google over what I’ve seen with my own eyes.

What are the names of those Protestant sects?

Yes, I too Googled it, and knew that only LDS references come up. Unfortunately, your personal experience on the matter is not convincing, since I think it’s safe to say that none of us have ever heard the phrase “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ” outside of an LDS setting. The fact that it seems as if no other church has that phrase on record on their webpages or elsewhere (the text of the religious ceremonies of many, if not most religions of the world, can be found online) is also interesting. Further, you stated that the phrase was used by “many Christian sects…for centuries before the D&C was written”. Was it not safe to assume that you had actual evidence to back up your assertion?

I was apparently misinformed that the Catholics use the commissioned wording too. That I hadn’t seen for myself. Thank you for correcting me on that point.

Ok.

Am I correct that you don’t believe authority is necessary to baptize, but you do believe that authority is necessary to bestow the holy ghost? Or do you have another explanation for the Simon the sorcerer story from Acts?

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.**

In Catholicism, the normative ministers of baptism are bishops, priests, and deacons. However, we also recognize that God wants all to come unto Him through baptism, and that God ultimately is the one with authority, who baptizes and causes the remission of sins and new life. Therefore, we believe that those that baptize using the Trinitarian formula and hold to a belief in the Trinity can validly baptize. Generally, those that come to the Catholic Church after having a valid baptism will need to receive Confirmation, as well as make a profession of Faith (those posters that participate in RCIA, the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, could better articulate that).

It’s offensive and misleading to demand proof for an assertion that I never made.

No, it isn’t, because the point is if the Catholic Church wasn’t officially teaching something, then it doesn’t matter if individual Catholics believed a false teaching (well, it matters, but not for this argument). Whether or not the Book of Mormon clarified something doesn’t change the fact that individual Catholics could still believe said false teaching. And speaking for Catholics, as I already mentioned, the matter was already clarified by the Catholic Church centuries before the Book of Mormon. The Catholic Church, being the True Church, spoke this Truth not just for her members, but for all. So, my point is that what you claim the Book of Mormon was doing was already done, at least on this issue, by the universal Church.

My point was that many people of many different denominations believed in those two damnable heresies, and that the Book of Mormon’s plain and precious truths were aimed at dispelling those two abominations and also in teaching the other doctrines I listed above.

Right, and see above why that wasn’t necessary. The Book of Mormon hasn’t changed anything. Many different denominations still believe those “damnable heresies”. On the case of predestination, the Book of Mormon hasn’t provided any more clarity than was already had on the matter, which is my point.

I was answering a direct question above about what plain and precious truths that the Book of Mormon restored.

I know, and my post shows that on the case of predestination, there was no need for the Book of Mormon to “restore” this plain and precious truth, since the plain and precious truth that predestination is a false teaching was already known long before the Book of Mormon was written, made explicit at the Council of Trent.

You seem to assume that the Book of Mormon was written in order to refute Catholicism, and your responses seem to assume that I believe such a silly thing.

I’m not even certain JS ever met a Catholic priest before age 20.

Unfortunately your assumption about me is false. I have never claimed nor implied such a thing.

 

[Sabacthani]

It’s offensive and misleading to demand proof for an assertion that I never made.
No, it isn’t

Then I guess civil discussion between us is impossible. Let me know if you change your mind and are willing to engage discussion without using me as a straw man.

You asked me about my beliefs and about what the LDS church teaches about certain things and I told you.

I really could not care less if you are convinced. I never set out to convince you. I was explaining my own point of view to you. I don’t need to prove my own personal experiences to you in order to justify continuing to believe what I believe.

No, it isn’t, because the point is if the Catholic Church wasn’t officially teaching something, then it doesn’t matter if individual Catholics believed a false teaching (well, it matters, but not for this argument).

Thank you for acknowledging that it matters for something. As for “this argument”, we haven’t ever been on the same argument. You’re arguing as if I were trying to prove LDS doctrine whereas I’m simply explaining them.

And speaking for Catholics, as I already mentioned, the matter was already clarified by the Catholic Church centuries before the Book of Mormon.

I’d love to see those century old sources you refer to.

Anyway the folks JS was preaching to were not on the whole Catholics, so the usefulness of those BoM teachings would not be precluded by agreeing Vatican documents, if indeed you can produce any.

 

[TexanKnight]

Then I guess civil discussion between us is impossible. Let me know if you change your mind and are willing to engage discussion without using me as a straw man.

Translation:

Sabacthani: Then, since I can’t provide the evidence, I will act like you do not wish to discuss and stop getting overwhelmed by your posts.