Mormons Building Temple in Vatican's Backyard

[flyonthewall]

How do you know that the proper priesthood authority was lost as the death of the last Apostle? Matt 28:18-20 “Then Jesus approached and said the them, All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

1. Are you saying that the apostles didn’t go out and preach and baptize?
2. Where was the Holy Spirit during this time? The HS was still with the people or not?
   3… Do Mormons baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit?

1. I am sure the Apostles went out and preached and baptized.
2. The Holy Spirit was with the Apostles and those that believed on them.
3. This is the baptismal prayer we say: We call them by name, saying:
   Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

John the Baptist did not pass on priesthood authority in the New Testament! He baptized people, including Jesus, but he did not pass on priesthood authority - where did you get this from?

John’s role was to preach repentance and baptize, not to organize and set up…that was what Jesus was to do.

Aaronic Priesthood:
Numbers 3:10 - But only Aaron and his descendants shall you appoint to to have charge of the priestly functions. Any layman who comes near shall be put to death.
Are all Mormon males related to Aaron?

As I stated before, the Aaronic priesthood was given to officiate in the things of the Law of Moses. When the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so to did the priesthood change.
And no, we do not claim we are all related to Aaron.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Was Jesus once a man?

No.

Do not attempt to adjust your monitor.

“Was Jesus once a man?” That question implies that Jesus has ceased to be a man. He was, and still is, fully human. Thus the answer is no.

For Mormonism, humanity is this rotten thing to be escaped from. Jesus didn’t think so. He became man so that man could become like God while remaining man–not so that man could cease to be man and become gods.

Is Theosis or Diefication and Exaltation the same thing? No,

I appreciate your honesty.

but there are a whole host of similarities. … The Catechism states something that sounds almost identical, in 460, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

Without ceasing to be man and without becoming gods ourselves.

This topic is one worth spending weeks studying before one is able to distinguishing competently the real differences between the LDS perspective and the Catholic. The Orthodox have focused on this doctrine for centuries and they would be a good place to start studying it. It is a great topic.

You could start by studying astrophysics. Like E=mc[sup]2[/sup] It takes an almighty God to create ex nihilo, i.e. The Big Bang, and if God had a body before that, it would not be an ex nihilo creation.

The LDS view of God, being polytheistic and non-spiritual, doesn’t stand up to scientic scrutiny.

 

[flyonthewall]

A Protestant does not baptize for the Catholic Church, but their baptism can be accepted as valid and negate the need for a baptism when they join the Catholic Church. If a Mormon joins then they must be rebaptized. Though the words of their baptism, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” meets the Catholic standard, it is thought that the Mormon understanding of God is so drastically different that their belief makes the baptism worthless or as if it was not done because proper belief was not present. Make sense?

I follow what you say, and am trying to understand the big picture.
I am trying to see if proper authority is required to perform baptism or if it only depends on the faith of the one being baptized. So far it seems that the proper authority is not required.

I have no problem with having to be re-baptized into the faith of another religion, but it is the concept of a Protestant baptism being valid for Catholics, that just doesn’t make sense…if there is a claim that priesthood authority is required to perform sacraments.

So far, if I am following correctly, baptism and marriage are sacraments that either need no authority to preform, or the authority is given to all…except to lds and a few others.

 

[RebeccaJ]

After is all said and done, you do make this a fun place to be. What can I say, you make me chuckle out loud.

…and it is all about what you feel.

 

[ParkerD]

JeanMichel,
The only reason I am responding to your last comment addressed to me, is that your comment said I was dealing with “Catholics as a group”, whereas here was my comment to another post:

“As to your point C, I have yet to find a Catholic who has a very deep knowledge of the Bible, at least on this forum. It is always surface level, yielding brief explanations that don’t hold up to close examination when the issues of translation and multiple cross-references (including use of the Old Testament) are brought up. I’ve done that many times on this forum, with the same result time after time.”

I doubt that the scholars studying the Dead Sea scrolls are participating on this forum, particularly on threads dealing with the Mormon church. I don’t know those scholars’ works, so I haven’t “found them”, nor have I interacted with them.

I chose the words I used with a specific group in mind that was perhaps twenty to thirty people with whom I have interacted on this forum dealing with the topics I mentioned to you and other Biblical topics that compare the Mormon church beliefs with the Catholic church beliefs; I showed the Biblical basis of the Mormon church beliefs and in some cases explained translation issues that bring greater clarity to some misunderstood verses.

 

[lax16]

John the Baptist was under the direction of Peter, James and John to bestow the keys of the Aaronic priesthood. John the Baptist’s role in the Bible was to prepare the way of the Lord. The Aaronic priesthood is the same priesthood as the Melchizedek, just different a different level of responsibility or in other words the Aaronic is a subset of the Melchizedek.

Please explain where you find the definitions of Aaronic priesthood and Melchizedek as being the same?

1. Jesus Christ could not hold the Aaronic priesthood because was not of the Levitical lineage of Aaron
2. Only one priesthood authority exists in power at one time, according to the Bible
3. The Melchizedek priesthood can not be transferred
4. Only Jesus fulfilled the qualifications to become a member of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:26) - not John the Baptist, Peter, James or John - so how can they pass it on?
5. Hebrews 7:15-19 tells us that Jesus did not exercise a priesthood authority from family lineage, but through his immortal existence, fulfilling the prophecy in Psalms 110:4. He abolished forever the levitical priesthood and the law that is served.
6. Why didn’t Jesus command the apostles to ordain/baptize according to these priesthoods - instead of in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
7. Why would Jesus wait 1500+ years to do this? Other than to make JS a prophet, it would not serve anyone to do it this way.

The Aaronic priesthood is not a different priesthood than the Melchizedek, but simply a lesser version of it. As you know, the Lord wanted to give more to the Israelites but they would/could not receive it, so instead, the Lord gave a prepatory law to them…the Law of Moses. Under the Law of Moses, the fullness of the gospel was not there so the priesthood given to Aaron and sons was just enough to officiate in the ordinances of the Law of Moses.

I am searching my bible but can’t find this - please provide scriptural references.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. Things changed at that point. Remember that the gospel was not to be taken to the gentiles either but that was changed. Dietary laws changed, the law of circumcision changed, just to name a few.

The Melchizedek priesthood is what Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles…it is the keys of the kingdom, the power to seal on earh and in heaven.

Where did you get that from?
Jesus never mentioned the words Melchizedek priesthood to the Apostles.
He said baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Simply put, the Aaronic priesthood is prepatory to the Melchizedek priesthood. The youth are prepared with a few responsibilities to be ready to take on larger responsibilities of the Higher priesthood.
It is the Aaronic priesthood that was restored, how it is excercised changed after it was restored. I do not know exactly when the youth were incorporated into the Aaronic priesthood but why exactly would it matter? There were prophets called as youth in the OT.

No, only those who were the descendants of Aaron are to be in the Aaronic priesthood. It was not prepatory - where do you get this from?
It matters a lot - Mormons say that they are the only ones who have priesthood authority, however, no where did anyone, ever, give priesthood authority to boys…If so, please cite your sources.
You see, if the Mormons are the ultimate authority on priesthood then it should be spelled out for the whole world to see. Not just a vision (that changed repeatedly) by a man who says he and a friend received.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood. One can hold the priesthood without the holding the keys. It is the keys that is the proper authority, which can be delegated to those without the keys.
This is how the Apostles can call a leader of a congregation, that has all the authority to lead that congregation but not the entire church.

Says who?

These are our beliefs, and I understand that you will not agree with them, and may generate more questions, which I would be happy to answer to the best of my ability.

Remember, **claiming to have the sole priesthood authority on the earth **means that we all must follow the LDS teaching on the matter.
If we were to take away JS claim that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John appeared to him how would we know that any of what you are saying is accurate?
When do we only rely on the changing testimony of a person seeing a vision?
How can we cross-reference Joseph Smith’s claim?

 

[flyonthewall]

No.

Do not attempt to adjust your monitor.

“Was Jesus once a man?” That question implies that Jesus has ceased to be a man. He was, and still is, fully human. Thus the answer is no.

For Mormonism, humanity is this rotten thing to be escaped from. Jesus didn’t think so. He became man so that man could become like God while remaining man–not so that man could cease to be man and become gods.

Ah but you are wrong here. For the LDS, God and man are both human, so humanity is not what we need to escape from, but what we need to perfect.

I appreciate your honesty.

Without ceasing to be man and without becoming gods ourselves.

You could start by studying astrophysics. Like E=mc[sup]2[/sup] It takes an almighty God to create ex nihilo, i.e. The Big Bang, and if God had a body before that, it would not be an ex nihilo creation.

The LDS view of God, being polytheistic and non-spiritual, doesn’t stand up to scientic scrutiny.

Jesus is the one that stated we can be one with the Father and Son even as the Father and Son are one. Now what exactly happens when one person becomes one with the “Triune” God as Jesus describes? Does God then become the “quadrune” God? If they are one even as the Father and Son are one, doesn’t that add another personage to that unity?
Everything that I have heard about the “monotheistic” Trinity does not allow the type of unity that Jesus describes.

 

[lax16]

1. I am sure the Apostles went out and preached and baptized.

Then priesthood authority was not lost. Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit and they did. So…they did not drop the ball.

1. The Holy Spirit was with the Apostles and those that believed on them.

If the Holy Spirit was with the Apostles and those they baptized, then the Church continued. The Apostles went out and baptized thousands! The Holy Spirit was with them all and they built His Church despite problems.

1. This is the baptismal prayer we say: We call them by name, saying:
   Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

But if John the Baptist, Peter, James and John gave Joseph Smith the power to baptize, how did all the rest of Mormon church get the power from Jesus Christ?
They were not from the lineage of Aaron.

John’s role was to preach repentance and baptize, not to organize and set up…that was what Jesus was to do.

Then how and why did he bestow the priesthood authority on Joseph Smith?

As I stated before, the Aaronic priesthood was given to officiate in the things of the Law of Moses. When the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so to did the priesthood change.
And no, we do not claim we are all related to Aaron.

If you are not of Aaronic lineage, the priesthood cannot be given to you. (Numbers 3:10, Hebrews 7:5)
Numbers 18:1 "The Lord said to Aaron, You and your sons as well as the other members of your ancestry house shall be responsible for the sanctuary; but the responsibility of the priesthood shall rest on you and your sons alone…7 But only you and your sons are to have charge of performing the priestly functions in whatever concerns the altar and the room within the veil. I give you the priesthood as a gift. Any layman who draws near shall be put to death.

Who changed the priesthood and when?

 

[KathleenGee]

Flyonthewall,

Remember Satan deceived Eve with the ploy that by taking the forbidden fruit she would become as God.

We shun all pretext that we exalt ourselves to be as gods some day.

The very essence of our souls is spirit, is divine…made in the image of God…Christ restores us in right place with God. We are nurtured with the manna from heaven and enter into Christ’s kingdom, the pearl of great price, that is already here among us. No need to want to become a god…

 

[Cat_Herder]

Ah but you are wrong here. For the LDS, God and man are both human, so humanity is not what we need to escape from, but what we need to perfect.

I am beginning to understand that Mormonism is not polytheistic… But rather atheistic.

So, who created the universe? Not the Kolob star system–the universe.

 

[flyonthewall]

Please explain where you find the definitions of Aaronic priesthood and Melchizedek as being the same?

1. Jesus Christ could not hold the Aaronic priesthood because was not of the Levitical lineage of Aaron
2. Only one priesthood authority exists in power at one time, according to the Bible
3. The Melchizedek priesthood can not be transferred
4. Only Jesus fulfilled the qualifications to become a member of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:26) - not John the Baptist, Peter, James or John - so how can they pass it on?
5. Hebrews 7:15-19 tells us that Jesus did not exercise a priesthood authority from family lineage, but through his immortal existence, fulfilling the prophecy in Psalms 110:4. He abolished forever the levitical priesthood and the law that is served.
6. Why didn’t Jesus command the apostles to ordain/baptize according to these priesthoods - instead of in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
7. Why would Jesus wait 1500+ years to do this? Other than to make JS a prophet, it would not serve anyone to do it this way.

The definitions are found in D&C 107.

1. I do not agree. It was Jehova/Jesus that gave the priesthood to Aaron and sons to begin with.
2. okay
3. Where does it say that?
4. John the Baptist did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood, but Peter James and John did. They can pass it on by ordination and the laying on of hands.
5. The priesthood is the authority from the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and it is in the Name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost that they were to act.
6. The time was not right. There had to be changes in the world that would allow the gospel to thrive and not be squelched.

I am searching my bible but can’t find this - please provide scriptural references.

Exodus 20: 18-19. God wanted to talk to the people directly but they could not handle it. So Moses became the go-between and the Law of Moses came about.

Where did you get that from?
Jesus never mentioned the words Melchizedek priesthood to the Apostles.
He said baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

I get it from the scriptures, Matthew 18:18. The original name of the Priesthood was the “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God”. It was His priesthood as it is His power and authority to give.
Of course…baptize in the name of God, by the power and authority of God.

No, only those who were the descendants of Aaron are to be in the Aaronic priesthood. It was not prepatory - where do you get this from?

It is the priesthood given to administer the Law of Moses, which was prepatory to the gospel of Christ. The decendants of Aaron were given the authority to administer under the Law of Moses, and still have a special place within that priesthood, but as I stated before, at the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, things changed.

It matters a lot - Mormons say that they are the only ones who have priesthood authority, however, no where did anyone, ever, give priesthood authority to boys…If so, please cite your sources.

Samuel comes to mind off the top of my head: 1 Samuel 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli…

You see, if the Mormons are the ultimate authority on priesthood then it should be spelled out for the whole world to see. Not just a vision (that changed repeatedly) by a man who says he and a friend received.

Prophets were always called to preach to everyone, they were often called by a vision. Whether or not people believed them was a different story.

Remember, **claiming to have the sole priesthood authority on the earth **means that we all must follow the LDS teaching on the matter.
If we were to take away JS claim that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John appeared to him how would we know that any of what you are saying is accurate?
When do we only rely on the changing testimony of a person seeing a vision?
How can we cross-reference Joseph Smith’s claim?

You are right in that it does depend on if Joseph Smith was right or wrong.
All throughout the scriptures Prophets were rarely believed…a lot were condemned because they spoke out against the apostacy of the nations. They were villified and and many ended up executed. Why were they not believed at the time? Because their message did not harmonize with the nations were doing…that the nations had it wrong.

 

[LongJourney]

All throughout the scriptures Prophets were rarely believed…a lot were condemned because they spoke out against the apostacy of the nations. They were villified and and many ended up executed. Why were they not believed at the time? Because their message did not harmonize with the nations were doing…that the nations had it wrong.

And do courageous reformers of all cultures sometimes meet this end, or is it just the Jewish prophets of the Old Testament, and Jesus?

We are not talking about men who used religion to sexually exploit naive young women, here.

 

[flyonthewall]

I am beginning to understand that Mormonism is not polytheistic… But rather atheistic.

So, who created the universe? Not the Kolob star system–the universe.

Jesus created the universe under the direction of the Father.

Of course, not only are we not Christian in your eyes, but we don’t even believe in God…I see where you are heading.

 

[flyonthewall]

Then priesthood authority was not lost. Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit and they did. So…they did not drop the ball.

Preaching the gospel and baptizing is not the same as ordaining to the priesthood. And as I had stated before, one can receive the priesthood, without the keys of the priesthood.

If the Holy Spirit was with the Apostles and those they baptized, then the Church continued. The Apostles went out and baptized thousands! The Holy Spirit was with them all and they built His Church despite problems.

See above

But if John the Baptist, Peter, James and John gave Joseph Smith the power to baptize, how did all the rest of Mormon church get the power from Jesus Christ?
They were not from the lineage of Aaron.

It was only Johng the Baptist that gave the authority to baptize, Peter, James and John, gave the authority of presidency and to officiate in all offices of the church.

Then how and why did he bestow the priesthood authority on Joseph Smith?

It was bestowed by a calling from God and the laying on of hand by those who had the authority.

If you are not of Aaronic lineage, the priesthood cannot be given to you. (Numbers 3:10, Hebrews 7:5)
Numbers 18:1 "The Lord said to Aaron, You and your sons as well as the other members of your ancestry house shall be responsible for the sanctuary; but the responsibility of the priesthood shall rest on you and your sons alone…7 But only you and your sons are to have charge of performing the priestly functions in whatever concerns the altar and the room within the veil. I give you the priesthood as a gift. Any layman who draws near shall be put to death.

Who changed the priesthood and when?

I have stated before, that when the Law of Moses was fulfilled things changed. As stated in Hebrews 7, the Aaronic priesthood was not sufficient to lead the Church under Christ, and just as the law changed so to did the priesthood.

 

[ParkerD]

Flyonthewall,

Remember Satan deceived Eve with the ploy that by taking the forbidden fruit she would become as God.

No need to want to become a god…

KathleenGee,
This is an example of the surface Bible reading I had talked about earlier. Eve doesn’t say anything about “wanting to become as God”. Satan did. So if you believe Satan, then you have been deceived. That is what he wanted–to deceive.

Eve wanted “to be wise”. That is not the same thing as “wanting to become as God.” If one reads the text of Genesis, then it is clear what Eve wanted.

The desire to become like Christ is what was taught by John and by Christ Himself, so to say “no need” for that is to say that neither Christ nor John knew what they were talking about.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker

I am quoting the universal catechism and there are no errors in it, otherwise if it did not accord with Scripture the quote about being like God and the reference to the quote would not have been used.

Gen3:4-5. "But the serpent said to the woman, ‘No you shall not die; for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’. This is quoted from my parents’ Catholic bible, 1955…I have read it in the other Bibles Catholics have used, and the Catholic Church is the one that compiled our Bible.

God is the source of all wisdom. The sin of being like God, as I shared with you on another post, is people thinking themselves as god…there is a billionaire already seeing himself as one who is manipulating alot of the economic and political events of our country, the taking of innocent human life—abortion and euthanasia and genocide…man thinking he does not need God.

You cannot say the forbidden fruit is wisdom. Wisdom is good and not forbidden.

It is through Jesus Christ and our daily walk and growth in Him that we are restored to divine life with Him.

God is not the author of confusion and division and error but the One who calls us to greater unity with Him and each other. He provides for all our wants, including Christ’s Church. It has survived scandal and annihilation and it will continue on until Christ gives us a new heaven and a new earth.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus created the universe under the direction of the Father.

No problem there—EXCEPT that the LDS Church insists that the Father had a body of flesh and bones BEFORE the Universe was created. Science says the Universe was created from nothing: no material things, and not even time, existed before the creation.

So either Jesus crunched His Father’s body into a singularity while creating the Universe, or the LDS Church is wrong and the Father has no body. I’m going with the latter, especially since all of the new science is pointing towards an open rather than an oscillating universe, proving that there was no Father’s-body-crunching Big Crunch before the Big Bang.

This is one of the key things that distinguishes Catholicism from all other Christian and pseudo-Christian denominations… science. Specifically, the ability to reconcile faith and reason. The LDS Church has no explanation for how the Universe was actually created and many Protestants hold to an unscientific “young Earth” due to their “literal” biblical interpretation techniques (which techniques, of course, inexplicably do not extend to the words “This is My Body.”)

 

[Cat_Herder]

KathleenGee,
This is an example of the surface Bible reading I had talked about earlier. Eve doesn’t say anything about “wanting to become as God”. Satan did. So if you believe Satan, then you have been deceived. That is what he wanted–to deceive.

Kathleen did not say that Eve said anything about wanting deification.

Eve wanted “to be wise”. That is not the same thing as “wanting to become as God.” If one reads the text of Genesis, then it is clear what Eve wanted.

Eve did not express any sort of desire for anything except to eat a yummy fruit.

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:1-11[/BIBLEDRB]

It is clear that you are engaging in eisegesis.

 

[catholic-rcia]

This post is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your kind words. I do acknowledge that things have gotten better on this thread, but if you mention “love” to much you become accused of “singing Kumba Ya”, etc. I don’t think love is the action of choice here. Regardless, as you say, there is nothing to fear because there is only God. When even the highest Mormon leadership has attended the SLC Cathedral and Mormons and Catholics seem to have done many great works together in Utah without any loss to the Catholic Church, why do discussions here take such a bitter approach?

I have asked myself this question over and over again. My bitterness comes from the fact that the LDS have built there own faith on the so called fall of Christianity. I as a Catholic find my own faith as one fallen yet found to be alive in Christ because of this fall. We are here because of the fall of mankind. When another faith claims its victory because of the fall of the catholic faith it just plain hurts. Especially when you have come to know Christ because of this church, through this faith. We are not the Catholic Church because of the fall of another church, rather we are a Church who has become saved by Christ becauae we are all fallen.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I have asked myself this question over and over again. My bitterness comes from the fact that the LDS have built there own faith on the so called fall of Christianity.

Remember that the Muslims and the Baha’i also claim the same thing.

Bitterness is not the proper response, though. Charitably engaging them and reproving them is.