Mormons to build temple in Rome

[Prodigal_Son1]

Did I say he would not be with you? No.

Because the Catholic church lost is authority and doctrines does not mean that Jesus was not with those who loved him.

Big difference.

Christ was like the wise man who built his house upon rock, I’m sure you know the parable, if not let me know and I’ll post it for you. Christ did not start a Church for the purposes of sharing the good news to those who did not know Him and abandon them for 1800 years because of the works of men.

Catholics believe He protected His Church from the actions of men. His teachings instructed people to follow the authority and warned about the actions of men within that authority. In other words, listen and do what they teach, because those teachings can be protected by God, but avoid doing as they do for they say and do not.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

I’ll agree you technically did not say he would not be with those who love Him, however, you continue however to say the Church lost it’s authority when Christ stated the worst of the worst, much less the actions of men, would not prevail against it.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Through His teachings we were shown Christ built His Church to last, even until the consummation of the world. Why would Christ have told people to take their disputes to the Church if He knew His Church would be absent from the world for 1800 years?

Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

God had/has a plan for His Church. To doubt the Church is to doubt God’s power and ability to keep His word. Catholics believe that through the Holy Spirit, the Church is protected from the acts of men, until the consummation of the world.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
Joh 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Joh 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
Joh 15:27 And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.

Joh 16:7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you.

As we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ONE God, we believe God knows all things and knew enough how to build a Church and protect it from the acts of men, gates of hell or any false accusations against it.

Through God’s infinite power, why didn’t He leave proof of this apostasy, so great as to cause His Church to lose all authority? You have claimed the Church ‘covered it up’, yet you accept the Bible, canonized by the Church centuries after the great apostasy supposedly took place. You claiming the Church ‘covered it up’ is the same as saying the acts of men or the gates of hell prevailed, not only against the Church but also against the power of God itself.

You believe God could protect the Bible through the ages but could not protect evidence of a great apostasy, so great as to cause His Church to lose authority, in order to reveal ‘truth’?

 

[mfbukowski]

I’ll agree you technically did not say he would not be with those who love Him, however, you continue however to say the Church lost it’s authority when Christ stated the worst of the worst, much less the actions of men, would not prevail against it.

As we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ONE God, we believe God knows all things and knew enough how to build a Church and protect it from the acts of men, gates of hell or any false accusations against it.

Through God’s infinite power, why didn’t He leave proof of this apostasy, so great as to cause His Church to lose all authority? You have claimed the Church ‘covered it up’, yet you accept the Bible, canonized by the Church centuries after the great apostasy supposedly took place. You claiming the Church ‘covered it up’ is the same as saying the acts of men or the gates of hell prevailed, not only against the Church but also against the power of God itself.

You believe God could protect the Bible through the ages but could not protect evidence of a great apostasy, so great as to cause His Church to lose authority, in order to reveal ‘truth’?

I think you “doth protest too much”

You are obsessed with this apostasy question, which as you know we debated back and forth for a total thread length of over 900 posts, all ending and being removed largely due to your lack of charity.

You are so obessed with this question, you must believe it yourself and must go back over it again and again to try to convince yourself it is not true.

As I have said before many many times, I cannot “prove” an apostasy. You cannot “prove” there was no apostasy. It is a matter of interpretation of a very very long and emotionally charged history. To me, there is no question that it happened. To you, at least by what you say here, there is no question that it did not. We disagree. Surprise Surprise.

This thread is about a temple in Rome, and I am not interested in dealing with your doctrinal obsessions.

As I have shown you before, the “gates of hell”(hades, or the spirit world) prophecy does not have to do with authority in the Catholic church, but with Jesus “descending into hell” (as per mormon doctrine, which agrees with your Apostles Creed). The prophecy says that the church would have the keys to preaching to the dead, as in fact Jesus did, and the gates of hell did not stop Jesus or the church from doing so.

We have the “keys” to the “gates of hell”, (hades) so those gates cannot prevail against us.

The gates of hell did not prevail against the effort to open them to the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what the prophecy means.

You disagree, which is your right.

I won’t discuss the apostasy further with you. 900 posts is enough.

Concerning the bible, you also misrepresnt my position. Somewhere back in ancient history, you decided I believed the bible is “inerrant”. I never said that, nor do I believe that.

Somescribes and later, monks, preserved some ancient manuscripts, re-copying them perhaps correctly perhaps not, which manuscripts at a council in the 4th or 5th century, I can look it up, but don’t feel like it-- Hippo? anyway, the council then essential picked and chose which they thought were correct, and now we have these writings as the “bible”.

I certainly would not call them “inerrant.”

If that is “the catholic church preseving the bible” then so be it. When you state it like that, it sounds as if you mean that on some high altar locked in a box was this thing “the bible” which “the catholic church” in its wisdom, preseved and kept inerrant, for all ages to follow.

Obviously, this is not how it was.

I think that many ancient scriptures were lost in the process, and many meanings altered in what we have, through mistranslation, mistake, or downright deliberate alteration.

Nevertheless, I do treasure the bible as scripture, inso far as it is correct. I will also say that I have found NO discrepancies between what is in the bible and Mormon doctrine. But if there is a discrepancy, I would pick modern revelation above what appears to be “biblical” every time.

I’ve grown very tired of responding over and over to you, and I have done so only for the others on this thread. I know you will come back with more distortions of what I have posted to try to bait me into reply. You are a master at that. Put the two words together and figure it out.

 

[ronald_g_w]

I don’t know how you could honestly think Mormons are looking for converts here when the tone is so hostile to Mormons.

The only reason I come here is to defend the church and participate in attempting to not allow the lies and distortions get too far out of hand.

There is practically no possibility of anyone getting converted to Mormonism in this climate of venom and hate.

What I find fasinating is that you can tell in most cases who is M and who is C just by the way they answer, from that alone one can see who is being guide by the Holy Ghost and is trying to live a Christ like life, by the FRIUT

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you “doth protest too much”

You are obsessed with this apostasy question, which as you know we debated back and forth for a total thread length of over 900 posts, all ending and being removed largely due to your lack of charity.

I seem to remember some Mormon lack of charity on that particular thread, or do you forget telling everyone they needed to beware of ‘satan’ when referring to me, because I had posted information I found on the Mormon temple ceremony since you were prohibited from answering my questions about it. Being prohibited from speaking about it brings about another question. Is there a Mormon ‘magisterium’ that does not allow you to share your faith fully? Seems you’ve more than once asserted Catholics cannot think for themselves because of the magisterium, yet you are limited on what you can do, why is that?

You are so obessed with this question, you must believe it yourself and must go back over it again and again to try to convince yourself it is not true.

As I have said before many many times, I cannot “prove” an apostasy. You cannot “prove” there was no apostasy. It is a matter of interpretation of a very very long and emotionally charged history. To me, there is no question that it happened. To you, at least by what you say here, there is no question that it did not. We disagree. Surprise Surprise.

This thread is about a temple in Rome, and I am not interested in dealing with your doctrinal obsessions.

I was merely addressing your assertion that the Catholic Church lost it’s authority and doctrines, if that wasn’t through the ‘great apostasy’ please explain how such a thing occured. If you do not wish to discuss everything, maybe you should re-consider what you say in your posts.

As I have shown you before, the “gates of hell”(hades, or the spirit world) prophecy does not have to do with authority in the Catholic church, but with Jesus “descending into hell” (as per mormon doctrine, which agrees with your Apostles Creed). The prophecy says that the church would have the keys to preaching to the dead, as in fact Jesus did, and the gates of hell did not stop Jesus or the church from doing so.

We have the “keys” to the “gates of hell”, (hades) so those gates cannot prevail against us.

The gates of hell did not prevail against the effort to open them to the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what the prophecy means.

The scriptures addressing ‘keys’, that I provided, stated, ‘…keys to the kingdom of heaven…’

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

You disagree, which is your right.

I won’t discuss the apostasy further with you. 900 posts is enough.

I’ve addressed this point above.

Concerning the bible, you also misrepresnt my position. Somewhere back in ancient history, you decided I believed the bible is “inerrant”. I never said that, nor do I believe that.

Somescribes and later, monks, preserved some ancient manuscripts, re-copying them perhaps correctly perhaps not, which manuscripts at a council in the 4th or 5th century, I can look it up, but don’t feel like it-- Hippo? anyway, the council then essential picked and chose which they thought were correct, and now we have these writings as the “bible”.

I certainly would not call them “inerrant.”

If that is “the catholic church preseving the bible” then so be it. When you state it like that, it sounds as if you mean that on some high altar locked in a box was this thing “the bible” which “the catholic church” in its wisdom, preseved and kept inerrant, for all ages to follow.

Obviously, this is not how it was.

I think that many ancient scriptures were lost in the process, and many meanings altered in what we have, through mistranslation, mistake, or downright deliberate alteration.

Nevertheless, I do treasure the bible as scripture, inso far as it is correct. I will also say that I have found NO discrepancies between what is in the bible and Mormon doctrine. But if there is a discrepancy, I would pick modern revelation above what appears to be “biblical” every time.

I’ve grown very tired of responding over and over to you, and I have done so only for the others on this thread. I know you will come back with more distortions of what I have posted to try to bait me into reply. You are a master at that. Put the two words together and figure it out.

You find the Bible to be ‘errant’ but with over 4000 changes to the Book of Mormon I have to ask, do you feel the same about that?

How do Mormons decide what is inerrant in the Bible and what is not?

I will not distort what you say…you don’t need my help.

 

[ronald_g_w]

That is because people are learning more and more about what Mormonism really is (thanks largely to the internet). Mormonism is evil, and as people learn about it and discourse with Mormons like you they naturally become more anti-Mormon.

If one was to learn about a particular religion from the internet and the lies and misquotes then there is no hope for any one and satan wins, IF ONE IS A SINCERE SEAKER AFTER TRUTH THEN MY SUJESTION IS TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE CHURCH THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AND LEARN FROM THOSE WHO LIVE THEIR RELIGION THEN MAKE IT A MATTER OF PRAYER BETWEEN YOURSELF AND GOD. This is no forum to learn the truth.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Or those Mormons who build lavish temples in countries where 90% of the population is destitute. What an awful thing to do. Give me a break. .

Why don’t you tell us what else “those Mormons” do to help the destitute in those countries and give the Mormons a break !

 

[majick275]

If one was to learn about a particular religion from the internet and the lies and misquotes then there is no hope for any one and satan wins, IF ONE IS A SINCERE SEAKER AFTER TRUTH THEN MY SUJESTION IS TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE CHURCH THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AND LEARN FROM THOSE WHO LIVE THEIR RELIGION THEN MAKE IT A MATTER OF PRAYER BETWEEN YOURSELF AND GOD. This is no forum to learn the truth.

so you believe that this works with scientology, branch davidians, falun gong, moonies, etc?

This is ridiculous. deceitful groups are never going to be forthright when they are “recruiting”. Rarely does God just tell you what church to go. While prayer is an important component (as is bible study and i would even say a study of history) common sense shouldn’t be ruled out either. Mormonism can’t really stand up to any of these so they tell you should just pray about it and then tell you that whatever response you believe you received is “proof” that you should convert. that they have so much invested in that religion (if they have been living it fully) is a very compelling motivation to just keep believing and hope it’s true. they try to condition themselves and each other to that with their constant testimony bearing. specifically the repetition that they KNOW it’s true.

I wonder how many of the LDS “missionaries” here are going to take their leaders advice from this past General Conference and “keep to the high ground” by just ignoring opposing viewpoints and refusing to engage in debates over religion…after all…here be cactus

 

[RebeccaJ]

If one was to learn about a particular religion from the internet and the lies and misquotes then there is no hope for any one and satan wins, IF ONE IS A SINCERE SEAKER AFTER TRUTH THEN MY SUJESTION IS TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE CHURCH THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AND LEARN FROM THOSE WHO LIVE THEIR RELIGION THEN MAKE IT A MATTER OF PRAYER BETWEEN YOURSELF AND GOD. This is no forum to learn the truth.

Yes, isolate yourself, that is how mormons work. Don’t talk to anyone else but mormons. Pray and the mormons will be there to interpret for you what our own feelings mean. But never, under any circumstance, seek an opinion outside of mormonism.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Catholics work from apostolic succession with no 1800 year gaps in between. A lasting priesthood through the one true Church created by Christ and protected by Christ through His promises. .

You have NO apostolic succession, you claim other priesthood offices but NO Apostles, and if the office of an Apostle is no longer necessary why once again did they call other Apostles ??? when the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets …Eph 2:20

 

[PaulDupre]

You have NO apostolic succession, you claim other priesthood offices but NO Apostles, and if the office of an Apostle is no longer necessary why once again did they call other Apostles ??? when the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets …Eph 2:20

Have you ever built a house? You only lay the foundation once, then the rest of the house is built upon it.

The Mormons would have the walls and roof of their house built of foundation stones. That house will be top-heavy and crash to the ground.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have NO apostolic succession, you claim other priesthood offices but NO Apostles, and if the office of an Apostle is no longer necessary why once again did they call other Apostles ??? when the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets …Eph 2:20

Your argument is semantics.

Succession from the Apostles is called apostolic succession.

Disciples were students of Christ, with the original 12 becoming Apostles, as chosen by Christ.

The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, can show succession back to St. Peter.

If I’m missing your point, I apologize.

In light of your earlier post, may I ask if you came here to learn about Catholicism?

 

[ronald_g_w]

If you have problems with changing doctrines/teachings, then the Mormon church is certainly not the right place for you! Don’t let feelings get in the way of objectively studying LDS history. Shall I name a few changes?

Blacks in the priesthood
Polygamy
Adam as God
God was once a man with a god above Him
Endless numbers of gods
Catholic Church as the ‘great and abominable church’
Black race as the curse of Cain
Abortion
Contraception
Lamanites as the principal ancestors of Native Americans
Book of Mormon geography
Joseph’s First Vision

Just going to take one of the above and help you out a little
Adam as God ??
LDS = and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, can show succession back to St. Peter.

Great stuff.

With all those anti-popes, how do we know the good guy won the battle?

How did Peter know Jesus was the Christ?
Why will no one answer that question?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Great stuff.

With all those anti-popes, how do we know the good guy won the battle?

How did Peter know Jesus was the Christ?
Why will no one answer that question?

I’m going to overlook your ad hominem comment about anti-popes.

We know the good guy won the battle, because the Catholic Church is still here and the good guy, Jesus Christ promised not even the gates of hell would prevail.

It’s been shown to you.

Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Of course that’s from the Bible and Catholics believe it to be inerrant, but at least it shows you why Catholics believe St. Peter knew Jesus was the Christ.

BTW, did you decide not to respond to my post #140, or is it you just do not have any answers?

 

[ronald_g_w]

QUOTE=PaulDupre;4270016]As for “direct revelation”, Mormon style:

I recall an extraordinarily pretty and charming young woman I met and became friendly with at BYU in 1976. She once told me that many young Mormon men (mostly returned missionaries) had announced to her that they each had had a “revelation” that he and she had “made a covenant in the pre-existence” to meet and marry here on earth. This pre-mortal covenant-making is a popular romantic notion among the LDS. The young lady wryly remarked that either these young men were deluding themselves or she had been a shameless hussy in the pre-existence.

Good pick up line

The point is that among true-believing Mormons revelations are a dime a dozen. They all have them and they are just self-serving wishful thinking.

I beg to differ especially when they come at inconvenient times in ones life and some times is not what you would want so I do not see how this can be self-serving or wishful thinking.

 

[chewchoo]

Great stuff.

With all those anti-popes, how do we know the good guy won the battle?

How did Peter know Jesus was the Christ?
Why will no one answer that question?

how do you know your prophets are prophets?

 

[ronald_g_w]

QUOTE=majick275;4272558]Rarely does God just tell you what church to go. While prayer is an important component (as is bible study and i would even say a study of history) common sense shouldn’t be ruled out either. Mormonism can’t really stand up to any of these so they tell you should just pray about it and then tell you that whatever response you believe you received is “proof” that you should convert. that they have so much invested in that religion (if they have been living it fully) is a very compelling motivation to just keep believing and hope it’s true. they try to condition themselves and each other to that with their constant testimony bearing. specifically the repetition that they KNOW it’s true.

Do you know what is so very sad is that mankind has so little faith in God to recieve revelation that they may know as Peter knew as Abraham knew the things of God and then they mock those who claim they KNOW, Noah must of looked like a lost soul to the people of his time saying that he knew the rains were comming The way I see it is that if the Holy Ghost bears witness to the things of God, that witness is stronger and of more force than actually physically being there or touching it.
Having said that, it was upon the ROCK of REVELATION that Jesus Christ built his Church and not on the back of a man. I am not saying that Peter was not the senior Apostle or that he was not given the keys of the kingdom, for that was his calling.

I

wonder how many of the LDS “missionaries” here are going to take their leaders advice from this past General Conference and “keep to the high ground” by just ignoring opposing viewpoints and refusing to engage in debates over religion…after all…here be cactus

Debates like this are fruitless and I can see their point.

 

[mfbukowski]

I’m going to overlook your ad hominem comment about anti-popes.

We know the good guy won the battle, because the Catholic Church is still here and the good guy, Jesus Christ promised not even the gates of hell would prevail.

It’s been shown to you.

Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Of course that’s from the Bible and Catholics believe it to be inerrant, but at least it shows you why Catholics believe St. Peter knew Jesus was the Christ.

BTW, did you decide not to respond to my post #140, or is it you just do not have any answers?

Ad hominem comment about the popes? And what was that?

“but at least it shows you why Catholics BELIEVE St. Peter KNEW Jesus was the Christ.”

I am very sorry that you cannot come up with a stronger answer than this. And how do you know that Jesus is the Christ?

I suppose because the church told you too.

And how do you know the bible and the church are true?

Post 140 contains nothing I have not responded to many many times before. There’s nothing there.

 

[mfbukowski]

Do you know what is so very sad is that mankind has so little faith in God to recieve revelation that they may know as Peter knew as Abraham knew the things of God and then they mock those who claim they KNOW, Noah must of looked like a lost soul to the people of his time saying that he knew the rains were comming The way I see it is that if the Holy Ghost bears witness to the things of God, that witness is stronger and of more force than actually physically being there or touching it.
Having said that, it was upon the ROCK of REVELATION that Jesus Christ built his Church and not on the back of a man. I am not saying that Peter was not the senior Apostle or that he was not given the keys of the kingdom, for that was his calling.

I

Excellent point about Abraham.

Can you imagine receiving a revelation to kill your only son who God had promised would be born under miraculous circumstances? To KNOW with that degree of certainty that you would actually pack him up, put him on the altar, and be ready to kill him— and THEN be stopped from going through with it.

These folks often mock the testimony experience as being “the warm fuzzies”.

I think what both Peter and Abraham experienced were a bit different than what could be described as the “warm fuzzies” and we who have experienced it KNOW.

But you are trying to explain it to people who have never experienced it.

It is like trying to describe the color red to a blind man.

You might say that red was “warm”. Well it sort of is.

But it does not come close to capturing the experience.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

With all those anti-popes, how do we know the good guy won the battle?

Mt. 16:18.

mfbukowski:

How did Peter know Jesus was the Christ?
Why will no one answer that question?

Mt. 16:15-17.

Peace,
-Robert