P
PaulDupre
Guest
AKA “it feels so right - it can’t be wrong”.
Young lovers in parked cars have used that same line of thinking for generations.
- Status
Young lovers in parked cars have used that same line of thinking for generations.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I do not mind at all, Steve Peter! and i chose Michael as my confirmation name, as i rather like the sound of it.
Do you think that something that is purposefully done in disobedience to God is an act of prideful rebellion?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, that is a good question. It reminds me of the Dead Sea Scrolls. About 50 years ago, a well-preserved, complete copy of the book of Isaiah was found near the Dead Sea in in Israel. This ancient manuscript is nearly word-for-word identical to the words of Isaiah we have in our Bibles today. It was penned about 125 years before Jesus was even born, yet it had exact predictions of His life, death and resurrection.seems to me Mormonism and the BOM depend on the translation of Joseph Smith of the solid gold plates of Nephi. Where are these plates? Mormonism isn’t that old. It’s an American religion, started in New York. Surely there is a copy of these plates, it’s the foundation of Mormonism.
Is one explanation true, that they’re not here because the angel Moroni took them back to heaven?
Since God saw fit to preserve this witness to the Deity of Jesus Christ and the reliability of the Bible, i wonder why He does not see fit to preserve similar evidence as a witness to the validity of the Book of Mormon.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Paul
Yes, I did. Thanks.
Do you not see that even the Catholic must acknowledge that Peter possessed more authority/ability/charism than the Pope?
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
My point is that this is basic Catholic apologetics. People who are really seeking should engage Catholic apologetist about this argument.Thank you, TOm; it is good to have an expert in Aramaic and Greek to consult!
I’m curious about something, though. You said that Jesus was referring to the the clift of Caesarea Philippi when He said, “… on this petra I will build my church.” Yet, as far as i know, no Christian church or Mormon temple was built at the edge of this precepise.
What, then, was the petra to which the Matthew was referring when he translated Jesus’ words into Greek? I mean, if He meant to say
You are Peter, and on Peter I will build my church.
then why did He not say the following?
You are Petros and on Petros I will build my church.
The reason it is not Petros=Petros is because that would be, “I build upon on unimpressive little stone” AND because it was Kepha=Kepha.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
It used to be canonical that God has his own heavenly father, but today he’s eternally God; it used to be canonical that blacks would not get the priesthood until the Millenium, but today they can since there was a “revelation” giving it to them in 1978.
The point is that in both instances, what was once canonical no longer is.
No, I am unaware of any place that elevated either that God the Father had a father or the priesthood ban to the level I am speaking about.
Also, long before 1978 President David O. McKay said that the priesthood ban was not a doctrinal thing, but a practice (like celibate Priest in the Catholic Church). And since there are ordained black men from Joseph Smith’s time until the early 1900’s, it would seem that President McKay was not alone in this knowledge.
Even things like the Lectures on Faith (which have a lot more to recommend them as important since they were published as scripture at one point in time) do not if I recall meet the criteria offered by President Lee.
Cannonization is the acceptance by common consent and inclusion in our scriptures. Here is what President Harold B. Lee said when he was the president of the church.
Pres. Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
By my understanding, at the highest level of “binding doctrine,” little of those things that folks mention is even present. I do not even think the Lectures on Faith were accepted by common consent by the body of the church (though I may be wrong).
And, at our highest level of sealing something to be true, we have no infallibility doctrine. Instead, we have the teaching that as this is the last dispensation, no issues/errors/… will result in a complete apostasy.
Again, you are free to believe Joseph Smith restored Christ’s church or not, but I think best to weigh the most reasoned position of our church rather than the one critics wish was true because it is easy to knock down.
BTW, NewSeeker, wasn’t it you that was going to provide a Catholic view on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
No.
This is not a belief available to a LDS despite the words of Elder Howe. D&C 93 makes it clear that there is something within our make-up that is eternal, “eternal intelligence.” Most LDS, myself included, believe in “individual eternal intelligences,” but D&C 93 is not specific here.
I have yet to discern if you fancy yourself a philosopher or if you only like asking questions in some form of Socratic-like way. I believe the Catholic Philosopher Michael Almeida has shown that IF God created ex nihilo, then humans do not have “significant freedom.” I believe that it is the eternal nature of this component of our being that enables us to have libertarian free will.
Catholics can be 4.5 point Calvinists, but if I was Catholic this would be a place were reason failed me and I just threw up my hands. Short of direct personal revelation from God, I cannot be near Calvinistic enough to reject libertarian free will.
Charity, TOm
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, maj. TOm, i think i’ve heard that Matthew originally wrote in either Aramaic or Hebrew. Greek was as common in the ancient world as English is in our modern world, and it is not unlikely that Matthew could write in Greek as well as Aramaic and perhaps Hebrew, but this is conjecture. However, i’d be interested in looking at any hard evidence you have to support the idea that Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic.
Regarding Peter’s understanding of the Gospel. I think he at least knew that Jesus said He would be crucified and would rise from the dead. RAR mentioned Matthew 16:18, where Jesus said:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Yet, in the paragraph immediately following these words of Jesus we find this exchange between Peter and our Lord:
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
(Matthew 16:21-23)
From this passage, and others, it is obvious that Jesus repeated time and again to His disciples that He would be crucified and would be resurrected. I don’t think that it is necessary to quote the many passages where He taught this.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
No, the pope possesses everything that Peter and the others of the 12 did except that God will not give the pope and the other bishops public revelation as He gave to the 12. We believe that Jesus and the apostolic eye-witness of him is the culmination of public revelation and there will be no more. Nothing new is needed. What did Jesus not teach us? What is He lacking? Heck, it will take us until the second coming and beyond just to learn to live the truth we’ve been given.
Paul
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I shall add this to the list, East:
Reasons to Reject Mormonism
*]Mormonism is not really a Christian religion.
*]Mormons think they can become gods.
*]There is no linguistic, archaeological or historical support for the Book of Mormon and other LDS documents.
*]Enjoyment of all that the community has to offer you is contingent on you receiving a spiritual witness that the Church is true.
*]They deny almost every line of the Apostle’s Creed.
*]There is no evidence to back up anything that Joseph Smith ever uttered or wrote down.
*]Joseph Smith was likely a conman garnered power and sexual conquest.
*]Racism is the prevalent attitude among Mormons.
*]There are cases in which people who depart from the church lose all their friendships.
*]Mormons require 10% of your money. If you don’t pay them the 10% you aren’t allowed to attend your children’s weddings or any other weddings in the temple.
*]If you don’t pay them their 10% they claim you will not make it into heaven.
*]Mormonism is pseudo-christian if that and it is polytheistic in nature.
*]Mormons warp the bible.
*]The amount of control over your life that you must cede to LDS leaders is great: You are told how and when to serve.
*]Your compliance with LDS rules is monitored and your ability to participate in various functions is affected.
*]There is no accounting for tithing money: It goes to Salt Lake City and is spent without letting members know where it goes.
*]Joseph’s vision seems to be weighted above Jesus’ words. Jesus gave authority to Peter and the Roman Catholic church.
*]The continued revelation is at times historically contradictory.
*]Divorce is encouraged if your partner leaves the LDS faith.
*]Fallibility in doctrinal utterances is not allowed. True prophets cannot utter false doctrine and remain prophets.
*]Brigham Young pronounced many false doctrines.
*]While they oppose most abortions, Mormons don’t believe in the sanctity of life of the unborn.
*]The one, single, only and perfect reason to reject Mormonism: Holy Eucharist.
*]LDS teachings are being disproved by science (for example, DNA evidence shows no Israelite ancestry in Native Americans).
*]They ban alcohol and caffeine.
*]At one time, they taught that men can marry more than one woman.
*]Some Mormons are not nice.
*]Mormonism is extremely ethnocentric.
*]Joseph Smith was a fraud. For example, he received revelations and compiled the Book of Commandments, but they were later changed in the Doctrine and Covenants.
*]Mormons are not allowed to pray to Jesus or to the Holy Ghost, nor are they permitted to worship them.
*]If you are Mormon, none of your non-Mormon family will be allowed to attend your wedding ceremony at the temple.
*]The Mormon church sets your grooming standard and fashion selection.
*]You can confidently claim anything (great apostasy; mark of Cain; plural marriage; eternal progression; baptism of the dead; many gods and goddesses) without worrying about PROVING it.
*]You can “re-translate” your “scripture” (the BoM and other soporific tomes) into “better” English as your theology changes.
*]Every man a priest, every man a god.
*]Women are beholden to menfolk (we Mormons rule planets!)
*]Apparently the belief is that God is fallible.
*]Mormon prophets had difficulties with ancient Egyptian.
*]The Book of Mormon is a fraud, as Native Americans come from Asia, not Israel, and there are no Lamanites.
*]There is not enough focus on Jesus Christ, and far too much focus on the Church being true, the BOM and LDS prophets being “true”.
*]The goal of going to the temple to have your family sealed to you for eternity, and staying worthy enough to be able to do so. These things are emphasized and talked about far more than Jesus Christ is.
]Mormonism puts too much focus on doing things, and even giving charitable donations for purposes of self rather than on simply helping those in need.
]The doctrine that God was once a man just like any other man; who lived on an earth and progressed to Godhood. This is in direct conflict with what God has said of himself. He said he is Eternally God. The Great I AM. He Who Is. Without beginning or end. **
*]You can believe Jesus or you can believe Joseph Smith. The contradiction is too great to believe them both.
*]The Mormon “welfare system” helps only their own.
*]Mormons do not consider the Holy Spirit to be a person, or a member of the Trinity, but an “it”.
*]Confession in the Mormon Church does not seem to be confidential.
*]You don’t have to think for yourself. You simply believe what you are told to, no matter how bizarre it sounds.
*]Its much easier to be a prophet. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t come true, or we can fit events to suit your prophecy (even if they don’t really fit).
*]If it’s wrong you can expect to be worshipping and believing incredibly blasphemous things.
*]The big con is that it’s not true.
*]Mormons believe that God was once like us - fallible, sinful, mortal, and was eventually exalted.
*]Mormonism is human, rather than Divine, in origin. That is, it is a man-made religion.
*]“Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Shown? You mean proven?
What does creation ex nihilo have to do with human freedom of thought, conscience or action?
Paul
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Should you convince me of the truth, i do not think it would matter how many cast their vote for a lie. As Socrates said to his good friend Phaedrus:
If we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we would care much about the opinions of men?
(Phaedrus 274)
I suspect you are not easily offended so here goes. If you are offended, I am sorry.
- Regardless of how affective of an apologist I am, there are those who are better. And if you found the best, if you rely on only him, you do not get to dive into LDS thought sufficiently. You can only be as good as me if you learn solely from me. That is not good enough in my book.
- If I was convinced that this was not some rabbit hole, I would still not have sufficient time to address all the issues that have been offered and could be offered. If you highlight some of your problems, I could recommend books, but thus far you seem to have not acknowledged any book I recommended.
- Being poor at discerning spiritual things, I preface this with the fact that this is perhaps purely an intellectual opinion. I do not believe you are seeking with an open heart or an open mind. When I saw your list unfolding and watched the way you responded, I felt cheated because I got sucked into this thread.
I do believe that if you were to become convinced that the CoJCoLDS was God’s church you would become a LDS. If I became convinced that Reformed Baptists of the James White variety were the true followers of God, I would be a Reformed Baptist; but short of an epiphany on the order of a burning bush or Abraham’s certain knowledge he was to kill Isaac, I cannot fathom I could embrace this. So I could make lists and claim my willingness to follow God, but since James White and indeed no one can produce a burning bush it would still be all up to God. It would be a waste of time from James White to try to convince me that Reformed Baptists held all the answers, but I can still say that if I thought they did I would become one. If I had the slightest indication that Reformed Baptists might hold all the answers I would dig back into The Potter’s Freedom, but unwilling to waste time on this it would be unfair if I were to convinced James White to be my tutor.
So my offer to recommend books based on your issues and my extra thoughts, stands; but I cannot be your LDS genie. If you read a few books perhaps we can discuss your thoughts on them.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
“Everything except” is not everything. That is my point.
I understand the Catholic belief, I just suggest it is a problem.
Many reasons for Roman Primacy were offered in the early church.
First was the dual apostolic foundation of Peter and Paul.
At some places the importance of the city of Rome was offered as a reason for the Church of Rome to be prime.
Ultimately Catholics point to Peter as the reason the Bishop or Rome is prime, but even as the authority of the Bishop of Rome grew (read Rise of the Papacy by Catholic author Eno) never did the Pope become equal to Peter.
God could choose to run his church with Supernatural Public Revelation delivered to Abraham and other Old Testament Prophets. Then run his church with Supernatural Public Revelation delivered to Peter. Then choose to run his church with the charism of infallibility delivered to Bishops of Rome. But to do so would be a departure from the way that God has run His church in the past. I find this more likely than the Protestant view, but less likely that the LDS view.
No, this is not what you believe. Paul was not among the twelve yet he could write scripture and even offer correction (of some value) to Peter. If all that was needed was the 12 eye-witnesses, numerous books in our Bible could have been left out. They were not. Even Paul possessed abilities not claimed by Catholics to exist within the Bishop of Rome.
I do not see how this is not a very powerful argument that at least gets acknowledged by Catholics. The “except” is present and your reasons why are mitigations not corrections or explanations.
Charity, TOm
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I suspect you are a good judge of character, at least in my case, for my skin is as thick as an elephant’s!
T
TOmNossor
Guest
TOmNossor:
Shown? You mean proven?
What does creation ex nihilo have to do with human freedom of thought, conscience or action?
Paul
I do mean proven, at least beyond the ability of anyone I have ever found to refute or show a whole in his logic. (we are at about 5-6 and counting would you like to be #7)
I cannot find a single flaw in his reasoning. Ostler cannot find a flaw in his conclusion (he changes a few words for a reason I do not quite grasp). Almeida knows of nobody who has shown any flaw in his reasoning (I asked him).
I do not do Almeida justice here, but I speak about it a little later on in the thread:
http://www.defensorveritatis.net/?p=861#comments
This is a far more complex problem than the simple ones I offer of Catholics to solve in the thread I linked NewSeeker to, but since I believe REASON is important, I think there needs to be some solution.
I beleive love is a choice. If Almeida is correct AND God created ex nihilo, we do not choose between loving God and not loving God because only one choice is really a possible future for us.
Charity, TOm
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
If by philosopher you mean it in the literal sense, as someone who loves wisdom and pursues her with the same passion that a husband pursues his wife, i’d say, yes, i try to be such a man.
Regarding Joseph Smith, i found this quote attributed to him online:
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens…I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form – like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man…it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see…and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3)
I’m assuming the Journal of Discourses is a sanctioned text of the LDS church, but i’m skeptical as to the accuracy of the quote. If you have access to the Journal of Discourses, will you look up page 3 of volume 6 for me and tell me if Joseph Smith was misquoted?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
The most important reasons to reject Mormonism:
**Reason 17.**Joseph’s vision seems to be weighted above Jesus’ words. Jesus gave authority to Peter and the Roman Catholic church.
Reason 43.
The doctrine that God was once a man just like any other man; who lived on an earth and progressed to Godhood. This is in direct conflict with what God has said of himself. He said he is Eternally God. The Great I AM. He Who Is. Without beginning or end.
Reason 53.
Mormonism is human, rather than Divine, in origin. That is, it is a man-made religion.
**Reason 54. **
“Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
(Matthew 7:22-23)
East:
Why do you believe the words, “Away from me, you evildoers!” apply to Mormons?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I suppose i might ask you, maj. TOm, the same question Mordecai asked Esther:
Who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?
(Esther 4:14)
S
steve_b
Guest
If I understand what you’re asking,Yes, if 53 is true it is a showstopper!
Tell me, Steve, why do you believe it is true?
The most important reasons to reject Mormonism:
**Reason 17.**Joseph’s vision seems to be weighted above Jesus’ words. Jesus gave authority to Peter and the Roman Catholic church.
Reason 43.
The doctrine that God was once a man just like any other man; who lived on an earth and progressed to Godhood. This is in direct conflict with what God has said of himself. He said he is Eternally God. The Great I AM. He Who Is. Without beginning or end.**Reason 53.**Mormonism is human, rather than Divine, in origin. That is, it is a man-made religion.
Why do I believe Mormonism is a man made relgion?
Simply that Joseph Smith was the founder 178 years ago…
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I think i might point out to you the same observation that Socrates offered his friend:
I cannot help but feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet, if you ask them a question, they maintain a solemn silence. The same may be said of written words: You would imagine they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask them an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.
(Phaedrus 275)
- Status