M
Miriam1947
Guest
I am seeing this on many threads and would love to watch it. Is it available on the internet?
I do not have Daystar. I don’t even know what Daystar is.
- Status
I do not have Daystar. I don’t even know what Daystar is.
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
Maybe google up John Ankerberg. He doesn’t like Catholicism whatsoever but maybe can find podcast in iTunes religious directory.
Sandra Tanner has been awesome; been reading her writings for 30 years.
Sandra Tanner has been awesome; been reading her writings for 30 years.
M
Mormon_Cultist
Guest
A fair point that Augustime does not state he believes it to be acceptable in God’s sight.
However, Abraham and Jacob, for example, were never rebuked by God for having married more than one woman; and are still regarded as righteous and prophetic men, despite this.
There is a difference between something God lays out as an absolute command for everyone, always (such as the 10 commandment); and something which He commands to be done by some, but not necessarily by all. E.g. The Passover feast and observances; temple sacrifices, the law of Moses; stoning of law breakers…
Stephen168
New member
;8855311:
Which is my point: Augustine’s views on marriage are nothing like the Mormon views on marriage.
G
grandfather
Guest
Mormon Cultist,
You point to the teaching of Saint Augustine as an authoritative defense supporting Mormon doctrine. For the moment put aside the issue of whether or not your view about his commentary on marriage is accurate.
If you appeal to Saint Augustine as an ancient authority acceptable to Mormons, because you believe he affirms it, if he is the authority acceptable to them, then it seems logical that Mormon apologists need to accept his authority in other various doctrinal matters as well.
The story of Saint Augustine’s life, his famous conversion and all of what he did and taught is very well historically documented. He is not an obscure figure of which little is known. We have his own works that accurately reveal all that he believed that have been widely read and commented on by all theologians since his time. They are part of the historical record.
He tells us in his story that he was a Manichee, that his mother Saint Monica prayed for him for many years, that he was influenced by the life of Saint Antony and the preaching of Saint Ambrose, the of Milan, both famous historical figures. He embraced the Christian faith as it was handed to him from others and went on to become the great theologian you quote.
If Augustine’s theology is acceptable to you, as it must be in light of the fact that you use him as an authority to support Mormon claims and doctrine, then the great apostacy Mormonism claims occurred must have happened some time after Augustine. He converted to the Catholic faith under the influence of Catholic luminaries whose beliefs were passed to them by earlier Catholic figures.
It does not seem reasonable that you would claim sources as valid authority to support your doctrine if you believed they were from an apostate church that held corrupted doctrines. If you hold up Augustine as a legitmate nonapostate authority it seems reasonable that you accept his teaching on other matters as well, and those from whom he received the doctrines he embraced. He did not make them up. He was taught and expounded on the faith he professed as it was handed to him.
He wrote very clearly on what he believed about the Eucharist for example, and the Catholic priesthood. His belief on these matters, and others, aligns with what those who came before him taught him and what he and the Church of his time professed and taught.
If you will not accept what he has to say about the Eucharist, the ordained ministry of his Church and other religious practices then you must say he received his doctrine from an already apostate church from which he learned false doctrine.
Again, if you quote Augustine’s doctrine as an affirmation of yours as true then the Church from which he learned it was not apostate. If the Church to which he belonged was apostate in its doctrines then Augustine was part of this false Church and his doctrines must be corrupt as well. It is one or the other.
Was Augustine an apostate churchman, part of a corrupt organization, or did the great apostacy come some time later? When you look at the entirety of what he wrote which is in agreement with that which the doctrines of the Church n his time and earlier, a Mormon must conclude this Church had already gone into apostacy, because Mormons reject it all.
If you want to say Mormonism is correct about A, because it agrees with Augistine, then you need to say Mormonism is wrong about B, because Augustine disagrees with him. You can say to yourself that Augustine was right about A and wrong about B, but when you use him as your support in a theological dispute then those who disagree with you can also claim his authoirty in other matters. If you accept some of his teaching and reject the rest then by your standard he is not a legitimate trustworthy authority to whom you can appeal. You make ypourself the authority who decides where he is right or wrong. He is of no use to you then, because by your own account he is unreliable.
It is impossible to find historical evidence that even suggests there was a time that the Church changed its doctrines, that an apostacy occurrred before or after Augustine. Therefore the only possibility for this to have happened according to the Mormon claim is if history has been entirely rewritten. There was a great apostacy and a great coverup. If there was a historical recreation then you have to reject the documents related to Augustine and all other historical Church figures as having any reliability. You can not appeal to them to support your claims if you say history was washed clean of the evidence of the apostacy. If on the other hand the history we have regarding Augustine and other has not be recreated to cover up an apostacy and there was an apostacy there should be some record not only of it, but also Mormon doctrines whould appear in the ancient historical record. History reveals all the doctrinal disputes of the early centuries in great detail, the people who were involved and how the Church dealt with them. There is no record of temple practices and a Moromon like priesthood, prohibition against drinking wine, etc.
If you appeal to Augustine and he believed what the Church of his time believed as revealed in his writing that is rejected by Mormonism, then he was either complicit in or deceived by this great apostacy. You have to say all the early history of the time and earlier that is passed on in countless documents and sources is deliberately falsified.
There was not only a coverup, but it was extremely succesful, because when you look at all the copies of the ancient documents that were dispersed to all corners they confirm their authenticity, because they are in accord with one another.
Whether the apostacy occurred before or after Augustine he can not be used by Mormons as an authority, because all of what he professed on all matters is Catholic.
You point to the teaching of Saint Augustine as an authoritative defense supporting Mormon doctrine. For the moment put aside the issue of whether or not your view about his commentary on marriage is accurate.
If you appeal to Saint Augustine as an ancient authority acceptable to Mormons, because you believe he affirms it, if he is the authority acceptable to them, then it seems logical that Mormon apologists need to accept his authority in other various doctrinal matters as well.
The story of Saint Augustine’s life, his famous conversion and all of what he did and taught is very well historically documented. He is not an obscure figure of which little is known. We have his own works that accurately reveal all that he believed that have been widely read and commented on by all theologians since his time. They are part of the historical record.
He tells us in his story that he was a Manichee, that his mother Saint Monica prayed for him for many years, that he was influenced by the life of Saint Antony and the preaching of Saint Ambrose, the of Milan, both famous historical figures. He embraced the Christian faith as it was handed to him from others and went on to become the great theologian you quote.
If Augustine’s theology is acceptable to you, as it must be in light of the fact that you use him as an authority to support Mormon claims and doctrine, then the great apostacy Mormonism claims occurred must have happened some time after Augustine. He converted to the Catholic faith under the influence of Catholic luminaries whose beliefs were passed to them by earlier Catholic figures.
It does not seem reasonable that you would claim sources as valid authority to support your doctrine if you believed they were from an apostate church that held corrupted doctrines. If you hold up Augustine as a legitmate nonapostate authority it seems reasonable that you accept his teaching on other matters as well, and those from whom he received the doctrines he embraced. He did not make them up. He was taught and expounded on the faith he professed as it was handed to him.
He wrote very clearly on what he believed about the Eucharist for example, and the Catholic priesthood. His belief on these matters, and others, aligns with what those who came before him taught him and what he and the Church of his time professed and taught.
If you will not accept what he has to say about the Eucharist, the ordained ministry of his Church and other religious practices then you must say he received his doctrine from an already apostate church from which he learned false doctrine.
Again, if you quote Augustine’s doctrine as an affirmation of yours as true then the Church from which he learned it was not apostate. If the Church to which he belonged was apostate in its doctrines then Augustine was part of this false Church and his doctrines must be corrupt as well. It is one or the other.
Was Augustine an apostate churchman, part of a corrupt organization, or did the great apostacy come some time later? When you look at the entirety of what he wrote which is in agreement with that which the doctrines of the Church n his time and earlier, a Mormon must conclude this Church had already gone into apostacy, because Mormons reject it all.
If you want to say Mormonism is correct about A, because it agrees with Augistine, then you need to say Mormonism is wrong about B, because Augustine disagrees with him. You can say to yourself that Augustine was right about A and wrong about B, but when you use him as your support in a theological dispute then those who disagree with you can also claim his authoirty in other matters. If you accept some of his teaching and reject the rest then by your standard he is not a legitimate trustworthy authority to whom you can appeal. You make ypourself the authority who decides where he is right or wrong. He is of no use to you then, because by your own account he is unreliable.
It is impossible to find historical evidence that even suggests there was a time that the Church changed its doctrines, that an apostacy occurrred before or after Augustine. Therefore the only possibility for this to have happened according to the Mormon claim is if history has been entirely rewritten. There was a great apostacy and a great coverup. If there was a historical recreation then you have to reject the documents related to Augustine and all other historical Church figures as having any reliability. You can not appeal to them to support your claims if you say history was washed clean of the evidence of the apostacy. If on the other hand the history we have regarding Augustine and other has not be recreated to cover up an apostacy and there was an apostacy there should be some record not only of it, but also Mormon doctrines whould appear in the ancient historical record. History reveals all the doctrinal disputes of the early centuries in great detail, the people who were involved and how the Church dealt with them. There is no record of temple practices and a Moromon like priesthood, prohibition against drinking wine, etc.
If you appeal to Augustine and he believed what the Church of his time believed as revealed in his writing that is rejected by Mormonism, then he was either complicit in or deceived by this great apostacy. You have to say all the early history of the time and earlier that is passed on in countless documents and sources is deliberately falsified.
There was not only a coverup, but it was extremely succesful, because when you look at all the copies of the ancient documents that were dispersed to all corners they confirm their authenticity, because they are in accord with one another.
Whether the apostacy occurred before or after Augustine he can not be used by Mormons as an authority, because all of what he professed on all matters is Catholic.
T
theidler
Guest
Mormon_Cultist, humor me here.
You accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and all that followed from him. Now, what are the specific reasons why you do not accept the following the prophets who also claim divine revelation? What are your criteria for not accepting them?
Looking forward to your answers.
You accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and all that followed from him. Now, what are the specific reasons why you do not accept the following the prophets who also claim divine revelation? What are your criteria for not accepting them?
- Mohammed and the Qur’an
-Why is he not credible? The Qur’an claims to be the truth in its very pages, just as your scriptures do. Why are they not true? How do we know that Mohammed is not God’s final messenger to mankind? - Ellen G. White
-Why is she not credible?> She too claims that she had visions of God and heaven, and even the end of the world. She started her own movement, the Seventh-Day Adventists. Why are they wrong, and how do you know? Why are you not a member of the SDA church that claims to be the remnant church of Christ on earth? - Herbert W. Armstrong
-Started the Worldwide Church of God movement and claimed to be a prophet, indeed, a kind of latter-day Elijah. Why are his prophecies wrong? Why is the Church of God movement not the true church? Why are you not a believer in Armstrong’s prophecies and teachings? - George Fox
-Founded the Quaker movement. How do you know that his mystical experiences were erroneous? Why are you not a Quaker? - Charles Taze Russell
-Started the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Claimed to be a mouthpiece for Christ. Why are you not JW, as they decried the doctrine of the Trinity as well, and claimed to be the true church too? On what grounds do you reject Russell and his movement? - Emanuel Swedenborg
Esoteric visionary, theologian, and mystic who claimed all sorts of new teachings. Why is he not credible? Why are you not a member of the Swedenborgian church? Are his visions false, and if so, how do you know?
Looking forward to your answers.
J
Jerusha
Guest
This is the most relevant of the prophets mentioned. I request an in-depth answer on this one.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
How about marriage between a man and 27 women? Your proclamation seems to leave that part out.
How about a man marrying both a woman and her daughter? Is that ordained of God? (See Lev 18:17 and Lev 20:14)
How about a man marrying a girl and her sister? Is that ordained of God? (See Lev 18:18)
Joseph Smith committed both of these abominations. Actually he married two pair of sisters
Joseph Smith certainly perished from the midst of his people, didn’t he?
The Proclamation on the Family was a slick PR move, but has little to do with the reality of Mormon history.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
It also left out a woman marrying two men.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Yes, I didn’t want to confuse the issue, but Joseph Smith instituted polyandry as well as polygyny.
Just too weird.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
T
theidler
Guest
Still waiting for a response to my questions, Mormon_Cultist.:compcoff:
P
pablope
Guest
I wonder if there has been a comparison between EGW’s vision and claims of Joseph Smith and the LDS…?
They are of the same era…and from little that I know…they have eerily the same or very similar claims…
T
theidler
Guest
They do, on a basic level. I was part of that movement, born into it in fact. Ellen White also spawned a restorationist movement. Claimed visions from God, and that all worship on Sunday was sharing in the mark of the beast, and was in effect, subservience to Rome. Adventism is inherently anti-Catholic by its very nature - read White’s work The Great Controversy to see all kinds of examples of paranoid conspiracy theories about “Romanism”.I wonder if there has been a comparison between EGW’s vision and claims of Joseph Smith and the LDS…?
They are of the same era…and from little that I know…they have eerily the same or very similar claims…
Early Adventism also held the Trinity in question, had several failed prophecies of the end of the world to their name (look up the Great Disappointment), and thought Jesus was Michael the Archangel. They have since come more into mainstream Christian teaching, but in their formative years, yes they were very similar to all other restorationist movements.
T
theidler
Guest
I’m going to post my questions again, as I don’t want Mormon_Cultist to miss them - I think they’re really important for establishing some further discussion as regards the original post. Once again, here they are:
Mormon_Cultist, humor me here.
You accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and all that followed from him. Now, what are the specific reasons why you do not accept the following the prophets who also claim divine revelation? What are your criteria for not accepting them?
Mormon_Cultist, humor me here.
You accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and all that followed from him. Now, what are the specific reasons why you do not accept the following the prophets who also claim divine revelation? What are your criteria for not accepting them?
- Mohammed and the Qur’an
-Why is he not credible? The Qur’an claims to be the truth in its very pages, just as your scriptures do. Why are they not true? How do we know that Mohammed is not God’s final messenger to mankind? - Ellen G. White
-Why is she not credible?> She too claims that she had visions of God and heaven, and even the end of the world. She started her own movement, the Seventh-Day Adventists. Why are they wrong, and how do you know? Why are you not a member of the SDA church that claims to be the remnant church of Christ on earth? - Herbert W. Armstrong
-Started the Worldwide Church of God movement and claimed to be a prophet, indeed, a kind of latter-day Elijah. Why are his prophecies wrong? Why is the Church of God movement not the true church? Why are you not a believer in Armstrong’s prophecies and teachings? - George Fox
-Founded the Quaker movement. How do you know that his mystical experiences were erroneous? Why are you not a Quaker? - Charles Taze Russell
-Started the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Claimed to be a mouthpiece for Christ. Why are you not JW, as they decried the doctrine of the Trinity as well, and claimed to be the true church too? On what grounds do you reject Russell and his movement? - Emanuel Swedenborg
Esoteric visionary, theologian, and mystic who claimed all sorts of new teachings. Why is he not credible? Why are you not a member of the Swedenborgian church? Are his visions false, and if so, how do you know?
T
theidler
Guest
Guess Mormon_Cultist is ignoring this post - he posted elsewhere, but no response to this one yet. Too bad. This would really help us all establish some firm positions and figure some stuff out.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Maybe someone called them in telling them they would lose their temple recommends if they continued to post here.
M
Mormon_Cultist
Guest
You don’t accept everything written by every one of the early fathers. It merely appeared that his views agreed with ours, and as he is a well respected writer of Catholic belief, it seemed relevant to point that out.
Because I determined by study of the Bible and simple logical reasoning that there could be only one true church of Christ, and that only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints fulfilled the necessary biblical criteria to be that true church. Having reached this conclusion it only remained necessary to find out from God Himself (there can be no other source: anyone who claims otherwise is a fool and a liar), by the power of His Holy Spirit, if it is true or not. I know what He told me, and I know that He knows; nothing else is important.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Ok…NOW we can get somewhere. What specific “Biblical Criteria” are you talking about?
P
pablope
Guest
yes…the logical reasoning???..“and simple logical reasoning that there could be only one true church of Christ, and that only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints fulfilled the necessary biblical criteria to be that true church.”
And if this is true…how come the CC still thrives…and the LDS has not come close to supplanting or overpowering the Catholic Church?
P
pablope
Guest
You know MC…if you are not aware…there is vision of Pope Leo XIII:
"When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation:
Code:
The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: "I can destroy your Church."
The gentle voice of Our Lord: "You can? Then go ahead and do so."
Satan: "To do so, I need more time and more power."
Our Lord: "How much time? How much power?"
Satan: "75 to 100 years, **and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."**
Our Lord: "You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."[14][15][16]- Status