Z
- Status
P
perez639
Guest
I am new to this site and found this forum to be most intriguing for a couple of reasons. One, I currently have two siblings at Notre Dame so I was immediately drawn to the title…lol and two, I am a devout Roman Catholic who had a great test of faith a year ago. I dated an lds boy who put my faith to a test in a way I could not even begin to fathom. I almost became mormon for the sake of our promise to marry one day. I figured I would sacrifice my beliefs so that I would not have to deal w/ an interfaith marriage. It is an immature approach, i admit, but it has sparked a great deal of interest in mormonism. To be more specific the falicies I found. The more I became engrossed in what mormonism entails the more appalled and afraid of it I became. It is in no way similar to Catholicism. This brings me to a few questions I have for you… I have spoken to so many of the lds faith and always get the same answers.
Why do those of your faith constantly deny the figures documented in history of Joseph Smith and the amount of polygamy he truely practiced?
Your church promises that spouses will be sealed together for time and all eternity… how does this work when a first spouse dies…and the widowed remarries, how would the whole obtaining a planet thing work w/ the one they were originally sealed to?
Sorry to stray from the abortion topic but what I cant even begin to understand is why non-members are not allowed into temples… Something is amiss here. Is it because the objective perspective would be in disbelief of what really goes on inside… or the simple explanation I was always given when I almost became mormon of it being holy ground? The sealing rituals and baptisms of the dead would all seem a little creepy to the average Joe who knows little about this blasphemous faith.
Also, how on earth can a man such as Joseph Smith bear the title of a prophet? He is a liar and a thief to the souls of many with his false teachings.
I know a great deal about both faiths as a aspiring religious stuides major and look forward to hearing from all who care to reply…
Peace Be with u all,
Regis University student
Why do those of your faith constantly deny the figures documented in history of Joseph Smith and the amount of polygamy he truely practiced?
Your church promises that spouses will be sealed together for time and all eternity… how does this work when a first spouse dies…and the widowed remarries, how would the whole obtaining a planet thing work w/ the one they were originally sealed to?
Sorry to stray from the abortion topic but what I cant even begin to understand is why non-members are not allowed into temples… Something is amiss here. Is it because the objective perspective would be in disbelief of what really goes on inside… or the simple explanation I was always given when I almost became mormon of it being holy ground? The sealing rituals and baptisms of the dead would all seem a little creepy to the average Joe who knows little about this blasphemous faith.
Also, how on earth can a man such as Joseph Smith bear the title of a prophet? He is a liar and a thief to the souls of many with his false teachings.
I know a great deal about both faiths as a aspiring religious stuides major and look forward to hearing from all who care to reply…
Peace Be with u all,
Regis University student
R
RyanL
Guest
I’m pretty sure we’re done with that topic anyway, so no worries. Zerinus’ personal and internally inconsistent abortion views are what is being discussed, and since they are not the same as the LDS views it’s probably best left to another thread.
God Bless,
RyanL
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you Perez for your post. I am never one to shy away from an honest debate. However, after reading your post, and the history of your coming into contact with the LDS Church, I don’t think that a useful purpose will be served from such a discussion. You appear to have already done your research and made up your mind. There is nothing further to be said.
I was originally going to give a more comprehensive reply to your post—until I came across this paragraph:
zerinus
I was originally going to give a more comprehensive reply to your post—until I came across this paragraph:
This is a wicked lie. It is falsehood of the blackest die. If you believe and are willing to perpetuate such blatant falsehood about Joseph Smith, then we have nothing further to discuss. The next paragraph is also very revealing:
Well, if you think you already know such a “great deal” about the LDS faith—and especially if your “great knowledge” is of the same variety as you have told us about Joseph Smith—then what else is there left for us to discuss?
zerinus
P
perez639
Guest
In response to the “blatant fasehood of Joseph Smith” you seem to think I am making something up…
Until about 1890 for approximately half a century the Mormon church taught all of its members to life in the state of “plural marriage.” The supposed revelation Joseph Smith received from God is what I am going after. It makes absolutely no sense at all that the “true” church was restored through this man of sin when the practice of polygamy completely negates the plan of God. Just from my own conscience I can reason that something is wrong with this picture. Can’t you?
Of course this one topic is always a hot one. There are MANY more.
There is always plenty to discuss concerning the latter day saint beliefs. All who read these posts deserve to know the truths that which this religion seeks to hide or avoid talking about or denying altogether. I only desire to add information about what I have learned from first hand experiences and ask questions that continue to be brushed aside.
Peace be w/ u,
Regis University Student
Until about 1890 for approximately half a century the Mormon church taught all of its members to life in the state of “plural marriage.” The supposed revelation Joseph Smith received from God is what I am going after. It makes absolutely no sense at all that the “true” church was restored through this man of sin when the practice of polygamy completely negates the plan of God. Just from my own conscience I can reason that something is wrong with this picture. Can’t you?
Of course this one topic is always a hot one. There are MANY more.
There is always plenty to discuss concerning the latter day saint beliefs. All who read these posts deserve to know the truths that which this religion seeks to hide or avoid talking about or denying altogether. I only desire to add information about what I have learned from first hand experiences and ask questions that continue to be brushed aside.
Peace be w/ u,
Regis University Student
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
Excellent come back. It shows the relative weakness of your argument when you attempt to construct a strawman argument as a response. None-the-less, the situation has nothing to do with hating or loving one’s wife and everything to do with whether or not you can morally murder your own child, only because you haven’t yet seen it, in order to save her. Now, you’ve displayed your moral weakness in stating your willingness to do so, however, you’ve offerred no compelling reason as to why.
M
majick275
Guest
P
perez639
Guest
Thank you majick275. Well said. Catholics for some reason are a prime target for missionaries.
Peace be w/ u all,
Regis University Student
Peace be w/ u all,
Regis University Student
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The reason is that Protestants, JWs, SDAs and Mormons are taught that Catholics do not know the scriptures, and are just going through the motions out of habit. So they think we are easy pickings.
It has been my experience that the vast majority of members in all religions know little or nothing about the bible or what their denom teaches. It has also been my experience that non-Catholics know little or nothing about Church history. Most of them have never heard of the ECFs.
There are several very vocal “born-again bible Christians” where I work. In talking with them, I have discovered that they know what their preachers teach, but know virtually nothing about the bible. They rely on their preachers to understand the bible. Hey, isn’t that what they accuse us of?
Sheesh,
Paul
It has been my experience that the vast majority of members in all religions know little or nothing about the bible or what their denom teaches. It has also been my experience that non-Catholics know little or nothing about Church history. Most of them have never heard of the ECFs.
There are several very vocal “born-again bible Christians” where I work. In talking with them, I have discovered that they know what their preachers teach, but know virtually nothing about the bible. They rely on their preachers to understand the bible. Hey, isn’t that what they accuse us of?
Sheesh,
Paul
R
RyanL
Guest
Just wanted to post a follow up:
"RyanL:
This is the LDS position as long as there’s rape or incest involved. Pain and consciousness have nothing to do with the LDS position - all unborn humans are potentially fair game.
If for no other reason, this alone would keep me out of the LDS church.
God Bless,
RyanL
"RyanL:
Graphic link to result.
This is the LDS position as long as there’s rape or incest involved. Pain and consciousness have nothing to do with the LDS position - all unborn humans are potentially fair game.
If for no other reason, this alone would keep me out of the LDS church.
God Bless,
RyanL
C
Chris-WA
Guest
You didn’t really answer my question. I asked you whether or not the Apostles had the foresight to set up a system whereby authority would be passed on. But now you’ve got me really confused. You said in one of your previous posts on this thread that the church lost its authority when the Apostles died, implying that they did not pass on their authority to successors. Now you say in this post that when one died another was ordained to replace him. So which is it? Were others ordained to replace them or not?
Oh really? You don’t think that Emma Smith, the very wife of your founding prophet, posed a serious challenge when she denied Brigham Young’s successorship and left the church claiming her son as successor to Joseph? Whether or not you consider that breakaway church a “serious challenge,” it still exists to this very day. What about all the turmoil that errupted over Joseph’s secret polygamous practices that went on for years before he revealed it as a new commandment? You seem to have one standard for the early Christian church, and quite another for the early LDS church. Mormons will easily point to problems within the early Christian church as a “clear sign of the Apostacy,” but somehow filter out all the problems in the early LDS church as no big deal. Your opinion of the early Christian church is exceedingly tainted by the LDS Apostacy theory. Division after division? Last I checked there was one Christian church for the first 1000 years after Christ’s resurrection before the split of east and west.
P
perez639
Guest
Here’s a question… Mormons hail Joseph Smith as a martyr… why? He died in a mob. Several historical sources mention that he killed a couple of his attackers after obtaining a six-shooter…How does he deserve the titile, “martyr” when he was trying to shoot others down in gun battle?
This is a quote that I think perfectly puts in perspective true martyrdom, “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God,” (St Ignatious of Antioch, Ad Rom. 4, 1:SCh 10, 110).
This is a quote that I think perfectly puts in perspective true martyrdom, “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God,” (St Ignatious of Antioch, Ad Rom. 4, 1:SCh 10, 110).
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I’ll say it again: Only in Islam and Mormonism is a martyr someone who dies while killing people.
Paul
Paul
Z
zerinus
Guest
What I had said, or at least meant to be understood, was that it was not part of the program that the institution of the Twelve Apostles (i.e. as a body of twelve men) were intended to be done away with. This is demonstrated by the fact that when Judas had died (committed suicide) Matthias was ordained to succeed him (Acts 1:15-26). Similarly, Paul was also ordained an Apostle, probably to succeed James who had been beheaded by Herod (Acts 12:1-2), although he had not been one of the original disciples of Jesus. The Twelve were always intended to remain as Twelve, not thirteen or eleven or one. But subsequently, through persecution the members of that group were killed off without having the chance to perpetuate that quorum, and that institution eventually disappeared from the earth, taking with itself the keys of the kingdom that God had given them to govern the church. Those keys have now been restored as prophesied in the latter days for the “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). Those keys now reside within the quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the LDS Church, and nowhere else.
zerinus
C
Chris-WA
Guest
You make a couple assumptions here that are not backed up with scripture or church history. Here are those assumptions:
1) The program called for a perpetual organization headed always by 12 Apostles.
No where in the biblical record, nor in ancient historical documents, does it say that the “Twelve” is a permanent institution. Yes, Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas, but that does not demonstrate that a number was limited to twelve, nor does it demonstrate that the church must always have “apostles.” What it does demonstrate is that the Apostles passed on their authority via apostolic sucession to successors. Those people were called '“bishops.” Regarding the replacement of Judas, the scriptures do not say, "Let his apostleship another take. What is does say is, “Let his bishopric another take.” It is the office of bishop wherein the authority of the apostles is passed on, and they appointed a lot more bishops than twelve. So, what then distinguishes a bishop from an Apostle? The difference is that the Apostles personally witnessed the resurrected Christ. This is why Paul is also considered an Apostle–because of his rather dramatic encounter with the resurrected Christ on the road to Demascus. The bishops, however, received the authority of Christ from the Apostles. Either way, we both agree that authority was passed on, so how you can say that it was lost just because the “twelve” no longer existed I don’t know.
What we do know from the bible and from historical documents was that the Apostles appointed successors called “bishops” who oversaw the governance of the church. In order to demontsrate a total apostacy, one would have to show that bishops were not appointed. It is not scripturally or historically correct to demand a continual “quorum of twelve,” which has no basis other than that’s what the LDS church says it should have been 1700 years after the establishment of the Christian church.
But the fact of the matter is that every Catholic bishop can trace his line of succession back to one of the Twelve Apostles. That on its own should be enough to convince anyone that we at least have the true priesthood established by Christ in the Apostles. One would have to show a break in this succession to demonstrate a total Apostacy or a loss of the priesthood. LDS can demonstrate neither. It is misleading to throw out phrases like “controversy after controversy” or “division after division” with regards to the early church, especially without support. As I said before, and which is backed up by more than my own opinion, the Christian church basically remained unified for the first 1000 years of its existence. This cannot be discounted so easily by claiming the early church was in total disarray simply because Joseph Smith said so.
2) Paul succeeded James.
This is also not supported by the biblical record. Christ personally appointed Paul as a witness to His resurrection during their dramatic encounter on the road to Demascus. Paul was not one of the twelve. I’m not sure where you got the idea that Paul replaced one of the other Apostles. This has to come from somewhere other than scripture or historical record, because it’s not contained in either.
M
majick275
Guest
what a huge misunderstanding of the facts. The original apostles were a select group that had been personally taught by Christ. That is why the individuals chosen as “replacements” had to come from those who met that criteria. This is straight out of the Bible. NOWHERE does it say that this has to continue on in perpetuity. It was necessary that that Christians be taught doctrine by those who had been taught by Christ until it could be documented and understood and established just what theat doctrine is. Paul was a special case but even then Jesus came to him personally to extend the calling so one could say the criteria was met even then.
There is no evidence to support the assertion that the apostles could not have called others to keep thenumber at twelve, infact history tells us the exact the opposite and we see where they called a number of folks to various positions to ensure the leadership and growth of the church.
even if we accepted this at face value amgids post cannot be true. For instance LDS teaching is clear that Joseph Smith Jr. and Oliver Cowdery led the LDS church for quite some time as first and second elder with no quorum of twelve. this waas the most doctrinally significant time as much of the LDS scriptures still in the canon today came form that time. If amgid was right then they could not have had necessary revelation and authority to lead the church. Further we can see a need for no more than three apostles tops in LDs teaching as peter, james and john are seen as having suffcicient authority to “restore” or teach, lead, etc. anyone at any time. the three nephites never left so that right there would appear suffcient to prevent global apostasy. And I would add that it seems that if these were apostles who led by revelation that they would call the right the people at the right time to ensure that the faithful Christians weren’t left without Gods church on the earth.
amgids assertion on the number twelve beign an absolute is contradicted by current LDS practice today. There are 15 right now. What about the nephite twelve being in effect at the same time as the israelite twelve? that’s 24.
Those “keys” do NOT reside in the LDS twelve even in LDS teaching. They reside in the “prophet”. only when he dies is the first presidency dissolved and the quorum of twelve in charge of the LDS church. even that was a Brigham Young invention and not what Joseph smith taught.
The true keys of leadership of Gods church were given to Peter, not the twelve and they reside in the Catholic church today, passed down faithfully without any breaks so that Christ’s promises are fulfilled tha the is with us always and that the gates of hell would not prevail.
amgid is just making up his own doctrine. Unfortunately that is all too common in the LDS church as there is no catechism, even prophets and apostles don’t speak with binding authority and it all started with scam by a womanizing con man looking to control his victims completely.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I think that it does. Jesus had many disciples; but He only chose 12 men whom He called Apostles. Later on, when He called seventy others to go and preach the gospel, but they were not ordained Apostles. The Apostles remained twelve at all times, even after His death. They are the ones to whom He had given special authority to go and preach the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth, and to build up His kingdom on earth. Hence Paul wrote: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, . . .” (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also said: “And {you} are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). This, coupled with the fact that whenever one member of that group died, someone else was called to replace him, to maintain the number always at Twelve, proves that they were meant to always be Twelve. It was to them that Jesus had said: “Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, . . . shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28). So, if they were not meant to be Twelve, why were they always Twelve?
Absolutely not. The bishops were never intended to be successors to the Apostles. The bishops had only localized jurisdiction over their own local areas, not over the whole church. The bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over Rome, and the bishop of Antioch had jurisdiction over Antioch, and the bishop of Jerusalem had jurisdiction over Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome couldn’t go to Antioch and tell the bishop of Antioch what to do; and the bishop of Antioch couldn’t go to Jerusalem and tell the bishop of Jerusalem what to do. It is only after the Apostasy had set in that bishops began to compete with each other for supremacy, and the bishops of larger metropolitan sees assumed supremacy over the smaller provinces, and the bishop of Rome gained supremacy over the whole church (for political reasons). There was indeed “apostolic succession;” but it always took place within the quorum of the Twelve Apostles; and it was always in order to fill in a vacancy left by the death of one of the Twelve themselves, as in the case of Matthias and Paul.
The word “bishopric” in this context simply means his office, appointment, position. It does not mean that they were literally called to be bishops.
You are spinning a big yarn here. The Apostles were called Apostles because Jesus had ordained them as such, not because they had witnessed His resurrection. Lots of people had withessed His resurrection. They were His Twelve Apostles long before witnessing His resurrection. Paul was not just “considered” an Apostle; he WAS an Apostle. He announces that in practically every letter he wrote. The Twelve were always Twelve, and meant to remain as Twelve.
The Apostolic authority was not passed on. The bishops were bishops, not apostles. They had localized jurisdiction over their own areas, not over the whole church. They could not have ordained bishops for another province because it was not within their authority to do so.
Continued . . .
Z
zerinus
Guest
Not true, for the reasons already explained. The bishops were not successors to the Apostles, and they had jurisdiction over their own local areas. In fact, for three hundred years until the time of Constantine the Christian church did NOT have a central governing authority. That central governing authority had been the Twelve Apostles, which had disappeared from the face of the earth. Each bishop did what they liked, which is why there grew such diversity of practices throughout the church. It is only in the time of Constantine that the Christian church for the first time acquired a central figurehead—and that figurehead was none other than Constantine himself. He was the one who called church councils and issued decrees on behalf of the Church. Late on as the political influence of the Roman Empire declined, the bishop of Rome acquired the mantle of Constantine, and became the central figurehead of the Catholic Church. But it had not been so prior to that time.
It doesn’t work that way. I don’t care how accurate the Catholic Bishops’ line of authority may be. Without the Twelve Apostles it has no legitimacy, and never did, no matter how far back you want to take it.
Paul was an Apostle. He makes that clear in his epistles. He was not a bishop, that is for sure! He travelled all over the Roman world, and ordained local bishops to look after the community in their own local areas. But he himself was an Apostle, not a bishop. And since the Apostles were always Twelve, and their numbers were always maintained at 12, it is reasonable to assume that he was ordained to fill a vacancy left by the death of one of the members of that quorum.
We know that Paul was an Apostle. We know that there were always only Twelve Apostles, and their number was always maintained at 12. We know that James, a member of that quorum, had been put to death by Herod, which had created a vacancy in that quorum. If you put all of that together, like 2 and 2, it becomes a reasonable assumption that Paul had been ordained an Apostle to fill the vacancy of the Twelve.
zerinus
M
majick275
Guest
Then why does the LDS church today have 15 Apostles?
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Oh please! Don’t tell me you’ve fallen for that old Constantine nonsense! You don’t think the church had a central authority until Constantine? Start reading early church history my friend, and put that Constantine nonsense to bed. Here is St. Ignatius in AD 110 talking about the supremacy of Rome (emphasis added)“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]). “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Here is Irenaeus in AD 189 (emphasis added):“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). There’s a whole lot more where this came from. This is verifiable proof that the church had a central authority long before Constantine. I can’t make it any clearer than this. You can choose to ignore it, but to do so is to deny historical fact.
Pure and utter nonsense. This is the product of a bad BYU religion class trying to prove the Apostacy without looking into the documented history.
We know that Paul was an Apostle. We know that there were always only Twelve Apostles, and their number was always maintained at 12. We know that James, a member of that quorum, had been put to death by Herod, which had created a vacancy in that quorum. If you put all of that together, like 2 and 2, it becomes a reasonable assumption that Paul had been ordained an Apostle to fill the vacancy of the Twelve.
You keep saying over an over again that Paul was an Apostle. I never said he wasn’t. Of course he was an Apostle! But he did not replace one of the others, nor was he part of a “twelve.” You have no evidence for that other than your own mathematics.
- Status