Seeking the True Church

[CourtingTex]

No I didn’t. I brought up the fact that Jesus was baptised in the Jordan river which you quoted as being how Christ was baptised and you have found another way to do this. The double standard is the fact that you state you must be immersed because Jesus was immersed but you don’t have to be Baptized in the Jordan river even though Jesus was. This is the definition of “double standard” if there ever was one.

Peace!!!

Again, no double standard here!!!

I quoted the scriptures and what you did sadly is a common thing among Catholics trying to play the “gotta ya” game for a Latter Day Saint, to maybe start believing that my church is not what it proclaims to be .

Nice try. Again no plans of going back to Catholicism.

 

[Fauken]

Again, no double standard here!!!

I quoted the scriptures and what you did sadly is a common thing among Catholics trying to play the “gotta ya” game for a Latter Day Saint, to maybe start believing that my church is not what it proclaims to be .

Nice try. Again no plans of going back to Catholicism.

If there is no double standard, then please explain how. How is it the Catholic method of sprinkling is invalid on the basis that it’s not how Jesus was baptized, but it’s okay to not be baptized in the Jordan, or any river for that matter? By what basis did the LDS decide one was necessary and not the other? By what authority does the LDS claim that its requirements of baptism are valid over the exact method of Christ’s?

 

[adf417]

Again, no double standard here!!!

I quoted the scriptures and what you did sadly is a common thing among Catholics trying to play the “gotta ya” game for a Latter Day Saint, to maybe start believing that my church is not what it proclaims to be .

Nice try. Again no plans of going back to Catholicism.

I never said you should come back to Catholicism, as a matter of fact Ive not seen anyone say you should so.

You did quote the scriptures alright even the part about Jesus being baptized in the Jordan, you are just choosing which part of the scriptures are relevant and which parts are ok to avoid. BTW I really don’t have a problem with this concept per se, just the premis that comes along with it.

Peace!!!

 

[CourtingTex]

If there is no double standard, then please explain how. How is it the Catholic method of sprinkling is invalid on the basis that it’s not how Jesus was baptized, but it’s okay to not be baptized in the Jordan, or any river for that matter? By what basis did the LDS decide one was necessary and not the other? By what authority does the LDS claim that its requirements of baptism are valid over the exact method of Christ’s?

The actual method of Christ was immersion by John the Baptist, who held the proper authority as I cited in the scriptures, so when the Biblical scripture change to sprinkle instead of immerse?

 

[Fauken]

The actual method of Christ was immersion by John the Baptist, who held the proper authority as I cited in the scriptures, so when the Biblical scripture change to sprinkle instead of immerse?

You haven’t answered my question. The actual method was immersion in the river Jordan. Why is it that the method is important and must be kept to the letter, but not the place?

 

[CourtingTex]

I never said you should come back to Catholicism, as a matter of fact Ive not seen anyone say you should so.

You did quote the scriptures alright even the part about Jesus being baptized in the Jordan, you are just choosing which part of the scriptures are relevant and which parts are ok to avoid. BTW I really don’t have a problem with this concept per se, just the premis that comes along with it.

Peace!!!

Wrong.

I continue quoting scripture that do not match the usual talking points from folks such as yourself. Do not use my words to be a part of your talking points.

I appreciate your recognition that I am not returning to Catholicism. Some folks on the forums do not accept that recognition.

 

[JMM1957]

Again, no double standard here!!!

I quoted the scriptures and what you did sadly is a common thing among Catholics trying to play the “gotta ya” game for a Latter Day Saint, to maybe start believing that my church is not what it proclaims to be .

Nice try. Again no plans of going back to Catholicism.

I asked earlier today for you to give me the LDS interpretation of Matthew 16:18 again. I would like to get back to dealing with that verse, which would be constructive, instead of continually calling Catholics arrogant, and telling us all that you are not going back to Catholicism no matter what.

 

[CourtingTex]

I asked earlier today for you to give me the LDS interpretation of Matthew 16:18 again. I would like to get back to dealing with that verse, which would be constructive, instead of continually calling Catholics arrogant, and telling us all that you are not going back to Catholicism no matter what.

I responded to this before

When Joseph Smith received under the hands of Peter, James and John the higher priesthood, he received all the authority of the priesthood. That is very important, since Joseph Smith could not just create a church ---- that church would be under his authority basically the church of Joseph Smith, not the authority of the priesthood, whose head is Jesus Christ.

The gates prevailed as I said, because the church as organized by Jesus Christ after his death fell in apostasy, requiring the restoration to occur.

I know Catholics will take issue with that. My conviction of the truth of this reality gave me such comfort to questions I had years ago as a practicing Catholic.

Your attempts to throw, another curve ball so to speak, are useless on me.

 

[Fauken]

I responded to this before

When Joseph Smith received under the hands of Peter, James and John the higher priesthood, he received all the authority of the priesthood. That is very important, since Joseph Smith could not just create a church ---- that church would be under his authority basically the church of Joseph Smith, not the authority of the priesthood, whose head is Jesus Christ.

The gates prevailed as I said, because the church as organized by Jesus Christ after his death fell in apostasy, requiring the restoration to occur.

I know Catholics will take issue with that. My conviction of the truth of this reality gave me such comfort to questions I had years ago as a practicing Catholic.

Your attempts to throw, another curve ball so to speak, are useless on me.

How long then will it be until the Mormons fall into apostasy? If the Catholic church can, why not the LDS?

 

[CourtingTex]

How long then will it be until the Mormons fall into apostasy? If the Catholic church can, why not the LDS?

First of all, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is here until the great and dreadful day. No apostasy. We experienced that once and the gospel was restored, permitting the work of God to move forward.

The modern prophets have made it clear that efforts to try to stop the work of the restoration will not work, regardless how the attempts come to be, who try to advance those attempts, etc.

So those who sincerely seek and find the truth will have it in their lives. Those whose efforts is stop or hinder the work will continue to fail.

 

[Fauken]

First of all, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is here until the great and dreadful day. No apostasy. We experienced that once and the gospel was restored, permitting the work of God to move forward.

The modern prophets have made it clear that efforts to try to stop the work of the restoration will not work, regardless how the attempts come to be, who try to advance those attempts, etc.

So those who sincerely seek and find the truth will have it in their lives. Those whose efforts is stop or hinder the work will continue to fail.

So basically it won’t happen because we said so. Some how the Catholic church is beyond the mercy of God, but the LDS church is beyond reproof. Is that how I am to understand your reply?

Also, you still haven’t answered my question on why the Mormon church can say the method must be preserved and not the location in regards to baptism and Christ’s situation?

 

[CourtingTex]

So basically it won’t happen because we said so. Some how the Catholic church is beyond the mercy of God, but the LDS church is beyond reproof. Is that how I am to understand your reply?

Also, you still haven’t answered my question on why the Mormon church can say the method must be preserved and not the location in regards to baptism and Christ’s situation?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth ---- the Lord restored his church through Joseph Smith in April 1830 now being lead by the 16th President of the Church, since Joseph Smith. The church restored is wonderful ---- its servants, namely the Brethren and members such as myself are not perfect.

I could quote modern scripture, yet I have quoted Biblical scriptures twice now — apparently my answer was not the talking points of Catholicism that you know so very well.

 

[Stephen168]

A swimming pool or font does qualify, permitting a person to go into the font or pool to be baptized by someone holding the proper authority.

No, because the water is not living water it is not moving. And Mormons do not have Christian apostolic succession; therefore no Christian authority.

I recognize that fonts in our churches, you would have get into to be baptized versus the fonts I have seen in the Catholic church that a person could not get into — obviously the sprinkling that happens.

Sprinkling? A common Mormon anti-Catholic pejorative. Anyone who had ever been Catholic would know better.

Since when has continuing revelation been a part of Catholic doctrine? Who receives the revelation?

Are you claiming that changing practices, like the Mormon Church does, was never allowed in the true Christian Church?

 

[Fauken]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth ---- the Lord restored his church through Joseph Smith in April 1830 now being lead by the 16th President of the Church, since Joseph Smith. The church restored is wonderful ---- its servants, namely the Brethren and members such as myself are not perfect.

I could quote modern scripture, yet I have quoted Biblical scriptures twice now — apparently my answer was not the talking points of Catholicism that you know so very well.

I could say the exact same thing. Catholics on this forum have quoted scripture, and you responded with Mormon talking points. Why can our responses be dismissed as mere talking points and yours not? Even if they are, it doesn’t diminish the point.

 

[JMM1957]

I responded to this before

When Joseph Smith received under the hands of Peter, James and John the higher priesthood, he received all the authority of the priesthood. That is very important, since Joseph Smith could not just create a church ---- that church would be under his authority basically the church of Joseph Smith, not the authority of the priesthood, whose head is Jesus Christ.

The gates prevailed as I said, because the church as organized by Jesus Christ after his death fell in apostasy, requiring the restoration to occur.

I know Catholics will take issue with that. My conviction of the truth of this reality gave me such comfort to questions I had years ago as a practicing Catholic.

Your attempts to throw, another curve ball so to speak, are useless on me.

By saying this, you are calling Jesus a liar, plain and simple. You want to believe in the Joseph Smith story so bad, that you are blinded by truth when you see it, Matthew 16:18.

 

[CourtingTex]

No, because the water is not living water it is not moving. And Mormons do not have Christian apostolic succession; therefore no Christian authority.

Sprinkling? A common Mormon anti-Catholic pejorative. Anyone who had ever been Catholic would know better.

Are you claiming that changing practices, like the Mormon Church does, was never allowed in the true Christian Church?

First of all, my church changed nothing. Again we are not Protestants, who left you because changes occurred, otherwise why would Martin Luther and others need to create churches, with intention of coming back to the church organized and created by Jesus Christ???

Regarding the proper priesthood authority, Joseph Smith received the priesthood after the order of Aaron (Aaronic Priesthood — so the baptisms authorized by God were on the earth again )---- by the way resurrected John the Baptist performed the ordinance on Joseph Smith. Lastly, Peter, James, and John the ordinance of the higher priesthood, who they received such from Jesus Christ himself when his church was organized, with a foundation of apostles and prophets. For me, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ------- I have to find cardinals in the Bible ---- bishops, deacons, teachers and priests yes of course.

So this notation that we have no authority, is laughable when speaking, my line of authority can be traced back to Jesus Christ himself ---- the brother who ordained me a elder in the priesthood.

So Catholics, nice try again with trying to say that my church lacks the characteristics necessary to advance the work today is not correct at all.

 

[JMM1957]

First of all, my church changed nothing. Again we are not Protestants, who left you because changes occurred, otherwise why would Martin Luther and others need to create churches, with intention of coming back to the church organized and created by Jesus Christ????

Regarding the proper priesthood authority, Joseph Smith received the priesthood after the order of Aaron (Aaronic Priesthood — so the baptisms authorized by God were on the earth again )---- by the way resurrected John the Baptist performed the ordinance on Joseph Smith. Lastly, Peter, James, and John the ordinance of the higher priesthood, who they received such from Jesus Christ himself when his church was organized, with a foundation of apostles and prophets. For me, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ------- I have to find cardinals in the Bible ---- bishops, deacons, teachers and priests yes of course.

So this notation that we have no authority, is laughable when speaking, my line of authority can be traced back to Jesus Christ himself ---- the brother who ordained me a elder in the priesthood.

So Catholics, nice try again with trying to say that my church lacks the characteristics necessary to advance the work today is not correct at all.

I asked this question of you a couple days ago with no answer; if someone left the LDS church because they felt it was wrong, and started their own church, would your church be less of a church or no church at all because they left? And I will add this similar question also; would your church be shown to be wrong because someone left and started their own church?

 

[CourtingTex]

I asked this question of you a couple days ago with no answer; if someone left the LDS church because they felt it was wrong, and started their own church, would your church be less of a church or no church at all because they left? And I will add this similar question also; would your church be shown to be wrong because someone left and started their own church?

If that is something a person chose to do, that is their choice. Has nothing to do with if they believe the church to be true.

The church is true ---- what a person chooses to do, whether going to start their own or leaving for any other reason does not make the church not true.

Obviously, their church would have their (that person’s authority, not the authority of God).

 

[JMM1957]

If that is something a person chose to do, that is their choice. Has nothing to do with if they believe the church to be true.

The church is true ----what a person chooses to do, whether going to start their own or leaving for any other reason does not make the church not true.

Obviously, their church would have their (that person’s authority, not the authority of God).

Interesting that you say that, because the double standard has surfaced again. You have said many times here that Martin Luther and others left the Catholic Church because they disagreed with some things, and that proved to you that the Catholic Church was wrong and not the true Church. But if someone left the LDS church because they disagreed with something, your church would still be true.

 

[CourtingTex]

Interesting that you say that, because the double standard has surfaced again. You have said many times here that Martin Luther and others left the Catholic Church because they disagreed with some things, and that proved to you that the Catholic Church was wrong and not the true Church. But if someone left the LDS church because they disagreed with something, your church would still be true.

If I left the church after almost 30 years, it remains true whether I remain active or not.

Again — no double standard ---- I believe you have a issue because it puts in question this hold the Catholicism has had on being the so called true church, when evidence is clearly available opposite that view.