Seeking the True Church

[JMM1957]

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.

It is the true Church that Jesus established in Matthew 16:18 and has continued to this day because Jesus said “the gates of hell would not prevail against it”. You and your LDS church call Jesus a liar because you claim the gates of hell did prevail against it"(Post #293). There is no tip-toeing around it, you call Jesus a liar, in favor of putting Joseph Smiths words ahead of Jesus words.

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” (John 3:31-36)

This verse says nothing about believing in Joseph Smith to get eternal life, does it?

 

[adf417]

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?

I hope this gets answered soon and not continuously avoided.

Peace!!!

 

[CourtingTex]

It is the true Church that Jesus established in Matthew 16:18 and has continued to this day because Jesus said “the gates of hell would not prevail against it”. You and your LDS church call Jesus a liar because you claim the gates of hell did prevail against it". There is no tip-toeing around it, you call Jesus a liar, in favor of putting Joseph Smiths words ahead of Jesus words.

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” (John 3:31-36)

This verse says nothing about believing in Joseph Smith to get eternal life, does it?

I knew your thinking would likely go this way.

Acts 3:21 validates the restoration. Why would a restoration be necessary if the church organized by Jesus Christ became corrupted after his death?

Your issue, I suppose to me, is I am wrong because, as always the Catholics are right because they exist and the Latter Day Saints can never be right. For me, it is now my job to prove to you my church is true ----- your motives to me in light of the replies is show my church is false.

So are you saying the scriptures of the Bible (I could up the Book of Mormon, to validate further — I do not waste my time, because Catholics have their views on another testament of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon).

Bottom line, I do not need to show that my church is true ---- the Holy Ghost testifies of truth. The Holy Ghost is the only way for those who want to know the truth.

 

[adf417]

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.

Im sorry if my talking points are not yours. I thought that was how humans have conversation and how logical progression works. A person answeres a question, which you did and I appriciate it, then there are logical follow up questions that all must align which they do not. If they are not supposed to align then maybe my JW family members might have you beat.

Please explain how you can consider Jesus immersion important enough to take literal but Jesus being baptised in the Jordan not. If you can’t explain this what chance do you expect any logical person will take you serious?

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

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).

I guess whats good for the goose is no longer good for the gander. I never cared much for that saying anyhow.

Peace!!!

 

[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 have answered it.

You validate to me further why your understanding of the scriptures will differ with mine.

So explain to me, why you are unwilling to accept my conviction of the truth versus this useless effort in playing “gotta ya”???

 

[JMM1957]

I knew your thinking would likely go this way.

Acts 3:21 validates the restoration. Why would a restoration be necessary if the church organized by Jesus Christ became corrupted after his death?

Your issue, I suppose to me, is I am wrong because, as always the Catholics are right because they exist and the Latter Day Saints can never be right. For me, it is now my job to prove to you my church is true ----- your motives to me in light of the replies is show my church is false.

So are you saying the scriptures of the Bible (I could up the Book of Mormon, to validate further — I do not waste my time, because Catholics have their views on another testament of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon).

Bottom line, I do not need to show that my church is true ---- the Holy Ghost testifies of truth. The Holy Ghost is the only way for those who want to know the truth.

The restoration spoken of in Acts 3:21 is talking about the Messiahship of Jesus with his future coming, not the restoration you are thinking of. The verses following this verse give fuller understanding of verse 21.

There is right and wrong in this world, and when it comes to the Word of God, it is always right, and what Joseph Smith and the LDS church teach in reference to Matthew 16:18 is wrong. The Holy Spirit would not tell you that the LDS church is correct, and at the same time be telling you Jesus is a liar (according to you and your church), the two, Jesus and Holy Spirit are united in purpose, no contradictions.

 

[Fauken]

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?

Quoting it again so it doesn’t get lost during the discussion.

EDIT: Emphasis added onto quote.

 

[JMM1957]

I have answered it.

You validate to me further why your understanding of the scriptures will differ with mine.

So explain to me, why you are unwilling to accept my conviction of the truth versus this useless effort in playing “gotta ya”???

I’m not playing it, the Bible is playing it with you, you are blinded by the truth at the present time. Failing to take Jesus at his Word in Matthew 16:18.

 

[JMM1957]

Quoting it again so it doesn’t get lost during the discussion.

EDIT: Emphasis added onto quote.

You’ll probably need to do this a couple more times.

 

[Fauken]

You’ll probably need to do this a couple more times.

It wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m curious for the answer.

 

[CourtingTex]

The restoration spoken of in Acts 3:21 is talking about the Messiahship of Jesus with his future coming, not the restoration you are thinking of. The verses following this verse give fuller understanding of verse 21.

There is right and wrong in this world, and when it comes to the Word of God, it is always right, and what Joseph Smith and the LDS church teach in reference to Matthew 16:18 is wrong. The Holy Spirit would not tell you that the LDS church is correct, and at the same time be telling you Jesus is a liar (according to you and your church), the two, Jesus and Holy Spirit are united in purpose, no contradictions.

Wrong again.

Believe the scriptures as you do. My conviction of the truth will not change ---- use of words like contradictions and liar based on nothing. Again as I have said you and I have differing understanding of the scriptures so to relieve my continuing back and forth with you, I will accept that you understand the scriptures your way and for myself differently

What is your motive in any of this? To prove to others reading this back and forth that the Catholic is right and the Latter Day Saint is wrong, just won’t admit it? To me, that is just plain arrogance.

I have had the true church in my life for almost 30 years and nothing you and anyone can say or do will change that fact.

 

[JMM1957]

I have answered it.

You validate to me further why your understanding of the scriptures will differ with mine.

So explain to me, why you are unwilling to accept my conviction of the truth versus this useless effort in playing “gotta ya”???

Oh, I believe you believe it as being truth at the present time, I just don’t share your belief.

 

[CourtingTex]

Oh, I believe you believe it as being truth at the present time, I just don’t share your belief.

Fine. We agree on that.

“At this present time” words ---- my conviction is forever. Nothing is going to change that reality.

 

[JMM1957]

Wrong again.

Believe the scriptures as you do. My conviction of the truth will not change ---- use of words like contradictions and liar based on nothing. Again as I have said you and I have differing understanding of the scriptures so to relieve my continuing back and forth with you, I will accept that you understand the scriptures your way and for myself differently

What is your motive in any of this? To prove to others reading this back and forth that the Catholic is right and the Latter Day Saint is wrong, just won’t admit it? To me, that is just plain arrogance.

I have had the true church in my life for almost 30 years and nothing you and anyone can say or do will change that fact.

No, my purpose is to get you to the point where you don’t call Jesus a liar anymore, its not a position that you want to be in, not good. If you accept the Word of God in the Bible as Truth, which I believe you do, then you need to believe Jesus words in Matthew 16:18, those words do not ever become void, not by Joseph Smith or any prophet since that time. Believing in a restored church or gospel is calling Jesus a liar. You really need to come to grips with this issue.

 

[Fauken]

Fine. We agree on that.

“At this present time” words ---- my conviction is forever. Nothing is going to change that reality.

I thought the same thing before I became Catholic. I entered the door you left, and I eat my words every day because I did not know that which I opposed. You’ve insisted the Holy Spirit led you to the Mormon faith. I insist it led me to Catholicism, and there is no other reason I am here. I talked to Mormon missionaries before I converted, and frankly, I was not impressed. All that I left looks like ash to me: dust to be scattered by the wind. I bet you look at Catholicism the same way. I know the feeling. Before I ask you to answer the question I’ve asked you three times now, at least answer me this. Do you resent the Catholic church?

 

[JMM1957]

Fine. We agree on that.

“At this present time” words ---- my conviction is forever. Nothing is going to change that reality.

Not calling Jesus a liar in Matthew 16:18 changes things.

 

[Stephen168]

First of all, my church changed nothing.

Yes, your church has changed A LOT since its founding in 1830 including the nature of God himself as I’ve pointed out already.

Curiously, within the LDS church itself, we see changing of the form of ordinances. The example I always use is that of the Initiatory washing and anointing. Originally, this was done by a full bath/washing. It then changed into dabbing water and oil on specific body parts. Finally, it changed into the mode that I participated in, where the temple worker puts water on your forehead and oil on your hand, and “symbolically” washes and anoints you.

The Mormon Church also has beliefs they invented which were never taught by Christ or any Christians like:
barring blacks from the priesthood
exaltation
polygamy
Melchizedek Priesthood
excommunicating Apostles
God was a man
blood atonement
water baptism on behalf of the dead
God was near the star Kolob as recorded in Mormon scripture translated by Joseph Smith from papyrus which turned out to be an Egyptian funeral text.

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.

The Holy Ghost confirmed for me that this never happened. Christ passed his authority by the laying on of hands from one generation to the next and Joseph Smith never received authority from anybody who had it to pass on. I know this is true by the Holy Ghost and the fact there is no Presidency in the Bible.

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.

The laughable part is you cannot trace your authority back any farther than Joseph Smith as a historical fact.

The Mormon Church does not have the authority to make the changes they have made in practice and belief.

 

[adrift]

Hi adrift, I don’t want to derail anything but take a short deviation. Are you saying immersion of the 3000 would have been impossible because of the time it would take?
I am interested in your thoughts there.

I was baptised in the believers baptism tradition but not immersed but rather the water was poured over my head. While traveling in Austria we came to a Catholic Chrch in a small resort town that had a separate room on the side of the church that contained a huge painting of Christ’s baptism. It showed John and Jesus standing waist deep in the lake and John was pouring water from his cupped hands over Jesus’ head. I thought it interesting but not necessarily something to build a theology on.

For the sake of arguement consider this. 3000 people ÷ 12 Baptizers = 250 each. Each baptism taking 1 minute would keep them busy for 4 hours. Maybe not totally impossible?

Where would they get the water?

 

[CourtingTex]

I thought the same thing before I became Catholic. I entered the door you left, and I eat my words every day because I did not know that which I opposed. You’ve insisted the Holy Spirit led you to the Mormon faith. I insist it led me to Catholicism, and there is no other reason I am here. I talked to Mormon missionaries before I converted, and frankly, I was not impressed. All that I left looks like ash to me: dust to be scattered by the wind. I bet you look at Catholicism the same way. I know the feeling. Before I ask you to answer the question I’ve asked you three times now, at least answer me this. Do you resent the Catholic church?

No.

We all come to God and Jesus Christ differently or not at all, for those who are not religious at all.

I am happy and understand the purpose of life much better.