M
majick275
Guest
maybe i should start quoting michael quinn as a renowned mormon expert or orson pratt as the most important LDS “ECF”…
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
That’s not doctrinal!maybe i should start quoting michael quinn as a renowned mormon expert or orson pratt as the most important LDS “ECF”…
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Maj,
I think I’ve been fairly free about disagreeing with Z on this board. You seem to be suggesting that Z is never right about anything, so that agreeing with him on a single issue is the death knell for my “credibility.”
Back to my comment defending Z. Can you point to where Z said that he had proven Catholicism wrong and Mormonism right by anything he posted here? Could be I just missed it.
So basically, Maj, I’ll agree or disagree with whomever the hell I want to. If you have a problem with that, then my attitude is that you can kiss my pink behind.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
aw, don’t take it personally. Sometimes people have high hopes and are let down.
And you might read the forum rules about being charitable. Take it from me, that sort of talk will get you in a corner timeout.
And you might read the forum rules about being charitable. Take it from me, that sort of talk will get you in a corner timeout.
M
majick275
Guest
you must have missed a lot of his posts. you can search them if you want. i’m done here. we’re back to the knocking on doors just pray about it and whatever happens will be your spiritual witness that it’s true and anything you see or hear to the contrary is anti-mormon propaganda…which proves that it’s true.Hi Maj,
I think I’ve been fairly free about disagreeing with Z on this board. You seem to be suggesting that Z is never right about anything, so that agreeing with him on a single issue is the death knell for my “credibility.”
Back to my comment defending Z. Can you point to where Z said that he had proven Catholicism wrong and Mormonism right by anything he posted here? Could be I just missed it.
So basically, Maj, I’ll agree or disagree with whomever the hell I want to. If you have a problem with that, then my attitude is that you can kiss my pink behind.
you missionaries need to find another place to preach…this is a catholic home.
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
No, I don’t think you “missed it”. The poster seems to post as if were already a proven fact (and accepted by all) that Catholicism is wrong, wrong, wrong. I think the attitude is what was being referred to.
And I also think that Rebbeca is right when she refers to “cherry picking” quotes from different scholars. What scholars think is just opinion, IMO. There was an apostasy from the only Christian Church in town or there wasn’t (not an apostasy of Christians). We conform our opinions to Jesus’ authority–not the other way around. It’s about the passing of Jesus’ authority down. It’s not about anyone’s personal opinion. So IMO in order for you all to claim that there was an apostasy of Christians (on the nature of God or whatever) you first have to prove that there was a total apostasy of the Church and it can’t be by reasonable doubt or even a preponderence of evidence.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi A,
It’s just opinion, in your opinion? Well, that’s just an opinion, too.
I’d be the last person to say that scholarship provides conclusive proof of anything much. So ok, scholars give their opinions. But they also provide evidence for their opinions, and based on that, we can decide which opinions we think are better than others. The fact is that humans are faced with limited knowledge of the facts, and so we have to make decisions the best we can. Or are you against trying to make rational decisions?
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
Yes, an opinion. Don’t you know? Everyone has one.Hi A,
It’s just opinion, in your opinion? Well, that’s just an opinion, too.
I’d be the last person to say that scholarship provides conclusive proof of anything much. So ok, scholars give their opinions. But they also provide evidence for their opinions, and based on that, we can decide which opinions we think are better than others. The fact is that humans are faced with limited knowledge of the facts, and so we have to make decisions the best we can. Or are you against trying to make rational decisions?
And I do know that I have limited knowledge and cannot rely on myself, so when it comes down to my limited knowledge and questioning Jesus’ authority, I think I’ll pass on the questioning His authority. I don’t see where there has been any break in the chain of authority that would cause anyone (least of all me) to need to question things on his/her own. Evidence of a total apostasy in Jesus’ Church (the only Christian Church around at the time) isn’t there. And it matters because Jesus gave His authority to His to His apostles (our first Bishops)–He said: “He that heareth you heareth Me” (Luke 10;16) Ten million human scholars’ opinions don’t equal a single word from Jesus.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
To Catholic Dude:
The roman numerals are supposed to indicate my bday, though I think I messed up on them.
xi = 11
xxv = 25
mcm85 = 1985
(note: mcmlxxxv is actually “1985” though CA doesn’t allow screennames with “xxx” in them, for obvious reasons).
The roman numerals are supposed to indicate my bday, though I think I messed up on them.
xi = 11
xxv = 25
mcm85 = 1985
(note: mcmlxxxv is actually “1985” though CA doesn’t allow screennames with “xxx” in them, for obvious reasons).
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Yes, but what most LDS apologists come up with is far from actual evidence. It’s mere speculation based on personal opinion.
Neither in science nor in a court of law would such be classified as evidence.
“There was an apostasy because X church doesn’t interpret Y scripture the way I do” obviously isn’t a conclusion based on evidence, rather a conclusion based on emotion.
Whereas “The Didache (written within the first two centuries AD by students of the Apostles) demonstrates distinctly Catholic/Orthodox beliefs such as X, Y, Z, thus demonstrating that any theoretical apostasy in fact did not occur” is an example of a conclusion based on evidence.
I’ve yet to see any LDS apologist appeal to actual tangible evidence that an apostasy occurred (this isn’t to say that no such evidence exists, I’ve just yet to see it. Maybe you’re the apologist I’ve been waiting for?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Try this: zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/apostasy-and-restoration.htmlI’ve yet to see any LDS apologist appeal to actual tangible evidence that an apostasy occurred (this isn’t to say that no such evidence exists, I’ve just yet to see it. Maybe you’re the apologist I’ve been waiting for?
zerinus
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
And especially a hallmark of Z. Which thread was it on which he asserted that the LDS church has “sacraments” (plural) (in lieu of “ordinances”)? And now he’s asserting that the LDS church teaches that God has a trinitarian nature rather than one of a “godhead”?
Either the LDS church has changed their official terminology, or Z is plain and simply being deceitful.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Thanks! I’ll add that to my list of weekend reading (I’m stuck at home with Strept Throat
)
J
J_C
Guest
I read Zerinises article as best I could, and something sticks out for me at the very beginning, which I find puzzling. Here is a quote from it:
“…it is important that we define exactly what we mean by the Apostasy. By that we do not mean that the entire church became wicked, or that there were no more true Christians left in the world who had a saving faith in the Christ. Rather, by that we mean the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church, which resulted in the loss of the ability to communicate directly with God, and to lead the church by revelation, as it used to be while the Twelve Apostles were still on the earth. It also means that valid sacraments could no longer be performed by the church, and the appointment of unworthy or unrighteous persons to high positions in the church could not be prevented. It also meant that the gradual degradation of the doctrinal, structural, and organizational integrity of the church could not be avoided.”
I am pretty sure, based on my own conversations with a few mormosn, that they actually do believe that a total apostasy took place and that there were no more Christians left in the world. And this belief is the only one that makes any sense if the assertion that the priesthood and sacraments were lost. For if they were truly lost then it hardly seems possible for there to be any Christians in the world. By the time a century or two had elapsed surely the religion would be lost, rather than what is clearly seen from hostory, which is that the Catholic, Orthodox and protestant worlds remained vibrantly active, producing great men and women of tremendous faith.
No. this backpedaling that zerinus is doing by suggesting that the lost of priesthood and sacraments would not by its fact also cause the total destruction of the Christian religion, is an attempt to soften the insult of the false charge of apostasy.
at root this is fuzzy thinking. people must be induced to think fuzzy thoughts beforre they will indulge such false theory of history. but, nice try, A for effort.
“…it is important that we define exactly what we mean by the Apostasy. By that we do not mean that the entire church became wicked, or that there were no more true Christians left in the world who had a saving faith in the Christ. Rather, by that we mean the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church, which resulted in the loss of the ability to communicate directly with God, and to lead the church by revelation, as it used to be while the Twelve Apostles were still on the earth. It also means that valid sacraments could no longer be performed by the church, and the appointment of unworthy or unrighteous persons to high positions in the church could not be prevented. It also meant that the gradual degradation of the doctrinal, structural, and organizational integrity of the church could not be avoided.”
I am pretty sure, based on my own conversations with a few mormosn, that they actually do believe that a total apostasy took place and that there were no more Christians left in the world. And this belief is the only one that makes any sense if the assertion that the priesthood and sacraments were lost. For if they were truly lost then it hardly seems possible for there to be any Christians in the world. By the time a century or two had elapsed surely the religion would be lost, rather than what is clearly seen from hostory, which is that the Catholic, Orthodox and protestant worlds remained vibrantly active, producing great men and women of tremendous faith.
No. this backpedaling that zerinus is doing by suggesting that the lost of priesthood and sacraments would not by its fact also cause the total destruction of the Christian religion, is an attempt to soften the insult of the false charge of apostasy.
at root this is fuzzy thinking. people must be induced to think fuzzy thoughts beforre they will indulge such false theory of history. but, nice try, A for effort.
J
J_C
Guest
I think you’ve misread my post.
I am not telling you what to believe.
I addressed only the issue of your definition of what certain americna sects, in this case LDS, call the Great Apostacy.
you appear to want your cake and eat it too. You would like to accuse us of being apostates, but yet not endure the angry response to such a greivous accusation. to do so, you backpedal and say that, oh, there have always been good Christians with saving faith. What I am saying is that, without priesthood and sacraments,this would not be possible and in fact there would be no Chrisitainty today if it were so. Let alone centuries of great saints who changed the world by small feats such as inventing hospitals and universities, among other Christian things.
in fact I would say that by 1830, without priesthood and sacraments, the Christian world would be so long dead Mr Smith would have nothingg tangible upon which to base his rebbellion.
NO disrespect intended to you, but it seems to me that your definition is flawed and may need to be revisited.
Z
zerinus
Guest
That is not my invention. That is the theologocal position of the LDS Church, and derived from LDS scripture, notably the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. It is also what the leadership of the Church have consistently taught.
What “you are saying” is wrong; and I have written that lengthy article precisely to explain whay it is wrong. You objections have already been addressed in that article. There is no need to address them here again.
zerinus
J
J_C
Guest
thank you, and I will leave it at that. the article proves nothing. The proposal of a great apostacy is unproveable either from Schripture or from history, in fact history argues strongly against it even at face value. and your article, while a good effort, starts off wrong with a fuzzy definition, and goes downhill from there. A good effort for your side, but ultimately as incorrect as the position it tries to prove.
thank you for the conversation.
thank you for the conversation.
T
toaslan
Guest
Rebecca, where is this verse in Maccabees again?
- Status