The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[TOmNossor]

It might surprise you to learn that not all Catholics pray the Rosary, TOm. Not all Catholics offer prayers to the various Saints. Many Catholics pray to God alone. God doesn’t force anyone to join or leave a church. He has given each of us free will.

It doesn’t surprise me actually. I am merely saying that even though I do not pray to Mary, do not pray the Rosary, do not pray to saints; I would welcome prayers for me via all these Catholic ways.
I do not know what my church did to Lemuel that so hurt him, but I wish him well. I also would hold the position you hold were I to disbelieve in the CoJCoLDS. That is that if the CoJCoLDS is not God’s church, there is no effect on deceased individuals when proxy baptism is offered.
BTW, Catholic prayers for me after I die or indulgences secured on my behalf are also welcome. I do not believe Purgatory is as Catholics think it is nor that indulgences have the efficacy that Catholics believe, but I welcome them.
Oh and you do not need to tell me how to properly understand Purgatory and Indulgences, I have read and have no huge issues with the BEST that is Catholic Purgatory belief and Catholic Indulgences belief.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Smith and Cowdery lied. No authority was given to them by God or any of the Apostles.

As Horton might say, “Prove it.”
Of course you have no proof. LDS believe Smith and Cowdery based on faith.
The faith is supported by the BOM, the BOM witnesses, years of consistent testomony that Peter did appear to BOTH of them, and other things absent the “succession of Peter” claims Catholics make.

But, I will admit that I cannot prove to you the Peter supernaturally visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I can only show that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, claimed it happened and acted as if it had.
Charity, TOm

 

[Lemuel]

What was the point of restoring the priesthood that was never taken from the earth?

 

[TOmNossor]

According to Mormonism the priesthood was never taken away from the earth so I don’t know why it even needed to be restored. Another thing that makes no sense to me.

Lemuel,
The three Nephites and John the Apostle were likely unable to restore the priesthood, but they were precluded anyway.
The three Nephites and John were not and are not public figures during their time on earth. Thus, passing on whatever they still possessed would not be in accordance with their mission. That being said, the keys to be God’s prophet on earth (and a number of other keys) were not possessed by John or the three Nephites.
This is the LDS answer.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What was the point of restoring the priesthood that was never taken from the earth?

The KEYS were in fact taken from the earth.
John and the 3 Nephites had a very specific mission that didn’t include what needed to be restored.
Charity, TOm

 

[Lemuel]

I do not know what my church did to Lemuel that so hurt him, but I wish him well.

Why do you always assume the worst? I WAS NOT HURT.

I was at a point in my life where I needed to know the truth. I was a seminary teacher and temple ordinance worker and I wanted a firm testimony. Over the course of 22 days, I read and prayed about the BOM with all the energy of my heart. The Spirit answered me. I was told very clearly that the BOM was a lie. I stopped going to church that week. I have never been back except when I let my wife investigate the Church. She took the missionary lessons. I welcomed it. She knew after about four visits that it was all a lie.

 

[Lemuel]

The three Nephites and John the Apostle were likely unable to restore the priesthood, but they were precluded anyway.

The three Nephites and John were not and are not public figures during their time on earth. Thus, passing on whatever they still possessed would not be in accordance with their mission. That being said, the keys to be God’s prophet on earth (and a number of other keys) were not possessed by John or the three Nephites.

This is the LDS answer.

You did not answer the question. The Church officially says that the priesthood was taken from the earth, not the keys. That can only mean that John and the Three Nephites were either not on the earth or they somehow were stripped of the priesthood. Your dancing can’t change the truth. The priesthood was either on the earth or it wasn’t. Choose.

 

[Lemuel]

When Jesus came, He restored the Melchizedek Priesthood to the Jews and began to build up the Church among them. However, it was lost again by apostasy and was taken from the earth.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/melchizedek-priesthood

 

[TOmNossor]

Lemuel:

According to Mormonism the priesthood was never taken away from the earth so I don’t know why it even needed to be restored. Another thing that makes no sense to me.

Yes. Contradictions upon contradictions by Mormons about Mormonism…

No contradictions. Here is my answer:

The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God Non-Catholic Religions

Lemuel, The three Nephites and John the Apostle were likely unable to restore the priesthood, but they were precluded anyway. The three Nephites and John were not and are not public figures during their time on earth. Thus, passing on whatever they still possessed would not be in accordance with their mission. That being said, the keys to be God’s prophet on earth (and a number of other keys) were not possessed by John or the three Nephites. This is the LDS answer. Charity, TOm

You just need at ask a LDS and not celebrate so hard about your “gotcha” that you fail to hear (read) the responses (know in this case your celebration precedes my response, but I see you celebrate a lot and I see you acknowledge responses very little).
In case you wonder how this is done, here is an example:

Magisterium - Infallibility -? Apologetics

I am hoping David will respond more fully to this. For my part, no, I don’t think there is a distinguishing from “ordinary” or “extraordinry”. It’s just the Magesterium, and it either makes a declaration or it doesn’t, and that declaration is either infallible or was not intended to be so. But it should be noted that I’m not educated on the topic…I can only grab what the Church has said/written, and post it like I did above. What about the term “Ecclesiastical Magisterium?” I don’t know.…

I could find some CONTRADICTION in Catholic teaching and pick it up as a stick and start beating. No need for clarification, no need for understanding, just “gotcha.”
I do not think this is a good way to approach interfaith dialogue. It is also a very poor way to win converts to Catholicism.
I have real concerns about a lot of things. I think Pope Francis embraces a position that I cannot align with the historical position of the Catholic Church. I know Pope Francis’s position is the OPPOSITE of Pope John Paul II. I could declare that one or the other is not infallibly because they disagree (concerning faith and morals no less). But, as a minimalist (like I said in the link), I do not think JPII or Pope Francis have exercised Papal Authority (speaking from the chair of Peter) to impose their different views on the church. I will point to the contradiction, I will say it is a problem, but it is not a Papal Infallibility “gotcha” despite what my Sedavacantists friends (who are usually not minimalist when it comes to papal infallibility) might say.
Charity, TOm

 

[Lemuel]

but I see you celebrate a lot and I see you acknowledge responses very little).

I don’t celebrate. So I don’t know what you think you see.

I don’t respond to most of your responses because they are:

1. Long
2. Boring
3. Not the least bit interesting to me.

Which is why I don’t usually read them.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I do not know what my church did to Lemuel that so hurt him, but I wish him well.

Why do you always assume the worst? I WAS NOT HURT.
I was at a point in my life where I needed to know the truth. I was a seminary teacher and temple ordinance worker and I wanted a firm testimony. Over the course of 22 days, I read and prayed about the BOM with all the energy of my heart. The Spirit answered me. I was told very clearly that the BOM was a lie. I stopped going to church that week. I have never been back except when I let my wife investigate the Church. She took the missionary lessons. I welcomed it. She knew after about four visits that it was all a lie.

Assuming you were hurt was not assuming the worst ABOUT YOU.
It was assuming the BEST about you.
You just finished claiming that when I said,

I truly think Catholicism is a wonderful religion and if you cannot be a LDS, you should continue your faith journey as a Catholic. We will baptize you (rebaptize you) after you die anyway!!! grin

Note both my “grin” and the praise of Catholicism and support of your journey towards full fellowship with the Catholics.
And you responded:

No doubt you will, because you have no respect for the dead. My family knows my wishes, but I’m confident that they will treat my wishes like trash. Mormons tend to do that.

I tried to support your Catholic journey and express my respect for Catholicism. I offered a little levity with my baptism and “grin” comment. And then you responded as you did.
If you didn’t respond because of hurt, then my conclusions about you are more negative than my original conclusion that you were hurt.
I do hope Catholicism provides Christ’s HEALING for you and all your aliments seen and unseen (hurt or not hurt).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

The three Nephites and John the Apostle were likely unable to restore the priesthood, but they were precluded anyway.
The three Nephites and John were not and are not public figures during their time on earth. Thus, passing on whatever they still possessed would not be in accordance with their mission. That being said, the keys to be God’s prophet on earth (and a number of other keys) were not possessed by John or the three Nephites.
This is the LDS answer.

You did not answer the question. The Church officially says that the priesthood was taken from the earth, not the keys. That can only mean that John and the Three Nephites were either not on the earth or they somehow were stripped of the priesthood. Your dancing can’t change the truth. The priesthood was either on the earth or it wasn’t. Choose.

I choose that there were non-public figures who validly had the Melchizedek Priesthood always on the earth as Joseph Fielding Smith taught decades ago (and likely others before him).
You have now professed to not read my responses. By this I assume you really mean scan them to see if you can continue to hold your previous position and or push forward in different directions as it is obvious that you read SOME of them.
But in case others are reading.
As President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out (from the D&C no less), God didn’t remove all priesthood holders from the either before Christ’s ministry or after. But, “These servants were not permitted to organize the Church nor to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel.” So it was the priesthood as a body that was not continued. Not every individual.
I have nowhere near the LDS pedigree you do. I have not been a member for 57 years. I have not taught (or attended Seminary). I have not been a member of 5 Bishopricks or been a Branch President. I have not served 1 mission nor two. And I have not been a temple ordinance worker. But, I have come across the answers to your questions in my studied more often than not.
I have unanswered questions about Catholicism, but all the stupid crap I answered on my own without even posting on a place like Catholic Answers.
I am not saying stop asking questions, I am just saying that there are answers.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

Nice evasion once again TOm.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

but I see you celebrate a lot and I see you acknowledge responses very little).

I don’t celebrate. So I don’t know what you think you see.
I don’t respond to most of your responses because they are:

1. Long
2. Boring
3. Not the least bit interesting to me.
   Which is why I don’t usually read them.

Awesome. I am sorry for you, but I have long been speaking about Professor Stanley B. Kimbell’s history paradigm.
If I were a faithful Catholic I would say this:
A History : This is the simple stuff. Stuff like, “documentation of the succession from St. Peter” shows that the Pope is at the head of God’s church by design. What could be clearer: Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, …. The Pope is the successor of Peter and the head of God’s church on Earth.
B History: This is not much more complex. Stuff like, “Clement of Rome never wrote about being at the head of God’s church. Not when he asked for someone to be like Moses (though he should know he is like Moses), not when he delineated the “Ministers of the Church.” Clearly Clement of Rome couldn’t be the Pope in any sense because he didn’t know he was Pope.
C History: The truth is that Catholics have long known that the authority of the Pope developed from the Peterine ministry. This development can be traced inside Rome and outside of Rome. This development like the development of the monoepiscopate is similar to the development we see in the New Testament where Paul ordains coworkers who carry on Christ’s ministry. To trace this through the New Testament and the ECF sources requires book length treatments (the two books I recommended BTW).
The former Catholic Nun in my previous ward who offered to prove to my Catholic friend that Catholicism was simply false embraced B Catholic History. There is no simple proof that Catholicism is not God’s church.
It is clear to me that, “1. Long, 2. Boring, 3. Not the least bit interesting to me.” Describes your 22 day loss of faith journey. Once one finds B. History they cannot return to the simple A. history. In the internet age, people think research is doing a Google search, but that is not sufficient.
You are not the first person to demonstrate the Stanley B. Kimbell was right back then and is especially right in the Internet age.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Nice evasion once again TOm.

No problem. I am here all week!
Charity, TOm

 

[Lemuel]

At least you admit that the Church ONCE AGAIN lied about it. They said, as I showed you, that the priesthood was taken from the earth, when, in fact, it was not. Lies, lies and more lies. That is the fruit of Joseph Smith, the liar, the convicted glass looker, the unfaithful husband, the womanizer, the serial adulterer, the con man, the counterfeiter, the mentor of Warren Jeffs, the one who claims to have done a greater work for mankind than anyone including the Savior, and heaven knows what else. And you all sing his praises. Your faith is based on lies. Your leaders lie and counsel the members to lie. The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Saints is a fraud. Your God is not my God.

I come here to hang with Catholics and what do I get? More Mormons. I suppose you have as much right to be here as anyone, but this is not what I came for. I would love a life without the evil cult that you embrace. But you Mormons will find me anywhere and annoy the hell out of me like you always do. It must be your sick sort of fun.

Charity? You spew your filth all over and then sign off with your “Charity” nonsense as if you mean well. You aren’t charity. You’re the kind of Mormon that I warn my kids about.

I’m done here. I’m done with this place.

 

[TOmNossor]

At least you admit that the Church ONCE AGAIN lied about it. They said, as I showed you, that the priesthood was taken from the earth, when, in fact, it was not. Lies, lies and more lies. That is the fruit of Joseph Smith, the liar, the convicted glass looker, the unfaithful husband, the womanizer, the serial adulterer, the con man, the counterfeiter, the mentor of Warren Jeffs, the one who claims to have done a greater work for mankind than anyone including the Savior, and heaven knows what else. And you all sing his praises. Your faith is based on lies. Your leaders lie and counsel the members to lie. The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Saints is a fraud. Your God is not my God.

I come here to hang with Catholics and what do I get? More Mormons. I suppose you have as much right to be here as anyone, but this is not what I came for. I would love a life without the evil cult that you embrace. But you Mormons will find me anywhere and annoy the hell out of me like you always do. It must be your sick sort of fun.

Charity? You spew your filth all over and then sign off with your “Charity” nonsense as if you mean well. You aren’t charity. You’re the kind of Mormon that I warn my kids about.

I’m done here. I’m done with this place.

I have no need or desire to chase you away. Based upon your stated reason for being here, I would recommend however that you go to a Catholic fellowship site (maybe the Catholic Living section here would be good enough). Pure fellowship site do exist though. You might even find one that would be happy to invite you and your criticism of my church while simultaneously forbidding LDS from responding.
Catholic Answers was founded to respond to criticisms of the Catholic Church. It would be somewhat hypocritical if they trafficked in criticisms of the CoJCoLDS and forbid responses. The LDS board I occasionally post on has Catholic and Protestant regulars. It has a Mormon fellowship section (I have no idea if it is moderated or if it is just respected), but most of the board is about discussions and responding to criticisms.
My interaction with you has been in response to your criticism of my church, your former church. My last post to you was produced when you responded to something directed to Lily. I sincerely wish you well in journey towards the Catholic faith and towards Jesus Christ.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I do not claim we have objective proof.

I think we have evidences that can be shared with others.

I think we have reasons and arguments that are compelling.

And I think many LDS have subjective PROOF, but these are personal things that do not make apologetic arguments.

That is true, there is no objective historical evidence that the Mormon leadership was chosen by God. Yes, in Mormonism their testimony is their evidence.

The Catholic Church has the authority given to the Apostles by Christ as a historical fact.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I do not claim we have objective proof.
I think we have evidences that can be shared with others.
I think we have reasons and arguments that are compelling.
And I think many LDS have subjective PROOF, but these are personal things that do not make apologetic arguments.

That is true, there is no objective historical evidence that the Mormon leadership was chosen by God. Yes, in Mormonism their testimony is their evidence.
The Catholic Church has the authority given to the Apostles by Christ as a historical fact.

Stephen,
I have long disagreed with your simplistic statement here because the historical record does not IMO support it (as I have explained in this thread and previously).
That being said, I now think that your statement is wrong for another reason (too). After reading this thread:

Historian of Early Christianity waiting for school to start . . . ask me anything! Non-Catholic Religions

I’ve seen a few posts by Atheists looking to answer questions, so I thought it might be fun for me to try the same thing with my interest - Early Christian history. A few pieces of background: I’m a professor of Early Christian history (including the Historical Jesus) at a US university. I am a historian, NOT a theologian. If you have any questions about Christology or things of that nature, I am not the best resource. Also, I am not interested in debating faith. That is something best left…

I do not think there is historical evidence that the apostolic authority passed to Pope John Paul II when the college of the cardinals selected him to be Pope. It is a historical fact that he was selected by them, but it is a spiritual belief that some authority passed. There is every reason to believe that the authority present in Paul VI passed. There are historical facts associated with his selection, there are historical facts associated with the way he acted and those around him acted. These historical facts point to the belief that authority was passed, but that belief is not a historical fact.
So I think you have agreed that a great deal of DEVELOPMENT is needed to recognize the authority of Pope Stephen I is the same authority that Peter had. That this DEVELOPMENT happened is a spiritual belief not a historical fact.
The Clementine Homilies purport to be written by Clement and they describe Peter passing his authority to Clement of Rome. It is virtually certain that this document was written in the 4th century not by Clement of Rome. It is also virtually certain that the things described in this document are not historical facts. We know this because the historical facts associated what people did and said in the 20-40 years after 65AD do not support the idea that Peter selected Clement of Rome to be his successor. We might say it is a historical fact that the scene described in the Clementine Homilies DID NOT HAPPEN.
That some DEVELOPMENT hypothesis is true and results in Pope Stephen I having the authority of Peter is a spiritual position not a historical fact.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I have long disagreed with your simplistic statement here because the historical record does not IMO support it (as I have explained in this thread and previously).

The Mormon Church was started 1900 years after Christ. Therefore it is very clear the authority handed down from Christ to the Apostles was not given to Joseph Smith as an empirical historical fact.

As a Mormon scientist once said, a Mormon’s testimony is their evidence. And that is all the evidence you have, and all you have claimed.

The Mormon Church’s claim is completely without defense which is why you made absolutely no attempt to defend it.

Father Sullivan’s book is about how Apostolic Authority was passed down from Christ in the early Church. It is not about the papacy; the title would tell you that. He agrees with me; the Catholic Church has the authority given to the Apostles by Christ.