The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter CourtingTex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
I remember when you claimed that St. Francis de Sales believed in Baptism for the Dead, because he referenced 1 Corinthians 15:29; “Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” After I said that Baptism for the Dead was never a Christian belief, you wanted to show how at least one Catholic Saint believed it.
Click to expand...
Stephen,

It would be better if you admitted that Mark Shea did reference Melchizedek priesthood, but instead you distract!

You are wrong about what I showed from St. Francis de Sales. What I showed from him was again refuting a wrong idea espoused by a Catholic (you I think). Someone claimed that Paul obviously rejects this “Baptism for the Dead” passage when he references it. St. Francis de Sales does not believe this. He espouses that whatever “Baptism for the Dead” is, it was approved of by St. Paul. I think it was he that offered around 20 different possibilities of what this practice was including vicarious acts (not likely in his mind to be water emersions as I recall) performed to provide benefit to deceased relatives. LDS perform “vicarious acts …

That is why I reference him, but you must have misunderstood.

LDS do not use the term “purgatory” but we do believe in “Spirit Prison” where those who be “Baptize for the Dead” are taught the gospel and correct their errant concepts. LDS “Spirit Prison” is not NECESSARILY a place of suffering and purgation like Catholic purgatory. There is a GREAT deal of similarity and a good deal of differences, but you are distracting.
Stephen168 said:
Yes, you found an article by Mark Shea where he uses the phrase Melchizedek priesthood; David’s Melchizedek priesthood in fact. The article doesn’t prove what you claim it does. Melchizedek is associated with the Holy Eucharist where Christians receive the body and blood of Christ. Again, a belief Mormonism rejects.

And again you got nothing for the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood.
Click to expand...
The article EVIDENCES that “Melchizedek priesthood” is a concept derived/derivable from the Bible. You claimed it was not, but it is. The “Mormon Melchizedek priesthood” is a product of revelation to Joseph Smith that is CONSISTENT with the Bible as evidenced by so many folks seeing “Melchizedek priesthood” in the Bible. That is all I am saying and you claimed it was not there. Apache claimed Mark Shea was fired so we shouldn’t listen to him. You say he has not proven the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood.

Before you said:
Stephen168 said:
Yes, and that would be step One in claiming Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek Priesthood; prove there was ever such a thing.
Click to expand...
The Bible as read by many LDS and many non-LDS provides evidence that there was “such a thing” as a Melchizedek priesthood. Can you admit this?

Charity, TOm
 
Don’t bring Bigfoot into this! I have seen it before in Oregon. So I have visual proof that it is real. I also have 2 witnesses to it too. Leave Bigfoot out of this!!!
 
TOmNossor said:
The “Mormon Melchizedek priesthood” is a product of revelation to Joseph Smith that is CONSISTENT with the Bible as evidenced by so many folks seeing “Melchizedek priesthood” in the Bible.
Click to expand...
To summarize:
Joseph Smith made it up but it is biblical.

I’m also getting bored reading your long winded posts that claim the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is biblical, but can’t prove it.
You do like to brag about how well versed Mormons are on the Bible compared to Catholics, so if it was possible to prove the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood from the Bible YOU would have done it.

I think it is clear that it is a fact that the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not biblical, because it is an invention of Joseph Smith. This is my claim that YOU are not able to refute. Actually it seems half the time you support my claim.
 
Last edited:
Stephen168 said:
Many Mormons live in a false dichotomy; either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church is true. Many Mormon believe proving the Catholic Church wrong is the same as proving the Mormon Church right. The book Mormon Doctrine has many entries of Catholic belief and practices with an explanation about why Mormonism believes they were wrong. The book is no longer Mormon doctrine because doctrine has changed, and it is too anti-Catholic for the new generation of Mormons.
Click to expand...
Actually, Stephen, I think most LDS are not very concerned with Catholic truth claims. I am unusual here.

I explore Catholic truth claims for two reasons.
  1. I want to compare the BEST of Catholicism to the BEST of Mormonism. I do not want to reject that Catholic Church because the Bible says, “Call no man father.” That is stupid. I do not want to believe that Papal Infallibility is disproven because Pope Francis is saying that some folks who commit the sin of adultery might be able to partake of the Eucharist and Pope JPII said that nobody who commits the sin of adultery can partake of the Eucharist. There are at least 2 reasons why this truth doesn’t mean Papal Infallibility is false.
  2. Some of the problems you present for Mormonism are just stupid and can be dismissed. Like there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there ever was a Melchizedek priesthood. Other things are real, but the type of thinking necessary to call them PROOF that Mormonism is false will also “prove” Catholicism is false. Most LDS believed that ALL American Indians descended from Lehi’s band, but this changed (and the change started because the BOM was read more closely NOT because of science). Most Catholics believed that the earth was at the center of the universe (many such as Robert Sungenis still do because it was called “de fide” by Bellarmine and taught by Popes), but few believe it today (this change was in response to science and for no other reason). There are also at least 2 reasons why this truth doesn’t mean Papal Infallibility is false.
I think there are many positives and many negatives for the CoJCoLDS and for the Catholic Church. I also think both our churches have fewer issues and more positives than Protestant structures or atheistic structures or Rad-Trad Catholic structures or …. But, net-net, I think the CoJCoLDS based on the evidence is more likely to be God’s church than that the Catholic Church is God’s church. That being said, I am quite convinced that Mother Teresa was/is 10x the saint that I am and her post mortal time will result in Christ saying, “well done thou good and faithful servant.” If I was to make my decision on which church to embrace based on Pascal’s wager, I would be a Catholic immediately. That being said, if Catholicism is true and I am profoundly wrong I hope my error will be due to “invincible ignorance.”

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
gazelam said:
After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood by Robert Boylan
Click to expand...
I looked around his blog and Amazon. I had to chuckle when I saw that he reviewed his own books. From what I’ve read, I’ll pass on reading it, but thanks for the info.
 
TOmNossor said:
Call no man father
Click to expand...
Abraham, Paul, Peter and others were called Father in the bible, after Jesus said “call no man father”.

Paul and Peter address their readers as children, sons, daughters, so obviously they were calling him Father a lot outside of the Bible too.
 
anon65111186 said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
Call no man father
Click to expand...
Abraham, Paul, Peter and others were called Father in the bible, after Jesus said “call no man father”.

Paul and Peter address their readers as children, sons, daughters, so obviously they were calling him Father a lot outside of the Bible too.
Click to expand...
I agree. That is one of the all-time stupidest anti-Catholic positions ever.
Not to mention that my daughter calls me father (though sometimes her tone means she might be sinning a little).
Chatity, TOm
 
Last edited:
TOmNossor said:
Most LDS believed that ALL American Indians descended from Lehi’s band, but this changed (and the change started because the BOM was read more closely NOT because of science).
Click to expand...
That doesn’t have any bearing on what I’ve been saying. What most Mormons believed is just the result what the Mormon Church taught. And what the Mormon Church taught was a result of what Joseph Smith claimed. He claimed the Book of Mormon is a history of ALL the American Indians.
 
Stephen168 said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
Most LDS believed that ALL American Indians … this changed (… NOT because of science).
Click to expand...
That doesn’t have any bearing on what I’ve been saying. What most Mormons believed is just the result what the Mormon Church taught. And what the Mormon Church taught was a result of what Joseph Smith claimed. He claimed the Book of Mormon is a history of ALL the American Indians.
Click to expand...
Presumably you now acknowledge that your earlier statement concerning SCIENCE is false. It was not SCIENCE because it was associated with reading the BOM closely and began long before any DNA questions.
Second, you keep saying that Joseph Smith said “ALL American Indians” but unless you have documentation that I have never seen, I maintain that he did not (and so does Gazelam).
Most importantly however, my message to you is so what! LDS do not have nor claim to have infallible leaders. The BOM does not say “All American Indians,” and a close read of the text lead scholars and leaders to deny the “All American Indians” position LONG before DNA evidence.
Contrast this with Catholicism which does claim to have an infallible leader, absolutely taught that the earth was at the center of the universe and everything rotated around it, and did change because science proved this position wrong.
I do not see this as CERTAIN evidence that the Popes and the universal voice of the ECF were wrong and thus the Pope lacks infallibility and the Catholic Church lacks infallibility because I can CHARITABLY consider the idea that this geocentrism does not “concern faith and morals.” But, many Catholics do not believe this is true. Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine said that geocentrism was “de fide” (which is of the faith). Bellarmine’s Pope supported his view (though I have never seen a Papal statement that declares geocentrism “de fide”). Many modern Catholics including Robert Sungenis reject the science that disproves geocentrism precisely because they believe that geocentrism is Catholic dogma and is irreformable.
So, it is my position that if I were Catholic I would not believe in geocentrism because I would embrace the science and disagree with Bellarmine and Sungenis concern the dogmatic status. But, to hold this position as a non-Catholic requires CHARITY. It is far from clear that it is a good Catholic position and certainly it would be a good stick with which to beat Catholics (unlike “call no man father” which is stupid).
That being said, this would not be among my biggest problems were I to find I needed to be Catholic and I only point to it because it is very similar to the stick with which you beat LDSs. Why should any LDS leave the CoJCoLDS and embrace your chosen faith, Catholicism, because of the incorrect LDS view that the BOM describes ALL American Indian’s origins?
I said our view changed and so what.
You said, Joseph Smith taught it, it changed, and it changed because science demanded it change. You were wrong in many particulars, but even if you were right Catholicism could not survive such a standard. Are you arguing that we should be Atheists?
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
TOmNossor said:
Second, you keep saying that Joseph Smith said “ALL American Indians” but unless you have documentation that I have never seen, I maintain that he did not (and so does Gazelam).
Click to expand...
Almost from the time the English landed in America, there were those who believed the American Indians were members of the lost tribes of Israel. People were fascinated by this idea.

I have shown in the Pearl of Great Price and two articles from Times and Seasons where Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was about ALL the American Indians. This is what the Mormon Church taught for at least its first 150 years, and this is what Spencer Kimball taught.

You have not shown why they were wrong in there interpretation of these articles. Quote my sources, and show Spencer Kimball, and I, where we are wrong.
The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.” - President Spencer W. Kimball, Acting President of the Council of the Twelve; April 1971
Click to expand...
 
Stephen168 said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
Second, you keep saying that Joseph Smith said “ALL American Indians” but unless you have documentation that I have never seen, I maintain that he did not (and so does Gazelam).
Click to expand...
I have shown in the Pearl of Great Price and two articles from Times and Seasons where Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was about ALL the American Indians.
Click to expand...
I have not seen where you showed from the PGP or from Times and Season that “ALL American Indians” descend from Lehi’s group. I would be interested in seeing this. You can give me a post number and I will read it if you like or repeat or …
I am not particularly concerned about it. I assumed you were correct when you first posted. I have acknowledged that most, including Spencer W. Kimbell believed that ALL American Indians descended from Lehi’s band. This has changed because folks read the BOM and recognized that it was unlikely that ALL American Indians descended from Lehi’s band. This was mentioned in 1929 by a member of the first presidency.
My message to you is so what! LDS do not have nor claim to have infallible leaders. The BOM does not say “All American Indians,” and a close read of the text lead scholars and leaders to deny the “All American Indians” position LONG before DNA evidence.
Contrast this with Catholicism which does claim to have an infallible leader, absolutely taught that the earth was at the center of the universe and everything rotated around it, and did change because science proved this position wrong.
So, it is my position that if I were Catholic I would not believe in geocentrism because I would embrace the science and disagree with Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine and modern apologist Sungenis concerning the dogmatic status. But, to hold this position as a non-Catholic requires CHARITY. It is far from clear that it is a good Catholic position and certainly it would be a good stick with which to beat Catholics (unlike “call no man father” which is stupid).
…
even if you were right about Joseph Smith claiming “All American Indians,” Catholicism could not survive such a standard. Are you arguing that we should be Atheists?
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
I have not seen where you showed from the PGP or from Times and Season that “ALL American Indians” descend from Lehi’s group.
Click to expand...
I posted them in this thread while you were participating in it, and you failed to comment on any of them at the time. As you failed to refute the claim of the Mormon Church in its first 150 years, Spencer Kimball, and I, I conclude we are right. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was about ALL the American Indians.
 
Stephen168 said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
I have not seen where you showed from the PGP or from Times and Season that “ALL American Indians” descend from Lehi’s group.
Click to expand...
I posted them in this thread while you were participating in it, and you failed to comment on any of them at the time. As you failed to refute the claim of the Mormon Church in its first 150 years, Spencer Kimball, and I, I conclude we are right. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was about ALL the American Indians.
Click to expand...
All I saw that said “ALL” was Spencer Kimball. I acknowledge that.
The PGP did not say “ALL” which Gazelam pointed out to you.
Still more important than this are you an anti-Catholic? Are you trying to get me to be an Atheist?
TOmNossor said:
I am not particularly concerned about it. I assumed you were correct when you first posted. I have acknowledged that most, including Spencer W. Kimbell believed that ALL American Indians descended from Lehi’s band. This has changed because folks read the BOM and recognized that it was unlikely that ALL American Indians descended from Lehi’s band. This was mentioned in 1929 by a member of the first presidency.
My message to you is so what! LDS do not have nor claim to have infallible leaders. The BOM does not say “All American Indians,” and a close read of the text lead scholars and leaders to deny the “All American Indians” position LONG before DNA evidence.
Contrast this with Catholicism which does claim to have an infallible leader, absolutely taught that the earth was at the center of the universe and everything rotated around it, and did change because science proved this position wrong.
So, it is my position that if I were Catholic I would not believe in geocentrism because I would embrace the science and disagree with Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine and modern apologist Sungenis concerning the dogmatic status. But, to hold this position as a non-Catholic requires CHARITY. It is far from clear that it is a good Catholic position and certainly it would be a good stick with which to beat Catholics (unlike “call no man father” which is stupid).
…
even if you were right about Joseph Smith claiming “All American Indians,” Catholicism could not survive such a standard. Are you arguing that we should be Atheists?
Click to expand...
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Stephen168 said:
Almost from the time the English landed in America, there were those who believed the American Indians were members of the lost tribes of Israel. People were fascinated by this idea.

I have shown in the Pearl of Great Price and two articles from Times and Seasons where Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was about ALL the American Indians. This is what the Mormon Church taught for at least its first 150 years, and this is what Spencer Kimball taught.

You have not shown why they were wrong in there interpretation of these articles. Quote my sources, and show Spencer Kimball, and I, where we are wrong.
Click to expand...
TOmNossor said:
……
Click to expand...
Strike One
TOmNossor said:
…
Click to expand...
Strike Two
 
Last edited:
Show you where you are wrong? I don’t need anything other than the Bible and Gods word or the word of Jesus. Lets step back and look at the big picture. Jesus brought all these men to Him to become His mouthpiece (Apostles) after His death. To spread His Word across the world. So what you are telling us is that Jesus knew that He was going to die and instructed these men to do His biding but let these men go out and die only to change His mind and leave millions, if not billions of people without direction and let them fall into sin correct?
 
I have not seen “ALL Indians” in either your single (I think) Times and Seasons quote or in the PGP quote Stephen provided.
Only the Spencer W. Kimball quote unequivicolly states “ALL.” Gazelam showed you this.
But again, your arguments mean Catholicism clearly fails.
Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top