The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[TOmNossor]

I do not trust the MODERN Catholic who says, “it has always been like this and we trust God” when I know it has not always been like this.

Dogmatic teachings never change, but our understanding of them can develop.

[/quote]

Thank you. I understand this line of thinking.

Whether teachings on Baptism DEVELOPED or changed is not important for my response to Horton. The movement from Baptism of Desire for Catechumens to Baptism of Desire for the unevangelized (adults) is all that was important for my point here.

LDS have consistently taught that the unevangelized in this life will have vicarious ordinances performed for them. After death they will receive truth if they lacked it and they may accept or reject these ordinances. God ensures that all have a “fair and just opportunity” to accept or reject the fullness of His love and blessings and then it becomes their choice.

This is the “trusting God” Horton claimed LDS lacked and the DEVELOPMENT means the lack Horton is concerned about once existed in Catholic thought.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

In reality all TOm wants to do is:

TOmNossor:

I can correct Stephen168 when

We can fill in any name here. He has no interest in discussing his own LDS beliefs, only what he sees as flaws in the Church. If we were to look at his ongoing desire to prove the Church is wrong, one could say he does so out of fear. He is afraid we are correct and the LDS may be wrong.

The thing is, it is the facts of Mormon historian Richard Busman that he has to correct.

Yes, and he [Richard Bushman] does not try to cover up the facts as you do. John Whitmer records Joseph Smith being made a high priest by Lyman Wight in 1831. Joseph Smith wrote about receiving a holy priesthood FROM ANGELS, in 1832, was, according Richard Bushman, “a glancing reference at best.” In 1834, Cowdery was the first to talk about the appearance of John. The receiving of the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John, through John the Baptist, was not a fully formed story until 1838.

And my summary:

The receiving of priesthood authority that Mormons claim was required to start the Mormon Church in 1830 was received from Lyman Wight in 1831, Angels in 1832, and John the Baptist in the name of Peter, James and John sometime before 1838 and published in 1842.

And we saw no response. But I don’t think there can be much of one because those are the facts.

 

[Apache75]

The problem here is that you are saying the dead must accept the lds ordinances for God to accept them. I know what you are going to say to counter this. That we have our sacraments and if people don’t participate or accept them then they go to hell. We also believe in Gods infinite mercy. So what about the pagans that died before the invention of the lds church? So what happened with them? God made them wait for 1700 years? So where did they wait? I brought this up earlier but did not get an answer (Purgatory). Its very clear that you wont or cant answer questions directed towards you or your church but would rather worry about the Catholic Church and the problems you seem to think exist. I’m now done with this thread.

 

[AngelaMarie]

f we were to look at his ongoing desire to prove the Church is wrong, one could say he does so out of fear. He is afraid we are correct and the LDS may be wrong.

You know as well as I do that we can’t claim that we know the intent another’s soul, Horton. We can’t claim TOm is doing it out of fear.

TOm, I cringe at the lack of charity and kindness you are being subjected to here.

 

[Horton]

I did not judge his soul. His desire to prove the Church wrong has nothing to do with his soul. I can make a judgement of his intentions based on his posting history going back long before you joined CAF.

His soul is left to the mercy of God as he is still a baptized member of the Catholic Church even if he is a practicing member of the LDS. TOm has over & over again told those of us who debate on this thread and others, we are wrong, ignorant of our own faith teachings, and in need of correction.

The most charitable & kind thing we can do is try to get TOm to recognize the failings of the LDS so he may, when the Holy Spirit moves him, return to the true Church of the Christian faith.

 

[Horton]

This post is particularly insulting and is being reported to the moderators.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

1.Where do you see dishonesty on my part?

I can

I can

I can

I can

But you can’t

I should have said, “I did” as that is my OPINION.
I was not commenting on whether you would accept what I thought was clearly shown.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I should have said, “I did” as that is my OPINION.

A Mormon’s testimony is there empirical evidence.

 

[Stephen168]

TOmNossor:

LDS: Claims of unique Peterine authority almost immediately with surviving records, founding of a church, recorded apostolic healings and blessings, … all within 0-5 years with surviving records showing these things. The first recorded use of the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” is about 4 years after the supposed Peterine authority was passed to Joseph Smith, but the concept of “Melchizedek Priesthood” was already present in the Bible and the BOM which was “translated” in 1829.

What Mormons claim today and what Joseph Smith claimed are not the same thing. He founded a church to teach repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. This did not require any authority. And this is the kind of priesthood talked about in the Book of Mormon; a call to teach and a call for repentance. Joseph Smith was baptized by Oliver Cowdery in 1929. Smith was made a High Priest by Lyman Wight in June 1831 and Lyman Wight was made a high priest by Joseph Smith the same day. Nobody claimed to have or need authority for these things. A few days later, Joseph Smith sent Oliver Cowdery on a mission to the Lamanites (American Indians).
It was 1832 when a holy, not political, priesthood was first mentioned. In about 1833, the Mormons were being ridiculed for preaching without divine authority. This created a credibility crisis inside and outside of Mormonism. This started the ball rolling to convince the Mormons that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had received visits from angels, and then John the Baptist. If it took Peter, James, and John, I wouldn’t call that Petrine authority. The Latter-Day-Saint movement was started with no claim of authority of any kind. There were no high priests until 1831, and then only as political church titles. Visits from angelic beings followed in 1834 with a total rewrite of D&C 27. The receiving of the Melchizedek Priesthood story was not fully formed until 1838. Whatever authority was held by the first presidency in 1844, it was high jacked from Sydney Rigdon, by Brigham Young claiming he had apostolic authority for the first time in Mormon history. Whatever authority Brigham Young had it is now held by Russell Nelson. This is the Mormon claim and because there was an actual historical Mormon Church since the time of Brigham Young, that sounds reasonable.

 

[AngelaMarie]

You don’t know when I joined CAF. When the transition to the new site happened back last fall, I had a problem with my old account, so I had to create a new one.

I am well aware of TOm’s posting history.

 

[TOmNossor]

You said you find the sourcing of The Book of Abraham the only large problem to LDS truth claims. How so? And what are Mormons going to do about it?

Well, I will start by pointing out that so far no Catholic on this thread has been willing to discuss the biggest problem for the Catholic Church in their opinion. If I was a mind reader like some folks here I might think they are “terrified of such things and run scared.” But, I am not a mind reader and I am just being obnoxious. I think they feel some need to be apologists at every turn, and I do not feel quite the same need (some, but not at every turn).

I am not sure there is much I can do about the BOA. As new research pro and anti is produced, I read and ponder. I am not particularly interested in learning Egyptian or the science behind papyri roles. Mostly, I am stuck with the history and data that we have.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

So, the BOA was theoretically “translated” from some Egyptian papyri. The papyri was lost for many years. There was a fire that destroyed something. Then there was papyri recovered. The recovered papyri is common Egyptian funeral text (Book of Breathing) with only a small number of distinguishing (semi-unique) aspects. It does not translate into the BOA.

There are many theories used to explain this discrepancy. The two papyri theory was offered because there is missing papyri. This theory suggests that something associated with the BOA was contained in other papyri destroyed in fire. A large negative for this theory is that some of the illustrations in the BOA are contained on the surviving papyri. A positive for this theory is that the contemporary (at the time of “translation”) description of the papyri from which the BOA was produced does not match the surviving papyri. There was other papyri maybe it was important?

There are VERY loose translation theories that suggest that some of the unusual aspects of this papyri derive from a pedigree that might including Abraham or something BOA-ish.

There are 100% catalyst theories in that the papyri acted as inspiration for the “translated” material to be received from God and the BOB papyri have nothing to do with the BOA.

My rational mind can only latch onto the “lost papyri” theory, but it is far from satisfactory IMO. I cannot solve this problem, so I quote Cardinal Newman, “10000 problems do not a doubt make.” A small number of LDS have rejected the BOA, but I think this is a less solid position so I believe the BOA is scripture. I am not particularly troubled by the BOA because I find so much evidence elsewhere.

The apologist in my feels to add that my problems with the BOA origins are precisely the reason I find BOM criticism so radically flawed. There are many scientific reasons I do not think the BOM is a fraud. When I look at critics trying to explain the BOM origins, I see as much or more confusion as I see when LDS try to explain the BOA. If I am going to crow loudly about this failure of critics to explain the BOM, then I cannot deny that I cannot explain the BOA satisfactorily.

You can read 1000’s of pages on the BOA (I am probably close). One of my friends began his anti-Mormon career as an Evangelical Christian researching the BOA. He has produced valuable research, but lost his faith along the way and is now an atheist. He is a great guy with a Phd, but no faith and there is no money in his field. I regularly thank God that for whatever reason every time I pull out my best version of a secular scientific scale, I find myself solidly a believer and solidly a LDS.

You are welcome to not be a LDS because of the BOA. Don’t not be a LDS because of “adieu.”

I expect to always not be a Catholic because of the CoJCoLDS, but I will not not be a Catholic because of “call no man father.”

My most important message is to not be a non-Christian because of Christian problems. 10000 problems do not a doubt make!

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

All of these things you say you can show us proving the things in your post, show us. But realize that they are from a MORMON view only (ie: Mormons believe them).

I am presenting historical facts that impact the narrative the Stephen168 is offering in his attack on my church. I maintain that in the absence of these historical facts, the parallel I draw to Peterine authority for the Bishop of Rome is very impactful, but I am trying to offer both.

When you say it is a MORMON view only, I suspect this means you dismiss it because it comes from a Mormon. You are welcome to make these choices, but they are not conducive to dialogue.

Catholics like FrDavid have already explained the “Melchizedek Priesthood" to you. Yet, you continue to believe the MORMON view rather than the truth that has been shown.

FrDavid explained that the best Catholic view is that there is no such thing as a “Melchizedek Priesthood.” That the author of the Book of Hebrews was utilizing poetic language to make a point, not to suggest that some ancient fellow named Melchizedek held the “priesthood of the Son of God.” I have accepted that as a solid Catholic view.

That being said, I have linked to a Catholic apologist, Mark Shea and a Catholic priest who see “Melchizedek Priesthood” in the Bible (unless they are closet Mormons which I doubt) to show Stephen’s claim that it is not in the Bible is not accurate. Reasonable non-LDS folks see “Melchizedek Priesthood” in the Bible.

I can recognize that there can be a Catholic view best explained by FrDavid and there can be other views. The Catholic view or rather the best most compelling Catholic view, being equivalent to truth is a Catholic assumption that I do not share.

Stephen started his attack on Melchizedek Priesthood by using what I thought was the Protestant argument against Catholic priesthood (he has later claimed that he always meant the position of Aquinas - which I quoted BTW). As I sought to rebut his argument I found Catholics claiming that the Catholic priesthood IS the “Melchizedek Priesthood.” I think FrDavid did a good job of rebutting that, but that does not change the fact that the idea of “Melchizedek Priesthood” is solidly Biblical.

You might note, I never tried to tell FrDavid he was wrong. His position was cogent and didn’t contradict centuries of Catholic teachings that I had read for years and years.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Tell us more about these classes you teach. You say that one topic was sacrifice. How did you offer yourself as an example of both a bad and a good sacrifice? You say you gave up smoking and caffeine. Was this before or after you converted to Mormonism? Do Mormons observe Lent or have their own version of it?

I didn’t say I gave up smoking. It is not important, but I specifically said that I NEVER smoked. I believe that you see in my pro-LDS comments so little partially because you are not reading them.

As a LDS I gave up caffeine because I thought it would be a good sacrifice for Lent and I think sacrifice for Lent is a good spiritual practice. A bad sacrifice for me was choosing to give up smoking (because I never smoked). LDS generally do not observe Lent, but I am not alone in occasionally partaking of this Catholic practice as a LDS.

Working on TOm is definitely the first step to resolving the problems in your church. I’m glad you were able to admit that Mormons are sinners. Many of your fellows can’t even do that.

I hope nobody in my class cannot “admit that Mormons are sinners.” I have never met such a LDS, but if I do I will try to purge them of this view. I hope to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Charity, TOm

 

[Jas31784]

So a prophet is elected? Sorry but that’s not how prophets work.

 

[Apache75]

I thought I was done but will soon be. So you said you gave up smoking but yet you say you never smoked. So where you lying to these folks in your lds class? Another thing is that you said the use of LIDAR to show that there were these big cities. Why wont your own church us LIDAR to show that the book of Mormon is true about the great battle at Hill Cumorah? Now I want the God honest truth from you regarding what you believe. 1) Do you believe Joseph Smith is a god? Do you think God had a father and he had a father and so on? Do you believe you will become a god after your death? Do you believe that Joseph Smith can only let the dead enter heaven? Answer truthfully, because its a mortal sin to lie. Its a commandment.

 

[TOmNossor]

In reality all TOm wants to do is:

TOmNossor:

I can correct Stephen168 when

We can fill in any name here. He has no interest in discussing his own LDS beliefs, only what he sees as flaws in the Church. If we were to look at his ongoing desire to prove the Church is wrong, one could say he does so out of fear. He is afraid we are correct and the LDS may be wrong.

What I said I corrected Stephen168 on that you quoted was his anti-Mormon argument. He claimed that Oliver Cowdery invented the Melchizedek Priesthood. If he believes this he stands alone as no critic I have ever read believes this. Those who believe the Melchizedek Priesthood was “invented” believe it was Sidney Rigdon who invented it. This is of some importance because Oliver Cowdery was present for the reception of the priesthood. A solidly LDS position is that the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” was absent during this reception. It was theological reflection and spiritual confirmation that resulted in the events of 1830 being reframed in 1834 in alignment with Book of Hebrews, 1829 BOM, 1830 and 1831 authority, 1832 holy priesthood, and … to explicitly say, “Melchizedek Priesthood.” And it is possible that Sidney Rigdon made these connections. What is pretty clear is that William McCellin was anti-priesthood (and no fan of Sidney Rigdon it would seem). He maintained that the BOM was what it was claimed to be even after he left the church. He was also fine with authority and ordination, just not priesthood. Or so it seems from the surviving records.

I do not see Stephen misrepresenting accepted Catholic truth. He often doesn’t talk about it, but I am not sure I have seen him say Catholics believe things they shouldn’t believe (based on the teachings of the Catholic Church). Making anti-Mormon arguments that rather clearly undermine Catholic truth claims, I see.

But, when you make an argument that “Catholics trust God” and LDS do not, and you evidence that you do not know about the development of thought concerning these issues, it is not mean or ugly for me to point this out. I think it is germane to the topic and so I mention it.

I do not think I fear the Catholic Church is God’s one true church and thus I will be in hell. I occasionally fear that I am destined for the cup drunk by the devils in Screwtape Proposes a Toast But, I hope I am clear enough that my second choice is Catholicism and Mother Teresa is/was 10x the saint I am (if not 100x) so there is great value in being a Catholic.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Catholics like FrDavid have already explained the “Melchizedek Priesthood" to you. Yet, you continue to believe the MORMON view rather than the truth that has been shown.

And to the point of this thread. The Catholic view of the priesthood is biblical. The Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not biblical. No Mormon has even attempted to try to prove it is biblical. Most just ignore the challenge, only Tom says, yes it is yes it is yes it is yes it is yes it is yes it is yes it is yes it is, but never proves it. But he will vacillate between saying he can prove, it can’t be proved, and the dishonest, he already proved it. But as you know following this thread, He has never proved it, he just believes it. It is a Mormon thing.

 

[gazelam]

What Mormons claim today and what Joseph Smith claimed are not the same thing. He founded a church to teach repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. This did not require any authority. And this is the kind of priesthood talked about in the Book of Mormon; a call to teach and a call for repentance.

Of course, actually reading the entire Book of Mormon one gets a different picture. Priesthood power is also required to baptize, confirm, and prepare the Lord’s Supper per the Book of Mormon

3 Nephi 11:20, 21
And the Lord commanded him that he should arise. And he arose and stood before him…And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.

3 Nephi 18:37 And the multitude heard not the words which he spake, therefore they did not bear record; but the disciples bare record that he gave them power to give the Holy Ghost. And I will show unto you hereafter that this record is true.

3 Nephi 18:5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.

I hope this helps…

 

[Stephen168]

Of course, actually reading the entire Book of Mormon one gets a different picture. Priesthood power is also required to baptize, confirm, and prepare the Lord’s Supper per the Book of Mormon

That’s not what Richard Bushman said in his podcast and not what you get from reading the Book of Mormon about the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood. None of your quotes are linked to priesthood. The Latter-Day-Saint movement was started as a restoration adventist movement with no need for a priesthood. It created one when the need arose.