The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[Stephen168]

First, I’ll just refer you to some quick LDS references to the Melchizedek Priesthood:

High Priest, Melchizedek Priesthood

I had found the other two. This one looks like an attempt at a biblical support for the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood. I’ll give it a look.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The latest entries in the list of Tom claiming but not proving the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood.

TOmNossor:

Asking LDS to prove it is evidence of bald polemics or profound misunderstanding (probably both).

I said I couldn;t “prove” that there was a Melchizedek Priesthood. It is impossible.

I can show that “Melchizedek Priesthood” is clear in the BOM in 1829 and VERY DESCERNABLE in the Bible so much so that Catholic priests and apologists claim it is there.

But notice he doesn’t show the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is in the bible.

……

My argument is that the LDS view is solidly Biblical, not that it is impossible to read the Bible in the Catholic way.

One can feel Jeremy Runnells frustration with the dishonesty of Mormonism.

I can’t always tell if it’s intentional. I have known plenty of Mormons IRL, who don’t know what they know, and the cognitive dissonance is managed very adeptly. Then there are those who intentionally deceive and teach others to do the same, ie, Dallin Oaks.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

~I would guess that Joseph Smith is a god.

Wait hold up, I’m new to this thread and to mormonism. There is only one God and you can’t become Him. He is infinite and we are creatures.

Define god as you were using it.

Hello Tim,

Thank you for asking. There have been some very obscure writings by LDS throughout our history that deal with what you ask about. I refer to it as “divinity as such.”

Blake Ostler has surveyed the literature and put together his thoughts which I largely subscribe too. These are my thoughts, but they largely come from Blake and his celebrated books series Exploring Mormon Thought

It is clear that there is only one God. In addition to the Biblical references, LDS scripture declares: “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one.” (3 Nephi 11:27) & “The Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one” (3 Nephi 20:36). And at other places.

The question becomes how is God one? There is only one place in the Bible that helps us to know this. John 27:22 “that they (the disciples) may be one, even as we are one.”

So LDS follow the Bible and believe that God is one and we are called into this oneness.

I believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit exist as one God united and indwelling. I believe we are invited into this union as FULL participants.

God the Father is in a certain way the “fount of divinity.” The Son and the Holy Spirit have been eternally united with Him. We on the other hand have been rebellious, but we are invited to this full union which we can enter through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and following the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Now, when a very bad man (one who sins in more gross ways far more frequently than average men sin) repents of his sins and joins the Catholic Church or the CoJCoLDS, we do not declare he is a partial member because he was once a bad man, we welcome him in full fellowship. This is the same when we enter into full fellowship in the Holy Trinity. We become gods.

Do you believe that Son of God became man so that you can become God?

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

anon65111186:

Wait hold up, I’m new to this thread and to mormonism. There is only one God and you can’t become Him. He is infinite and we are creatures.

Define god as you were using it.

What do you make of CCC 460? The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us harers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Gazaelem is fond of cherry picking this CCC entry, what, 10times at least.

We’ve already shown in at least two threads where this CCC entry is sited, with a Mormon twist intended, that Mormons apply their defintions to Catholic teaching and then say “see!”…doesn’t seem to register that the approach is dishonest.

 

[Stephen168]

It still didn’t get me unstuck from this quote on the other link you provided and I had read before.
“The Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned in…….; but the Bible does not give many particulars concerning the functions of that priesthood, except that Christ was a high priest after that order. From latter-day revelation we learn ……”
This is why I believe the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not biblical or in the Book of Mormon. It is in Doctrine and Covenants; Mormon revelation.
Just seeing it mentioned, as the LDS website claims, and Tom refutes, does not a doctrine make.

 

[RebeccaJ]

anon65111186:

TOmNossor:

~I would guess that Joseph Smith is a god.

Wait hold up, I’m new to this thread and to mormonism. There is only one God and you can’t become Him. He is infinite and we are creatures.

Define god as you were using it.

Hello Tim,

Thank you for asking. There have been some very obscure writings by LDS throughout our history that deal with what you ask about. I refer to it as “divinity as such.”

Blake Ostler has surveyed the literature and put together his thoughts which I largely subscribe too. These are my thoughts, but they largely come from Blake and his celebrated books series Exploring Mormon Thought

It is clear that there is only one God. In addition to the Biblical references, LDS scripture declares: “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one.” (3 Nephi 11:27) & “The Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one” (3 Nephi 20:36). And at other places.

The question becomes how is God one? There is only one place in the Bible that helps us to know this. John 27:22 “that they (the disciples) may be one, even as we are one.”

So LDS follow the Bible and believe that God is one and we are called into this oneness.

I believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit exist as one God united and indwelling. I believe we are invited into this union as FULL participants.

LOL @ “obscure writings”. Taking the pragmatic approach, all Mormon writings are obscure to most Catholics! Some are obscure to some Mormons. Would you say the “King Follet Discourse” is obscure among LDS? I think it’s teachings are not obscure nor aligned to your Catholicized view of Mormon teachings.

Soon you’ll be teaching in your Mormon class, the Real Presence.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

anon65111186:

TOmNossor:

~I would guess that Joseph Smith is a god.

Wait hold up, I’m new to this thread and to mormonism. There is only one God and you can’t become Him. He is infinite and we are creatures.

Define god as you were using it.

Hello Tim,

Thank you for asking. There have been some very obscure writings by LDS throughout our history that deal with what you ask about. I refer to it as “divinity as such.”

Blake Ostler has surveyed the literature and put together his thoughts which I largely subscribe too. These are my thoughts, but they largely come from Blake and his celebrated books series Exploring Mormon Thought

It is clear that there is only one God. In addition to the Biblical references, LDS scripture declares: “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one.” (3 Nephi 11:27) & “The Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one” (3 Nephi 20:36). And at other places.

The question becomes how is God one? There is only one place in the Bible that helps us to know this. John 27:22 “that they (the disciples) may be one, even as we are one.”

So LDS follow the Bible and believe that God is one and we are called into this oneness.

I believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit exist as one God united and indwelling. I believe we are invited into this union as FULL participants.

LOL @ “obscure writings”. Taking the pragmatic approach, all Mormon writings are obscure to most Catholics! Some are obscure to some Mormons. Would you say the “King Follet Discourse” is obscure among LDS? I think it’s teachings are not obscure nor aligned to your Catholicized view of Mormon teachings.

Soon you’ll be teaching in your Mormon class, the Real Presence.

You may laugh at me, but the KFD does not touch upon “divinity as such.” Have you read Ostlers books?
Chairty, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

.BTW, th hope for infant baptism is NOT baptism of desire, it is entrusting th souls of unbaptized infants to the Mercy of God, who has shown us through Jesus, that God’s Mercy is bountiful, and unearned. It did not replace limbo of infants, but offered a view of hope. Hope has a name, “Jesus Christ”.

I am well aware that Infants CANNOT receive a “baptism of desire” per 2000 years of Catholic history. My point on this thread is made sufficiently by explaining that LDS had a solution for the unevangelized from the beginning. All or virtually all Catholics from Augustine till the 20th century who ever spoke on the fate of those who did not receive baptism (water baptism, baptism of desire for the Catechumen, or baptism of blood) were clear that they would be in hell. Limbo hell or hell proper, but hell. Pelagius being perhaps the ONLY exception.

The Catholic softening on baptism of desire dor those not visibly connected to the Catholic Church at all AND the hope for the infants may or may not align with Newman’s marks of a valid development and may or may not be valid developments, but they came after LDS already taught how God would deal with the unevangelized.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You’ve really twisted something up here.

Stephen said the Apostles were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. This not an example of Apostolic authority, it is alluding to Acts, where the replacement for Judas had this requirement.

Stephen then said that Apostolic authority as priest, teacher and minister were handed on by the laying on of hands. The titles that ordained successors to the Apostles varied for, the first 120 years or so, and still do, for example, successors to the Apostles are called Bishops in the RCC and Patiarchs in the EO.

I do not think I am so twisted. Somehow the original Apostles could write scripture and their “successors” cannot. Paul can and did write scripture.

Patrick Madrid said “The only pope who was inspired and who receive revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reword, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashioned way. They learned it.”

But that is not the point. The point I was making is that it took 150+ years to start the narrative that Peterine primacy was held by the Bishop of Rome. Fraudulent documents were being created in the 4th century to document the passing of authority from Peter to Clement of Rome. No scholar believes this document describes a real thing.

Charity ,TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

.BTW, th hope for infant baptism is NOT baptism of desire, it is entrusting th souls of unbaptized infants to the Mercy of God, who has shown us through Jesus, that God’s Mercy is bountiful, and unearned. It did not replace limbo of infants, but offered a view of hope. Hope has a name, “Jesus Christ”.

I am well aware that Infants CANNOT receive a “baptism of desire” per 2000 years of Catholic history. My point on this thread is made sufficiently by explaining that LDS had a solution for the unevangelized from the beginning. All or virtually all Catholics from Augustine till the 20th century who ever spoke on the fate of those who did not receive baptism (water baptism, baptism of desire for the Catechumen, or baptism of blood) were clear that they would be in hell. Limbo hell or hell proper, but hell. Pelagius being perhaps the ONLY exception.

The Catholic softening on baptism of desire dor those not visibly connected to the Catholic Church at all AND the hope for the infants may or may not align with Newman’s marks of a valid development and may or may not be valid developments, but they came after LDS already taught how God would deal with the unevangelized.

Charity, TOm

You’re just putting out Mormon propaganda. Anyone can say they’ve a solution to any problem.

First it would have to be viewed by someone as a problem. No one viewed infant baptism a problem, and the associated doctrine of Limbo of Infants, until Protestantism. Since Mormonism is built on Protestantism, you claim Mormonism is the first to solve this “problem”. Sorry, presentism doesn’t work in your a favor just because you say it does.

Also your so-called solution has a major flaw, that of everyone’s immaculate conception is made void by merely reaching the age of eight. Where in all the ages of Christianity was this ever believed or taught? Makng up doctrine because you don’t like what has actually been revealed, isn’t something I’d be bragging about.

Limbo of the Infants is not and has never been a doctrine. It remains a valid theological conclusion, that is based on actual doctrine. Presenting a theological conclusion, based on actual doctrine, that says the Limbo of infants is not a hopeless state, is also a valid theological conclusion. You are unable to show that it is not, you just want to complain that it’s a different conclusion than before. Waaaaa!

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

You’ve really twisted something up here.

Stephen said the Apostles were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. This not an example of Apostolic authority, it is alluding to Acts, where the replacement for Judas had this requirement.

Stephen then said that Apostolic authority as priest, teacher and minister were handed on by the laying on of hands. The titles that ordained successors to the Apostles varied for, the first 120 years or so, and still do, for example, successors to the Apostles are called Bishops in the RCC and Patiarchs in the EO.

I do not think I am so twisted. Somehow the original Apostles could write scripture and their “successors” cannot. Paul can and did write scripture.

Patrick Madrid said “The only pope who was inspired and who receive revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reword, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashioned way. They learned it.”

But that is not the point. The point I was making is that it took 150+ years to start the narrative that Peterine primacy was held by the Bishop of Rome. Fraudulent documents were being created in the 4th century to document the passing of authority from Peter to Clement of Rome. No scholar believes this document describes a real thing.

Charity ,TOm

It took 300+ years before the canon of the NT was established. It took 1500+ years before the Canon was declared as closed to removing books from it. So what? Are you just complaining that a timeline isn’t to your liking?

The canon has never been closed to adding to it. That Mormon scripture isn’t add to the Catholic canon, isn’t something to be shocked about, I would think. Certainly I wouldn’t view Mormonism as having something divine to add to the Deposit of Faith. More like, it fights against it.

Every Pope is a Bishop and every Bishop is graced with gifts of the Holy Spirit for his office. You’re just complaining that the gifts they are given aren’t good enough for you?

As we’ve discussed ad nauseum, Jesus is the Perfect and final Revelation of Christianity. The Apostles taught what was revealed to them in the Person of Jesus Christ. Paul taught converts, what it meant in post Resurrection to live as a Christian disciple.

I have yet any Mormon answer, what they believe Jesus, our final and Perfect Revelation, left out. I think Mormonism appeals to people who are enamored by novelty, and think adding novelty to Christian Revelation, Jesus Christ, is an indicator of Truth. But Mormonism can’t answer straight up, what is imperfect about the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

One thing Paul taught new converts was to not follow those who would add novelty to the Revealtion of Jesus Christ. Mormonism tosses people to and fro, I almost feel sorry for you.

And I hate to break it you you, your so-called prophets are just figuring it out on their own, minus the graces that are given to our clergy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“Divinity as such”…oh a new, new definition, repurposed from neopagans, no doubt.

No I haven’t read Ostler, it’s an aversion I have to the oxymoron of “Mormon scholarship”. It takes a certain kind of gullibility to “go there”and I can’t muster it.

 

[TOmNossor]

The primacy of the seat of Peter has empirical evidence, as you know. I am so totally ok with the EO view as “first among equals”, and it is a stance that is taken in all practicality in regards to sui juris churches.

I am not sure what “empirical evidence” you are speaking about. I would suggest that “empirical evidence” (Stephen’s term) is absent for things like primacy of position within a hierarchy because such is intangible. But, I am interested in what evidence you claim for primacy. As you know virtually all non-Catholic scholars and many if not most Catholic scholars do not see primacy in what is called 1st Clement.

I was responding to Stephen’s anti-Mormon apologetic where he claimed that it took 4-5 years for LDS to claim that the visit by Peter to Joseph Smith included the conferral of “Melchizedek Priesthood.” Various pieces were present in 1,2 or 3 years, but it was not all put together for around 4-5 years later.

My claim that it took >150 years before there is any evidence that the Bishop or Rome claimed to receive Peterine authority. This claim was then rejected by those outside of Rome who heard it for many years (Firmilian, Tertullian, and Cyprian). Documents were fraudulently created by the local Roman Church in the 4th century to claim that the Clement was selected by Peter to be his successor, but no scholar believes that these documents describe real events.

So, my argument on this thread is that Stephen’s anti-Mormon apologetic decimates Catholic truth claims and should not be offed by someone who accepts Catholic truth claims.

My actual position is that the evidence that apostolic/angel derived authority was claimed by Joseph Smith is early and strong such that this is the documentation of claims made concerning an event that may be been better understood (by titling it the reception of “Mechizedek Priesthood”) but was not substantially changed (he either believed it happened for the beginning or lied about it happening from the beginning). But Peterine primacy for the Bishop of Rome is late and took a long time for people to believe. It is a DEVELOPMENT that could be divinely guided or could be humans consolidating power to themselves like humans have always done especially anciently. It was not believed by Clement of Rome or anyone until long after Clement of Rome died.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Dunno Tom, Mormonism’s problems are its own. You stated the main difference already, that we have to account for the antiquity of events and the lack of surviving written documentation.

You then brag up “meticulous” records of Mormonism, so if YOU are going to say this means something to you, then by God, let it mean something. Don’t squirm around gaps in this “meticulous” chain of events by diverting to ancient Christian history, as though they are comparable.

The primacy of Peter is Biblical. The Didache describes the primacy given to the See in Rome at the time. But you already know this.

…in addition, Mormonism claims that its first presidency is modeled on the ancient Christian hierarchy. A claim that there was no Primacy in Peter and his successors, then becomes a problem for Mormonism…unless you’re just on an anti-Catholic binge, then OK, we can have some fun with that.

But I am in agreement with Stephen. Biblically, there was a priest named Melchizedek, who was not an ordained priest, according to Abrahamic priesthood of all males in the line of Abraham. And certainly he was not of Levitical priesthood, which didn’t exist yet.

He was a man who was a priest, he isn’t a priesthood.

Mormons use extra-Biblical sources to come to their own conclusions…as for angels visiting Smith and others, anyone can claim anything. The character of Smith doesn’t convince me that he was ever a truthful man. Writing down a lie doesn’t make it a truth, or let’s use that made up word…give it truthiness.

 

[TOmNossor]

When you can quote Fr. Sullivan in context and accurately, you might be able to make a point.

I said:

One of the reasons for books like Father Sullivan’s is that in the absence of supernatural public revelation, Protestants have claimed the Catholic structure was absent and until Cardinal Newman’s work most Catholics have counter-claimed that yes those structures were present. Now, Catholics believe those structure DEVELOPED. God’s hand in this development is the Catholic theory, but it can neither be proved nor disproved with empirical evidence (whereas the former idea is difficult to align with the empirical evidence).

I have no idea why I should quote Father Sullivan or Newman to make that point. It is quite clear to ANYONE who has read them.

Protestants scholars have pointed to the absence of Catholic authority structure present in the very early church. Before Newman it was common for Catholics to try to claim that this absence was not really there (see this and this and there are lost documents, but do you really think it was invented and nobody cried foul – we have the same structure set-up by the apostles who got it from Jesus), but after Newman this has slowly changed. Now folks like Father Sullivan explain that there was a DEVELOPMENT and it was guided by God. That may be true, but it could be all human.

There is NOTHING out of context.

And I communicated with Father Sullian before he died. I do not think I am misunderstanding his position. He recommend to me Eno’s book to explain the DEVELOPMENT of the Papacy.

You haven’t unpainted yourself from your corner. What evidence do you have that what you believe was restored, ever existed as you believe it did, in the first place?

Well, if you even read what I wrote I think you would not argue that what I claimed was restored was not in fact present. No wonder you are not just bowled over by the brilliance of my arguments!!!

In the post to which you are “replying?” I said:

Finally, my claims of restoration are much more modest than you seem to think. The most important thing that was restored was the ability to receive supernatural public revelation and write scripture. It is possible that the early church had structures much more like modern LDS structures than modern Catholic structures, but LDS authority structure has CHANGED through our history as we have grown and organized. I do not need every jot and tittle to have been restored because I believe God leads by supernatural public revelation.

So, it would seem you either didn’t read what I said OR you do not believe the St. Peter (and the others) received revelation and wrote scripture. I would guess not reading, but I will await your thoughts.

It is hard to have ones positions judged sound when they are not even read.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

You always worry people aren’t reading your posts. I read, can’t say that whatever you’re trying to convey, is conveyed…you have no restoration but invention. I already knew this, it is usually the Mormon argument that something was restored, but hey, if you’re on board with invention, two thumbs up.

You clam simplicity then engender complication X 10000.

You dodge my question that no Mormon will ever answer. It is a simple question.

(My turn to claim you didn’t read.) if you want it made more simple, restoring public revelation is to me saying you’re Restoring Jesus Christ. Hello, we believe that He restored Himself. Our Lord is not dead, but lives. Mormons claim to believe the same thing but fail to acknowledge the reality of what it means. God’s Perfect Revelation, is unceasing. This is especially made real at Mass. We don’t believe or teach that the public of Revelation of Jesus Christ ceased. Your new compass is a distortion of what a measure of Truth is. It isn’t the quantity of written scripture.

The Church, and her scriptures that you use (and pervert) exist for one purpose only, to bring people to Christ. You are unable to acknowledge this reality, instead dodging around as though this reality ceased to exist! What an amazing thing, to deny history in order to “find truth”.

Worrying about the limbo of infants when you should be worried for your own soul…always diverting away from reality.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

BTW, I have thought about this a little, I think D&C 84 makes it very clear that there are no LDS priests that hold Christ’s priesthood as Christ held it. I think D&C 84 voiced in Catholic terms means that LDS are ministers of Christ’s priesthood.

Then you make points about “holding” authority vs “having” authority? I have no idea what your stance is, really. I suspect you are being pragmatic!

I am saying that D&C 84 makes it clear that LDS are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. I am suggesting that I think that is a very solid read of what D&C 84 is teaching and this aligns with how Catholic priests claim to be ministers of Christ’s priesthood.

Charity, TOm

 

[Apache75]

1. No. If we are to become gods then why would He have made the 1st Commandment. 2) No I do not. He is perfect. So I can not be consubstantial in that sense. 3) No I do not believe I will be a saint nor do I care to be. God loves me the way I am. 4) Nope. God/Jesus decide who will enter. Now my questions to you were not a “gotcha type question” but rather what do you believe in. It wasn’t for anyone here, just you. So I could get a better understanding of what you believe in. And as for your “anti-Mormon” claims. No one here is anti-Mormon. So things that are posted here that come from your own churches writings are anti? But I get it. Anything said or taught about your church that is negative is anti according to the lds members. But how can it be negative when its what is taught or was taught.

 

[Apache75]

The Book of Mormon or any of the lds books is not scripture to anyone that isn’t Mormon. Just like the Quran doesn’t mean anything to us Tom. But they are very useful to Christians when a claim is made by the lds and your books contradict everything you say. But I guess that’s being anti-Mormon. You or any of the lds posters here can try and twist words anyway you want but it makes you look daft.

 

[Stephen168]

You are mistaken if you do not think Catholic authority was not used to hide sins. There are ancient predecessors to Canon law that explain how laws and penalties are more lax for clergy than laity.

Only a Mormon would think that an uneven enforcement of the law is the same as Joseph Smith declaring a sin not a sin by inventing the non-Christian practice of polygamy. Or to claim that very little adultery (sex) is not really adultery. Joseph Smith was not teaching what Christ and the Apostles taught.
So no, my “attack” on Joseph Smith’s character does nothing to the historical fact of Catholic Christian apostolic authority.