Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[Religio71]

The members of the First Presidency have not ceased to be apostles because they have the added responsibility. There is the quorum of twelve…but in reality there are fourteen or fifteen…a quorum is a minimum, not a maximum.

I see your point about the Presidency not being ‘part’ of the twelve—but where is there in the bible anywhere to say that Peter didn’t hold the same sort of position that the first presidency does now? I would suggest that the very evidence that you use to proclaim him the 'first Pope" indicates his rather special position. Remember, our claim isn’t that there were ONLY twelve, is it? Quite the contrary…and then after a bit, our claim is that there were not even twelve, hence the apostasy.

there is also no mention in the bible that there were to be ONLY twelve…all we do know is that efforts were made to replace those who died or were otherwise disqualified (Mattias for Judas). And do we really know who Paul replaced?

This is really an interesting argument coming from a Catholic who has…how many cardinals to vote for the next Pope…currently available? More than twelve, certainly.

I agree, evidence points towards Peter having primacy and a leadership role among the Apostles.

Yes, Matthias did replace Judas (there was another thread on LDS apostles quite recently that you should check out.). However the Catholic/traditional view of this is that the criteria for being a member of the Twelve was given when it came down to Matthias and Barsabbas. Thus, Paul was an apostle, but he was not one of the Twelve. Using the same criteria, we do not see how there could be any new members of the Twelve, especially today.

I don’t see how my argument applies to the Catholic situation…cardinals aren’t apostles, nor do we see them as being part of a Quorum of the Twelve…

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
I agree that Peter had a primary leadership role in the original church after Christ had ascended, but he was never called the “first Bishop of Rome”, except by the men who came after who wanted to establish that they were duly authorized in his absence. There was no document when Peter was alive that called him the “first Bishop of Rome.” He was never called the “first Bishop of Rome” by any of the apostles. (This will come as no surprise to you, of course.)

Of course this is going off topic now, however Catholics (and Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.) believe that Peter was in Rome, and established a See there, and that the primacy of that See (and thus Peter and his successors) has been apparent since the beginning of Christian history. You should read “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by Jurgens. Now, the argument that he wasn’t called “the first Bishop of Rome” by himself or the Apostles does not really work, since the evidence points to him fulfilling the same role the the current Bishop of Rome does. And really, if we use the same argument that you are, the terms “First Presidency” and “President” were not used at any time during the early Christian history, and was only employed by those that wanted to establish that they were duly authorized. Peter is never referred to as a President or a Prophet.

If you use that same argument against Catholicism, it works against Mormonism, so I don’t see it as logical.

But again, we’re not here in this thread to discuss whether Peter was the first Pope, Bishop of Rome. It’s sufficient to say we both believe that Peter had some sort of primacy.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I agree, evidence points towards Peter having primacy and a leadership role among the Apostles.

Yes, Matthias did replace Judas (there was another thread on LDS apostles quite recently that you should check out.). However the Catholic/traditional view of this is that the criteria for being a member of the Twelve was given when it came down to Matthias and Barsabbas. Thus, Paul was an apostle, but he was not one of the Twelve. Using the same criteria, we do not see how there could be any new members of the Twelve, especially today.

I don’t see how my argument applies to the Catholic situation…cardinals aren’t apostles, nor do we see them as being part of a Quorum of the Twelve…

The confusion comes from attempting to look at Christian reality using Mormon constructs. We Catholics, whose religious roots date back to Jesus, do not need to explain the “who” and “how many” of things. Jesus did what He did and that’s what we have.

If someone else comes along and claims a new “revelation” that establishes some new framework it is up to them to prove the validity of the change. So far, the only proof we have about Joseph Smith & his cohorts is that they perpetrated a massive fraud on some well meaning people, a fraud that continues to this day perpetrated on millions of well meaning people.

 

[ParkerD]

Of course this is going off topic now, however Catholics (and Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.) believe that Peter was in Rome, and established a See there, and that the primacy of that See (and thus Peter and his successors) has been apparent since the beginning of Christian history. You should read “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by Jurgens. Now, the argument that he wasn’t called “the first Bishop of Rome” by himself or the Apostles does not really work, since the evidence points to him fulfilling the same role the the current Bishop of Rome does. And really, if we use the same argument that you are, the terms “First Presidency” and “President” were not used at any time during the early Christian history, and was only employed by those that wanted to establish that they were duly authorized. Peter is never referred to as a President or a Prophet.

If you use that same argument against Catholicism, it works against Mormonism, so I don’t see it as logical.

But again, we’re not here in this thread to discuss whether Peter was the first Pope, Bishop of Rome. It’s sufficient to say we both believe that Peter had some sort of primacy.

Religio71,
This discussion is totally “on topic”, because fourteen year old Dee Dee has asserted a legal position based on “fabrication”, so of course if that were to become law then the court system would have to deal with which religions had any sort of “fabrication” in their history, and Catholicism would have to establish beyond any doubt through first-hand documents (more than one because the New Testament explains that every word needs two witnesses) that Peter was known in his own time to be called the “first Bishop of Rome”. Otherwise, there is that big fat ugly called a “fabrication”. (Poor Dee Dee–her “amendment” holds no water, obviously.)

The reason for the leader of the LDS church being called the “president” has to do with the law of the land at the time the church was organized under the laws of the state of New York.

Peter was called a prophet, as were others in the book of Acts. It was a commonly used and commonly understood term. It was not a “hush hush” word or a “those were the good old days” word. It was used in passing language, without the need for some special explanation for its use.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree, evidence points towards Peter having primacy and a leadership role among the Apostles.

Yes, Matthias did replace Judas (there was another thread on LDS apostles quite recently that you should check out.). However the Catholic/traditional view of this is that the criteria for being a member of the Twelve was given when it came down to Matthias and Barsabbas. Thus, Paul was an apostle, but he was not one of the Twelve. Using the same criteria, we do not see how there could be any new members of the Twelve, especially today.

I don’t see how my argument applies to the Catholic situation…cardinals aren’t apostles, nor do we see them as being part of a Quorum of the Twelve…

Well, see…that depends upon your definition of 'apostle."

I may well be wrong on this one–and please bear with me and correct me where I steer wonky–but I get the feeling that you are using the definition of “apostle” that includes the qualification that he had to know and work with Jesus during His mortal ministry. That’s the only way you can separate the term ‘apostle’ into two types—and I don’t see any biblical evidence that there was any such classificational split. An apostle was/is an apostle. However Paul became one, he was certainly accepted as one by Peter et al–and since his writings are certainly as important (and to some people, more important) than those of Peter, I think we have to assume that his calling of ‘apostle’ was deliberate; that there was a reason for using that particular word and that particular job.

I mean, is there any linguistic reason why the word ‘apostle’ as applied to Paul is different than the word as it applied to Peter, or Mark or John, or???

It seems to me that either Paul was an apostle completely, in which case he was 'one of the twelve," or he wasn’t ‘one of the twelve,’ in which case he wasn’t an apostle. The bible states that he was. Therefore any definition of ‘apostle’ that excludes him has to be incorrect, I think.

As to the number of cardinals…I understand that the name is very different, but the roles seem to be pretty much the same.Don’t the cardinals and Pope of today serve the same administrative and leadership roles that the apostles did in the early church? Aren’t they supposed to be guiding and directing the church, handling ecclesiastical and worldly matters? If apostolic succession is true, but the cardinals are not now the equivalent of, and doing the jobs of, the apostles, what precisely is it that they inherited?

Now me, I agree; they are not apostles. However, my reason for believing that they are not is quite different, probably, from what yours might be.

 

[Synneve]

So far, the only proof we have about Joseph Smith & his cohorts is that they perpetrated a massive fraud on some well meaning people, a fraud that continues to this day perpetrated on millions of well meaning people.

Is it possible to inspect this “proof” somewhere?

 

[ricko]

If there is nothing positive about mormonism then there must not be anything positive about mormons. Right? If you believe this then you will need to go to confession. The sacrament of reconciliation asks: Do I despise people of other creeds…? Your post would make me understand that you do despise mormons. Correct? Since it is impossible to separate someone from their faith’s influence.

He never said that. You keep putting words in other peoples mouths. You are always coming down on everybody else and stirring up trouble.

So when are you going to clean up your act (brother with the log in his eye)?

 

[Religio71]

Well, see…that depends upon your definition of 'apostle."

I may well be wrong on this one–and please bear with me and correct me where I steer wonky–but I get the feeling that you are using the definition of “apostle” that includes the qualification that he had to know and work with Jesus during His mortal ministry. That’s the only way you can separate the term ‘apostle’ into two types—and I don’t see any biblical evidence that there was any such classificational split. An apostle was/is an apostle. However Paul became one, he was certainly accepted as one by Peter et al–and since his writings are certainly as important (and to some people, more important) than those of Peter, I think we have to assume that his calling of ‘apostle’ was deliberate; that there was a reason for using that particular word and that particular job.

I mean, is there any linguistic reason why the word ‘apostle’ as applied to Paul is different than the word as it applied to Peter, or Mark or John, or???

It seems to me that either Paul was an apostle completely, in which case he was 'one of the twelve," or he wasn’t ‘one of the twelve,’ in which case he wasn’t an apostle. The bible states that he was. Therefore any definition of ‘apostle’ that excludes him has to be incorrect, I think.

As to the number of cardinals…I understand that the name is very different, but the roles seem to be pretty much the same.Don’t the cardinals and Pope of today serve the same administrative and leadership roles that the apostles did in the early church? Aren’t they supposed to be guiding and directing the church, handling ecclesiastical and worldly matters? If apostolic succession is true, but the cardinals are not now the equivalent of, and doing the jobs of, the apostles, what precisely is it that they inherited?

Now me, I agree; they are not apostles. However, my reason for believing that they are not is quite different, probably, from what yours might be.

As far as cardinals, I think you’re confusing them with bishops. The bishops, including the Pope (who is the Bishop of Rome), are successors of the Apostles. Cardinals are senior officials. So, bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and cardinals are basically senior bishops. In Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican ecclesiology, the Apostles were the first bishops. They ordained others to continue the overseeing of the Church, however they were not considered Apostles. We never consider the bishops as apostles, they are successors of the Apostles. Again, this goes back to what we see as an “apostle” (I guess this addresses the beginning of your post). To be one of the Twelve, we believe that the same criteria that led to the selection of Matthias to replace Judas (and Barsabbas as another possibility) was what made the Twelve unique, because they all held that same criteria. Therefore, while there may have been other apostles, including Paul, he was not one of the Twelve, and I don’t see where in the Bible it is said that he was. Jesus was also referred to as an “apostle”, however he was not one of the Twelve of course. So yes, Paul did have a role to play in the Church, and there is no linguistic difference between “apostle” when referring to Paul, Jesus, or the Twelve, however we see the criteria for selecting Matthias as universal to all of the Twelve, and thus, while Paul was an apostle, he was not one of the Twelve.

This article gives a good overview of Apostolic Succession for Catholics. It delineates the differences between bishops and apostles. Though bishops were chosen and sent forth by the Apostles, they are not the same office:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

 

[ricko]

I don’t think that you tried nor did you have an inclination to make it through the book. And parts of it could mean one page a chapter. And as for the NY Times you really can’t make a judgement of agreement since you did not read the reviewed book.

But nice try in making a comment. **It seems to me that you despise mormons, right? **I know that you do not trust a single mormon…but do you also despise them. We usually can despise those we claim not to trust, especially if we include a whole group of people of similiar race, ethnic or religious background.

I think we have had enough of you.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
This discussion is totally “on topic”, because fourteen year old Dee Dee has asserted a legal position based on “fabrication”, so of course if that were to become law then the court system would have to deal with which religions had any sort of “fabrication” in their history, and Catholicism would have to establish beyond any doubt through first-hand documents (more than one because the New Testament explains that every word needs two witnesses) that Peter was known in his own time to be called the “first Bishop of Rome”. Otherwise, there is that big fat ugly called a “fabrication”. (Poor Dee Dee–her “amendment” holds no water, obviously.)

The reason for the leader of the LDS church being called the “president” has to do with the law of the land at the time the church was organized under the laws of the state of New York.

Peter was called a prophet, as were others in the book of Acts. It was a commonly used and commonly understood term. It was not a “hush hush” word or a “those were the good old days” word. It was used in passing language, without the need for some special explanation for its use.

Could you point out where Peter is called a Prophet? I don’t think I see that in Acts.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Dee King
*joe smith. he made it up to gain power, money and women… *

No he didn’t.

There. I’ve just refuted you, using the same level of evidence and logic that you did…

no you didn’t. i can prove that he was a fraud: 1) BOM is false. science tells us american natives were not decendents of jews/semetic people. 2) BOM has zero credibility as a book of fact–as joe smith and the mormons present it as–all historical evidence proves it to be false. joe smith or whoever made it all up 3) BOA is a fabrication. we have the original manuscripts joe smith used to interpret the BOA. we know he made it up. this is fact. we know he had a warrant for selling scams. we know he had a history of scaming/grifting. the only conclusion was he did this for the power, money and women. the mormons would not allow blacks to be clergy. mormons use to teach dark skin is a curse–STUPID!!!

joe smith was evil and was murdered by an angry mob and flashed a masonic sign for help. he was shooting back, unlike our glorious martyrs and early church fathers who died for the faith without shooting back.

mormonism should be illegal, reguardless of what our secular multicultural society thinks.

 

[ricko]

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

 

[ricko]

“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents” (Heb. 13:7–9).

We are warned again about false teachings. The Gospel like Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever, the teachings do not change.

 

[Synneve]

i can prove that he was a fraud:

Let’s see whether you can deliver.

1. BOM is false. science tells us american natives were not decendents of jews/semetic people.

No it doesn’t.

mi.byu.edu/display/topical.php?cat_id=488

So far, you’ve delivered mere bluster.

1. BOM has zero credibility as a book of fact–as joe smith and the mormons present it as–all historical evidence proves it to be false. joe smith or whoever made it all up

I’m impressed, of course, by your use of the nickname joe. That’s very convincing.

Otherwise, though, you’re still not doing all that well. “All historical evidence” doesn’t “prove it to be false.” Just for starters, here are some pieces of evidence that point in the opposite direction:

mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=

mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=

mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=

mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=223

mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=582

mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=613

And there’s much more where that came from.

1. BOA is a fabrication. we have the original manuscripts joe sic] smith used to interpret the BOA.

We do?

mi.byu.edu/publications/bookstore/?id=4

we know he made it up. this is fact.

This is assertion. We don’t “know” it.

we know he had a warrant for selling scams. we know he had a history of scaming/grifting.

We don’t “know” these things, either. You’re simply making assertions.

the only conclusion was he did this for the power, money and women.

By and large, his biographers – Mormons and non-Mormons, believers and unbelievers – fail to share your conclusion.

the mormons would not allow blacks to be clergy. mormons use to teach dark skin is a curse–STUPID!!!

joe sic] smith was evil and was murdered by an angry mob and flashed a masonic sign for help. he was shooting back, unlike our glorious martyrs and early church fathers who died for the faith without shooting back.

Sigh. I take quiet satisfaction in the fact that I hate nobody else’s religion, and despise nobody else’s faith. My sense of the leadership of the Catholic Church is that it, too, rises above such contempt.

mormonism should be illegal, reguardless of what our secular multicultural society thinks.

My my. Fortunately, I live in a country that respects freedom of religion and conscience. It appears that you do, too, and are infuriated by the fact.

I find that absolutely fascinating, and very revealing.

Does anybody else here join in Dee Dee King’s call for Mormonism to be legally prohibited?

If so, what other religions (if any) would you ban, as well? Would you punish those who simply believe in illicit faiths, or would you restrict state punishment to those who preach prohibited religions? What penalties would be appropriate? Fines? Imprisonment? Slavery? Re-education camps? Capital punishment? Suppose that somebody was a repeat offender? The gas chamber, maybe? Would religious literature published by or advocating the banned faiths be suppressed? Burned, perhaps?

I find this notion absolutely intriguing. It actually occurs to me that Dee Dee King could be a closet anti-Catholic engaged in “guerilla theater,” seeking to live down to the level of the fantasies of the most paranoid Catholic-bashers with her unembarrassed advocacy of repressive theocracy.

Again, modern Catholic leadership seems to be better than at least one of the Catholic Church’s seemingly zealous advocates here: “The Church has always taken great care that no one should be compelled against his will to embrace the Catholic Faith,” wrote Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Immortale Dei (November 1, 1885), “because, as Augustine wisely declares: ‘except he be willing, man cannot believe’.”​

 

[ricko]

Let’s see whether you can deliver.

By and large, his biographers – Mormons and non-Mormons, believers and unbelievers – fail to share your conclusion.

Sigh. I take quiet satisfaction in the fact that I hate nobody else’s religion, and despise nobody else’s faith. My sense of the leadership of the Catholic Church is that it, too, rises above such contempt.

My my. Fortunately, I live in a country that respects freedom of religion and conscience. It appears that you do, too, and are infuriated by the fact.

I find that absolutely fascinating, and very revealing.

Does anybody else here join in Dee Dee King’s call for Mormonism to be legally prohibited?

If so, what other religions (if any) would you ban, as well? Would you punish those simply believe in illicit faiths, or would you restrict punishment to those who preach prohibited religions? What punishment would be appropriate? Fines? Imprisonment? Re-education camps? Capital punishment? Suppose that somebody was a repeat offender? The gas chamber, maybe? Would religious literature published by or advocating the banned faiths be suppressed? Burned, perhaps?

I find this notion absolutely intriguing. It actually occurs to me that Dee Dee King could be a closet anti-Catholic engaged in “guerilla theater,” seeking to live down to the level of the fantasies of the most paranoid Catholic-bashers with her unembarrassed advocacy of repressive theocracy.

Best not to egg him on, unless you feed on such.

 

[Synneve]

Best not to egg him on, unless you feed on such.

Oh, I won’t egg Dee Dee King on. I grew up among Catholics, count many Catholics as friends, deeply respect the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith, have even had the privilege of interacting with high-ranking officials at the Vatican and elsewhere. I’m confident that Dee Dee King’s attitude is not representative of mainstream Catholics or the leadership of the Catholic Church.

But I’m genuinely curious as to whether or not her aggressive intolerance and advocacy of religious tyranny might strike a responsive chord in this particular sub-community. I hope not, but I’m new here and don’t know the place or the players well.

 

[ricko]

But I’m genuinely curious as to whether or not her aggressive intolerance and advocacy of religious tyranny might strike a responsive chord in this particular sub-community. I hope not, but I’m new here and don’t know the place or the players well.

Makes no difference to a Christian. You play by the rules regardless of how the other individuals play.

 

[Synneve]

Makes no difference to a Christian. You play by the rules regardless of how the other individuals play.

I’m not sure that I understand what you’re getting at. Have I failed to play by any rules here? Or in society? Have I advocated doing so? Please advise.

 

[C2M2C]

They were seduced into Mormonism somewhere between the age of 18 & 25, a very vulnerable age, and they DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THEIR CATHOLIC FAITH.

Yep, that was me. Monsignor told my mom not to worry about it…when I was old enough to care I would find my way back. And 18 years later, here we are.

 

[Religio71]

Yep, that was me. Monsignor told my mom not to worry about it…when I was old enough to care I would find my way back. And 18 years later, here we are.

welcome back Home! I like this commercial for fallen away Catholics:

catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml