Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[PaulDupre]

True enough that there was a leadership vacuum as the apostles were killed and not replaced, and Clement would of course seek to establish his own legitimacy as an important leader if he wanted to be thought of as leader over a larger group than just his own area. If he called himself “pope” then one can tell that he was appointing himself to a role that was not in what the apostles had described as the church organization.

Clement did not “call himself pope” because that term was not in use until the 3rd century. Clement became Bishop of Rome in 92 AD and died in 99 AD.

From wikipedia:

The title of Pope was from the early third century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East it was used only for the Bishop of Alexandria. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved it for the Bishop of Rome. From the early sixth century it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the eleventh century.

It may surprise you to know, Parker, that “Pope” is not an office in the Catholic church. We call the Bishop of Rome “pope” as an affectionate term meaning “papa”. In the same way, you Mormons call the President of your church “The Prophet” even though that is not his official title.

 

[Religio71]

I’m seriously reconsidering my apparently premature judgment that this board represents a higher level of discourse.

My comment may, in Dr. Johnson’s words, have represented the triumph of hope over experience.

That’s perfectly fine, we aren’t here for your judgement.

 

[Synneve]

That’s perfectly fine, we aren’t here for your judgement.

I never suggested that you were, except to the extent that (like anybody else) I have to determine where to spend my time and what conversations are worthwhile.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Best wishes to all.

 

[why_me]

wanted to see if the Mormons would honestly answer this or spin this one too Yup, never fails…
Kumbayah!

I have this feeling that Pope Benedict would love to sing kumbaya with many religious faiths: muslim, jews, protestants, and even mormons. I have not seen a hateful word by Benedict since he became pope. And when he offended muslims, he quickly apologized. Maybe you should follow the Pope’s lead.

 

[Religio71]

I have this feeling that Pope Benedict would love to sing kumbaya with many religious faiths: muslim, jews, protestants, and even mormons. I have not seen a hateful word by Benedict since he became pope. And when he offended muslims, he quickly apologized. Maybe you should follow the Pope’s lead.

Oh yes, Pope Benedict XVI would sing kumbaya with them, then say this, in accordance with dogma:

“Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[RebeccaJ]

I hope you don’t offer that as a serious examination of the NHM issue.

Incidentally, since you think you know who I am, do you have any idea what my academic background is?

Yes I do know who you are. lol. It’s in your profile as well. Are you offering your background as serious evidence for NHM?

Not a serious examination, however, it is a point. One that I agree with. NHM could, or could not, be “Nahom”. The few LDS that bring it up here seem to be convinced by the slim “evidence”, I’d say. But I understand the allure and the desire. In other words, I think it is grasping.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I never suggested that you were, except to the extent that (like anybody else) I have to determine where to spend my time and what conversations are worthwhile.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Best wishes to all.

Brings to mind, “here to stay, or just slumming”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes I do know your background. lol. It’s in your profile as well. Are you offering that as serious evidence for NHM?

Not a serious examination, however, it is a point. One that I agree with. NHM could, or could not, be “Nahom”. The few LDS that bring it up here seem to be convinced by the slim “evidence”, I’d say. But I understand the allure and the desire. In other words, I think it is grasping.

 

[why_me]

Oh yes, Pope Benedict XVI would sing kumbaya with them, then say this, in accordance with dogma:

“Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

I think that the Pope should take that message to the arabs. I am sure that they will give him a warm welcome. He can also take that message to the jews. I am sure that they would give him a warm welcome too. In fact, I am sure that all muslims and jews would welcome that message. However, I am not sure what this message means. I see nothing in it that would allow you to bash mormons or anyone else.

Since muslims and jews are not christians, I am not sure if it would have any affect. But he does speak of peace in the vatican newspaper and social justice. I see no bashing or gnawing of teeth. Maybe you should follow his lead.

 

[Jerusha]

'Becca, he has been grasping for years, just to keep his job. Sometimes intelligent men find themselves in a situation where they have to lie a lot. Sad but true.

I’m surprised that it took him so long to get here. He must not have checked our past threads, to see that we are far beyond the NHM straw. What a feeble one, and not even in the Americas.

 

[why_me]

Brings to mind, “here to stay, or just slumming”?

Very Christian comment…thanks.

 

[why_me]

'Becca, he has been grasping for years, just to keep his job. Sometimes intelligent men find themselves in a situation where they have to lie a lot. Sad but true.

I’m surprised that it took him so long to get here. He must not have checked our past threads, to see that we are far beyond the NHM straw. What a feeble one, and not even in the Americas.

Interesting…are you sure that it is straw?

youtube.com/watch?v=e6MVOV92cuA

youtube.com/watch?v=mihAVO1R-GA

I don’t see a strawman…

 

[Religio71]

I think that the Pope should take that message to the arabs. I am sure that they will give him a warm welcome. He can also take that message to the jews. I am sure that they would give him a warm welcome too. In fact, I am sure that all muslims and jews would welcome that message. However, I am not sure what this message means. I see nothing in it that would allow you to bash mormons or anyone else.

Since muslims and jews are not christians, I am not sure if it would have any affect. But he does speak of peace in the vatican newspaper and social justice. I see no bashing or gnawing of teeth. Maybe you should follow his lead.

Yes, just like how Jesus received a warm welcome…

I think you should follow his lead in believing, as all Catholics should, that the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ, with the fullness of Truth. Pope Benedict is quite clear on relativism and where the true Church is. Yes, he believes the DOGMAS. I hope one day you’ll actually follow the dogmas of Catholicism, since that is what makes Catholicism Catholicism.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Do you believe that? Sounds like…dogma.

 

[Religio71]

Interesting…are you sure that it is straw?

youtube.com/watch?v=e6MVOV92cuA

youtube.com/watch?v=mihAVO1R-GA

I don’t see a strawman…

so basically, you believe the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

 

[why_me]

so basically, you believe the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Remember the title of the OP? Obviously fabricated? It is not so obvious. I am still keeping my eye on the OP.

 

[why_me]

Yes, just like how Jesus received a warm welcome…

I think you should follow his lead in believing, as all Catholics should, that the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ, with the fullness of Truth. Pope Benedict is quite clear on relativism and where the true Church is. Yes, he believes the DOGMAS. I hope one day you’ll actually follow the dogmas of Catholicism, since that is what makes Catholicism Catholicism.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Do you believe that? Sounds like…dogma.

Let me put it this way: The pope will not stir up trouble. He will preach peace between all faiths. He will not bash other faiths. He will not claim that all churches are false except the catholic church. He especially will not offend muslims or jews.

 

[ParkerD]

[/SIGN]

If something is true, it is true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Our understanding of the truth may not be complete, our interpretation of the facts may be in faulty, but the truth is the truth. I stand by my statement. It defies reason to expect that Jesus, who is God, came down and established his church, died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, only to see his Church fall within 100 -200 years after his death. The issue is his divinity. As God, He would know whether his efforts were in vain or not. LDS like to throw apostacy around all the time. Apostacy is a big deal for Catholics, it means a total abandonment of the faith. To say the early church fathers were apostate, for a Catholic, well, there really is no bigger insult. It means the entire church from that point on was fallen. It has been pointed out by others in the past. If Jesus is God, and he couldn’t protect his church for 100 - 200 years, then why should anyone follow Jesus at all. This cuts everyone who follows Jesus, even LDS, because if he couldn’t do it the first time, what’s to say he could do it a second or a third. It’s the Catholic position that is in line with reason. It requires faith: Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven; it requires us to use the gift of reason which also came from God.

I look forward to your response.
In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
Sorry to have not had time to answer your post more thoroughly. I was getting ready to rush out the door with a family activity at that particular time this morning.

I’ll try and do a better job now.

Michael, I really do believe the Bible, and there are two passages that I think are quite clear about what was going to happen to the original church. They are in Daniel and in Revelation. Daniel 7:25 speaks of a “king” who “shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
This means a “ruler” or “leader” will have great success (given into his hand) for a very long time.

Revelation 12:6 and 14 speaks of “the woman” who was a symbol of the true gospel. “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”

“And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (In other words, she went into hiding.)

So in answer to your statement about “it defies reason”, then I admit it wouldn’t seem logical if one were to make normal assumptions about a powerful Being (Christ) not letting his church go astray, but the Bible indicates that this very thing was prophesied to happen. Yet Christ’s work is still going to be triumphant, and that does not just include the LDS but includes all of the good people in the world who believe in Him and follow Him with sincere hearts. Every sincere follower of Christ has been blessed by Him throughout time, so His atonement has never been in vain, nor were His efforts to specifically organize His church with specific authority and a specific leadership pattern. The pattern was given by Him.

Apostasy means authority was lost and prophetic revelation to guide the church so that the church could retain true doctrine and help people come to Christ and gain sanctification, was impurified such that teachings were changed. It doesn’t mean all of the people apostatized from the truths they knew.

Again, people should certainly “follow Jesus at all” because when the Holy Spirit is with a person, they have complete confidence that they are following Jesus, that the book of Revelation will indeed be realized in that Christ will triumph, and that they can participate in that triumph through His help and guidance and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ricko]

Rick,

The office of bishop is clearly described in the New Testament. The man is supposed to be married, always, before being even considered to be chosen as a bishop. This was clearly taught by Paul. Nowhere does the New Testament say the bishops were to be the successors of the apostles.

The first part of your post is just wrong Parker. As happens so often you cannot read something and understand it.

Let’s look at your statement above about bishops. You say that the bishop must be married. It does not say that. It does say that a bishop (if married) must have only one wife. That’s a given for that verse Parker. Look it up anywhere (except a Mormon site).
It’s a given for sure.

 

[ParkerD]

The first part of your post is just wrong Parker. As happens so often you cannot read something and understand it.

Let’s look at your statement above about bishops. You say that the bishop must be married. It does not say that. It does say that a bishop (if married) must have only one wife. That’s a given for that verse Parker. Look it up anywhere (except a Mormon site).
It’s a given for sure.

Rick,
The King James translation of 1 Timothy 3:2-5 says as follows:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

"Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Verse 5 really does paint a pretty good picture of why it would be important that a bishop be married and that he have children. Verse 2 seems unmistakeably clear to me.

Thanks for asking, and have a good evening.

 

[dianaiad]

The first part of your post is just wrong Parker. As happens so often you cannot read something and understand it.

Let’s look at your statement above about bishops. You say that the bishop must be married. It does not say that. It does say that a bishop (if married) must have only one wife. That’s a given for that verse Parker. Look it up anywhere (except a Mormon site).
It’s a given for sure.

Interesting.

There is absolutely nothing about Timothy 3:2 that says that a bishop, “if married,” must be the husband of one wife.

It states…well…“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

No 'if" in there at all, nor is there any hint that an ‘if’ would be appropriately placed there–or anywhere around it, either. There is also no reason to assume that “only” should be put in front of “one wife.” You need to be careful about that, anyway, because if you can invent “only” there, you can also, with exactly as much reason, put “at least” in front of 'one wife."

Adding words to the scriptures (and imaginary phrases the way you just did) is problematic.