Why would anyone want to be a Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses?

[zaffiroborant]

or Christ teaching polygamy, the Apostles practicing polygamy

Or sharing wives with one another.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I go by the words of Jesus: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: …” (John 6:63). I think that is the ultimate answer to that question.

Yep a one verse wonder you are.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The original Christian Church was the one that Jesus established with prophets and Apostles at its heaed, with revelation, and an open canon of scripture. That Church is nowhere to be found today, except in the LDS Church. What more proof do you want?

Agreed about the original Christian Church. Some Protestants may not agree that there was a head of the church, but Catholics will agree. That is one reason to belong to the LDS church, it resembles the original church. Of course Catholics think their church resembles the original church too, having apostles even though they are called bishops, and elders, or presbyters which are called priests. The president of the LDS church corresponds to the pope, and the Apostles of the LDS church correspond to the college of cardinals.

Now, the first century church had the apostles who received revelation, and hence an open canon of scripture, since the apostles were still writing scripture, even if they didn’t know they were. But, the question now arises, after these first apostles, is there continuing revelation? Just because the church of the original apostles had revelation, does that mean successive generations should too? Sure, the bishops were successors of the apostles, but did they receive new revelation? It was decided they did not, even though they did inherit the teaching authority of the apostles. Nor did the pope, even though the pope and bishops in council could interpret the apostolic deposit of faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In a sense the Catholic Church too has an open canon. But this does not mean that new scripture can be written, which it appears that is what is meant by an open canon in the LDS Church. Trent determined which ancient documents were to be considered scripture, but didn’t explicitly say these were the only ones.

So, from the Catholic viewpoint, the job of the Church in the 2nd century onward was to safeguard and preserve the teachings of the initial apostles, and no innovations were to be tolerated, although deeper insights could be gained,

So, these are some similarities and differences between the two churches. Proof? For the Catholics, they are the same church as the first century church established by Jesus, the difference being there is no new revelation.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The original Christian Church was the one that Jesus established with prophets and Apostles at its heaed, with revelation, and an open canon of scripture. That Church is nowhere to be found today, except in the LDS Church. What more proof do you want?

Sorry the LDS method of FIFO is not evident in scripture at all, as a matter of fact there is no prophet anywhere in scripture chosen by FIFO it is an LDS construct.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Only those who have the Spirit really know that they know the truth, and have not been deceived. The Catholic Church also has a lot of truth, and it is possible to have a spiritual witness of their truth. But the Spirit would never tell you that the Restoration is false, because it is true, and the Holy Spirit cannot bear witness otherwise than to the truth.

Bearing your testimony is a cop out.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Says the Bible.

CFR

 

[zaffiroborant]

TOTALLY taken out of context.

Yes it is, the whole discourse begins at verse 25, and yet he parrots only verse 63, LDS completely ignore any verse that makes them think about Christ’s word in any depth.

 

[mathonihah]

Ah YES! Again, why haven’t you answered me?

At the Jewish Seder meal did they eat a LITERAL LAMB or mere cookie cut-out symbolizing the lamb?

Any time you feel compelled to answer…let me know because as now you dodge the question.

I have answered twice; why are you ignoring?

 

[mathonihah]

Agreed about the original Christian Church. Some Protestants may not agree that there was a head of the church, but Catholics will agree. That is one reason to belong to the LDS church, it resembles the original church. Of course Catholics think their church resembles the original church too, having apostles even though they are called bishops, and elders, or presbyters which are called priests. The president of the LDS church corresponds to the pope, and the Apostles of the LDS church correspond to the college of cardinals.

Now, the first century church had the apostles who received revelation, and hence an open canon of scripture, since the apostles were still writing scripture, even if they didn’t know they were. But, the question now arises, after these first apostles, is there continuing revelation? Just because the church of the original apostles had revelation, does that mean successive generations should too? Sure, the bishops were successors of the apostles, but did they receive new revelation? It was decided they did not, even though they did inherit the teaching authority of the apostles. Nor did the pope, even though the pope and bishops in council could interpret the apostolic deposit of faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In a sense the Catholic Church too has an open canon. But this does not mean that new scripture can be written, which it appears that is what is meant by an open canon in the LDS Church. Trent determined which ancient documents were to be considered scripture, but didn’t explicitly say these were the only ones.

So, from the Catholic viewpoint, the job of the Church in the 2nd century onward was to safeguard and preserve the teachings of the initial apostles, and no innovations were to be tolerated, although deeper insights could be gained,

So, these are some similarities and differences between the two churches. Proof? For the Catholics, they are the same church as the first century church established by Jesus, the difference being there is no new revelation.

Thank you, I agree. You are being very honest in presenting both sides of the argument. The only thing I would add is that from my perspective, having continuing revelation and an open canon of scripture makes all the difference. Take the Book of Mormon for example; either it is true or it is not. If it is not, then obviously it has no value; but if it is, it makes all the difference. I would rather be with it than without it.

 

[mathonihah]

The Bible does not tell you what to believe.

What you believe stems from your interpretation or understanding of what is written in the Bible…from what Joseph Smith or what the LDS tells you.

And what Joseph Smith tells you, which the LDS tells you…came from protestant thoughts…so your beliefs and interpretive tradition and understanding is protestant.

Regarding belief or disbelief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist…you said you do not believe this…well this came only after the Protestant Reformation…which you inherited from.

Why don’t you provide proof to us here…provide someone who did not believe in the Real presence prior to the Reformation and who was not declared a heretic.

We are waiting…

Your ignorance is showing. Protestant Reformers did not reject Real Presence; at least, Luther didn’t.

 

[mathonihah]

By the way…you skipped answering these questions…you do not get off that easily:

*And how has the HS accomplished this?

How does the HS testify? Can you show how the HS does and accomplish this testifying?

How does one test whether what is being testified is true or not? How does one test the truthfulness of a spirit?*

I don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[mathonihah]

Aaaahhh…there is a thing called early church history. You ought to try and learn it and lay off the Mormon diluted version of history.

Yep! Jim Jones said the same…where is he now? Kool Aid will miss him. David Koresh? Where is he now? Up in smoke and spread all over. How about Heaven’s Gate? So your argument is nothing but your feelings lacking any concrete evidence.

And Mormonism is true!

 

[mathonihah]

Do you realize that this is Gnosticism? Secret knowledge limited only to the enlightened.

That is nothing like it at all.

 

[mathonihah]

Would you not agree, however, that Christ’s flesh profiteth much? And if you agree with this then you would have to agree that the verse is not speaking of Christ’s flesh, yes?
Therefore it is not applicable to the Eucharist which is, indeed, Christ’s flesh.

Sorry, didn’t follow that.

 

[mathonihah]

Joseph Smith came out of Protestantism, so had some relict Protestant attitudes. But, Joseph Smith also realized the failings of Protestantism and corrected many of them in his restored church. The reformers had rejected the idea of an authoritative church with divine guidance; JS restored this necessary aspect. Also the idea of a priesthood whichsome reformers had abandoned. Some of the early reformers rejected the hierarchical episcopal structure, which JS restored. Congregationalists have a completely different notion of church than Mormons and Catholics do. JS restored the true notion.

In other words, Joseph Smith and his friends could be thought of as reforming Protestantism! And they reformed it back to a form of the church before the reformation! The same can be said about Charles Taze Russell and the Watchtower Society. They both parallel the Catholic church in many ways. Unfortunately, from a Catholic point of view, even though they came back to a proper church structure, their theology is not orthodox.

I agree with most of what you said except Charles Russell and Watchtower Society. They have no resemblance to early Christianity in doctrine or organization.

 

[mathonihah]

TOTALLY taken out of context.

I wouldn’t say so!

Where, in the Bible, does it say God the Father has a body of flesh and bone and also that humans can become gods?

The Bible doesn’t say that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones; we know that from modern revelation. But the Catholic Catechism teaches that men can become gods.

Who was the prophet once Jesus died? And then through the 2,000 years of “apostasy” when Jesus specifically said the gates of hell will not prevail? Where are Jesus’ teachings of proxy baptism, endowments, and eternal marriage? He never said “through these handshakes will you gain presence with God”. Surely He would have taught the Apostles that if it was so important!!

Peter was the “Prophet” that led the Church after Jesus. As for the rest, the Restoration entails not only restoring that which was lost, but also many things which had not been revealed before.

 

[Pythons]

Some people are attracted to the “creature Christ” doctrine so when they find a church that subscribes to it they feel right at home.

 

[mathonihah]

I’ve always found this idea that the Holy Spirit will only talk to you if you meet certain requirements terribly terribly sad. It does not show God as being someone who loves you where you are, someone who will call to you at your low points. The LDS version of God is so depressing, like so much of LDS teaching it is very very sad and hopeless.

The Bible tells us that God will not hear the ungodly, but in the hearts of the righteous does he dwell. It also says that he has respect to the lowly, but the proud he knoweth from afar off. If you want to hear from the Lord, you have to pay a price.

 

[pablope]

Your ignorance is showing. Protestant Reformers did not reject Real Presence; at least, Luther didn’t.

Ignorance in what?

It was those after Luther, those who did not agree with Luther…that you see a rejection of the Real Presence…which Smith inherited from…from which the LDS takes after their rejection of the RP…so you disbelief in the RP is recent…taken from protestant roots.

To demonstrate that you are not ignorant…how about answering this question from the same post:

Why don’t you provide proof to us here…provide someone who did not believe in the Real presence prior to the Reformation and who was not declared a heretic.

 

[pablope]

I don’t know what you are talking about.

Look at post 755:

You said:

Originally Posted by mathonihah
We believe that the Holy Spirit will testify to the truth of the Restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith, to those who ask in faith, with real intent, acting no hypocrisy before God. The Holy Spirit will not testify to that which is not true.

My questions below:

[SIGN]And how has the HS accomplished this?

How does the HS testify? Can you show how the HS does and accomplish this testifying?

How does one test whether what is being testified is true or not? How does one test the truthfulness of a spirit?

A lot of catholics do ask in faith, with real intent and acting no hypocrisy before God…yet the HS tells us the LDS is a not a true church from God…so is the HS testifying to us wrongly?

Are there different kinds of Holy Spirits? Or is there only one? [/SIGN]