Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotreDameMormon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
/snip… Further, your desire to compare the restored Church with the early Church is not a rational possibility, as noted in this thread. It is a flawed assumption that we can compare what is with what was lost. There may be parts of the restored and early Church that match, but then, those parts are not lost, are they?
I have to challenge this. IF you have a true restoration then you are showing what was lost. That is what has been RESTORED! Joseph Smith claimed to restore what had been lost. The BoM according to LDS doctrine was LOST. The “plain and precious” parts of the Bible were LOST according to this as well. Joseph SMith claimed to resore these specific things. (BoM, JST) we should see from the RESTORED scriptures the things that had been LOST! we should see these items map directly to the RESTORED church if it is truly a restoration of the original church and not something entirely new. We could then go into the validity of changing the restored church through “ongoing revelation” but at some point it should have been “restored” first. Or are you claiming that the things which were lost are still lost? if so then waht exactly was restored?
 
we should see these items map directly to the RESTORED church if it is truly a restoration of the original church and not something entirely new.
If you decide what was restored shows what was lost then you are saying anything in the restored Church that *does not *appear anywhere else is what was lost. So, our discussion of what was lost hinges on a discussion of the Restoration, which has no ground if the heavens are closed and there is no more revelation. Join us for a chat on that subject. Then we’ll get to the Restoration.
 
If you decide what was restored shows what was lost then you are saying anything in the restored Church that *does not *appear anywhere else is what was lost. So, our discussion of what was lost hinges on a discussion of the Restoration, which has no ground if the heavens are closed and there is no more revelation. Join us for a chat on that subject. Then we’ll get to the Restoration.
no I’m not saying that at all. In fact I left open the possibility for new things due to continuing revelation. what I still claim though is that there should be recognizable similarities between what was lost and what was restored. Otherwise it wasn’t restored. It should be unique from what was in the “apostate” church or it wasn’t lost. quit dodging the issue and tell us from the supposedly restored BoM and/or JST what important doctrines/practices that are unique to the LDS church existed in the pre-apostate church. surely something can be shown to have been restored. Otherwise you can’t show what if anything was lost and that makes the apostasy case flimsy at best and that pretty much kills any restoration and the topic of continuous revealtion becomes an academic exercise at best since we cannot at that point take LDS claims seriously.

Join US for your original discussion since we are still waitng for the answers to our most important questions.
 
Agreed comlpletely! Why on earth is a new thread being started when so much has gone unanswered here? Each time the lds religion starts to look real fishey NDM just starts a new topic. No one is learning anything here about the Mormons. They cant answer any question straight. If anything, we are all jus finding more an more reasons to stay away. Thanks NDM!

Peace!
 
I wonder if NDM served a mission. I asked early on but he would not answer. The technique of jumping from one topic to another to avoid giving embarrasing answers or getting cornered is typical of Mormon missionaries, and of Mormons in general. Whenever you take them off the script, they change the subject. It can be very disconcerting.

I’ve learned, especially from these forums, that trying to dialogue with Mormons is really a waste of time. They are generally deceitful and insincere. Sorry to say it, but it is true.
Paul
 
I wonder if NDM served a mission. I asked early on but he would not answer. The technique of jumping from one topic to another to avoid giving embarrasing answers or getting cornered is typical of Mormon missionaries, and of Mormons in general. Whenever you take them off the script, they change the subject. It can be very disconcerting.

I’ve learned, especially from these forums, that trying to dialogue with Mormons is really a waste of time. They are generally deceitful and insincere. Sorry to say it, but it is true.
Paul
They don’t have any choice but to be deceitful and insincere. It’s like one of the political parties – if they told you what they really were going to do they’d never win an election. Same with Mormons. If they told you upfront the nonsense about God the Father’s Father and multiple Gods, plural marriage, etc., the Mormon missionaries would never make it past the front door. It’s a shame really – the Mormons could go a long way towards fixing their religion just by accepting the Book of Mormon’s teaching about the one God and then accepting the doctrine of the Trinity. Unfortunately, they would have to repudiate some of Joseph Smith’s later ramblings to do so. The apostasy is conveniently invented simply as an excuse for Joseph Smith to start a new religion – that his new teachings don’t match up with the New Testament Church should be a red flag to everyone investigating Mormonism.
 
Agreed comlpletely! Why on earth is a new thread being started when so much has gone unanswered here? Each time the lds religion starts to look real fishey NDM just starts a new topic.
I start a new thread every Sunday as I said I would at the beginning. How is that fishy? I am answering questions. I have no script, but I do not have the time to monitor all past threads and answer every question on every topic at the same time. I am going to focus on one topic at a time. If you want to come along, come along. If you don’t, don’t.

I am not here to convert anyone. I am here to present the legitimate LDS faith and practice for your review and discussion and to answer any questions that I can. I have said that I will be posting a thread on the Restoration, but I first wanted to answer a question about revelation since the Restoration is founded on the principle that revelation from God has not ceased. You will have every opportunity to ask the questions you have here when I post on the Restoration. I will answer them all then.

See you there.
 
No thanks, NDM… You had every oppurtunity to answer them here and chose not to. Know you want us to follow you so we can listen to more dribble which is easily refuted and we will all ask a whole bunch of questions, which, you will not answer and then you’ll start a new thread linkied to the last thread and say hey follow me to this thread where I will answer all of your questions!

Whew!

I suggest we all say a prayer for NDM so that his eyes and heart are opened to the truth of the spirit and not the house of cards constucted by mr. smith and his friends!

Peace to all!
 
The institution of the Twelve Apostles was meant to last forever. The individual Apostles would have died, and others would have been appointed to succeed them.

With the death of the Apostles, the keys of the authority of the whole church were taken away. This requires some theological explanation. In the LDS Church, we make a distinction between the priesthood, and the keys of the priesthood. The priesthood itself is something that when it is conferred on someone (assuming it is done by proper authority), it cannot be taken away. He remains a priest forever (unless he commits some very serious transgressions). But the keys of the priesthood is something else that can be taken away. An office in the priesthood is something that confers certain keys on the individual, which he can exercise as long as he holds that office in the Church; and when he is released, those keys are taken away. For example, a bishop has to be a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood to be ordained a bishop. When he is ordained, he is given the keys to function in that capacity in his own ward (and not in any other). That gives him the right and authority to do certain things pertaining to his calling in his ward. When he is released, those keys are taken away form him; but his priesthood remains. That is not taken away. Those keys always have clearly defined limits and boundaries, and are always delegated and function under the authority of a higher officer. The bishop holds the keys of his office under the authority of the stake president, and he in turn holds the keys of his office under the authority of the President of the Church. The President of the Church is the only one who holds all the keys of all the offices in the Church, and he delegates those keys to other to exercise in their respective callings as he sees fit. He holds those keys in conjunction with his two counsellors who form the First Presidency of the Church. In the absence of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles exercise those keys over the Church. Now suppose that through some catastrophic event, all the general leadership of the Church were wiped off the face of the whole earth. What would happen to all the keys of priesthood offices delegated to the rest of the Church? The answer is that they would become dysfunctional. Nobody would hold any keys, until the authority was restored again by divine intervention and angelic ministration to the Church. That is how the priesthood works in the Church. In the early church, with the death of the Twelve Apostles, the keys of authority of the whole church was taken away, and the “laying on of hands” of the ministers of the church no longer conferred any keys, priesthood, or indelible authority to another.

zerinus
I haven’t got the time, nor the inclination to read the whole thread, but I did read this post.
So who revoked the keys? and did the apostate Christians/Mormons of the time know that they had been revoked? or did they continue on with their practices thinking they were legitimate?
So not one, single person was able to be a successor to any of the Apostles?
What is within the authority of an LDS priest who has served out his “term” (I don’t know what to call it) and has had his keys taken away?
Is it possible for a president to go apostate and give authority to the wrong men? As a Catholic I ask this in all honesty, because we all know that there have been some abomidable popes.
 
It seems to me that both Mormons and Muslims assert that sometime after Jesus’ death and resurrection (or apparent death and escape in the eyes of Muslims), things went horribly awry and the “original” message was lost. I’ve heard very similar arguments from both groups, so I’m wondering if they’ve got some commonalities worht considering.

Muhammad claimed to be restoring the true meaning of the Abrahamic line of prophets, and did refer to Adam, Noah, Moses, and many other Old Testament prophets as such. He, however, claimed that Jesus (or “Issa”) wasn’t really crucified, since God loved him so much. Muhammad did agree that in the “Last Days,” Jesus will come to defeat the devil once and for all. Muslims today assert that somewhere along the line, Christians got “Islam” all wrong. Due to someone like Paul messing with the message, Muslims assert that the message Jesus brought (supposedly the same as Muhammad’s) was lost.

It seems to me that Joseph Smith made claims of a similar character, but different direction. He placed the “Apostasy” somewhat later, allowing the LDS Church to view the letters of Paul as “Holy Scripture,” yet still claiming to bear a later revelation. He also preached a second book of Jesus Christ, now known as the Book of Mormon, which also tells the story of Jesus Christ coming to North America, and of the aboriginal groups with which he associated. That part differs considerably from Muhammad’s preachings, but the part about some fundamental error after Jesus seems consistent.

I won’t engage on the veracity of historical claims of the LDS church, but I will ask why Mormons think that Joseph Smith was right, when Muhammad (or Ba’Hallua for that matter) must have been wrong. If the message was in errancy, and a large-scale Apostacy happened, what is the basis for Mormon’s preferential belief in the claims of Joseph Smith? If there are historical grounds, I’d be happy to hear them.
 
I haven’t got the time, nor the inclination to read the whole thread, but I did read this post.
So who revoked the keys? and did the apostate Christians/Mormons of the time know that they had been revoked? or did they continue on with their practices thinking they were legitimate?
So not one, single person was able to be a successor to any of the Apostles?
What is within the authority of an LDS priest who has served out his “term” (I don’t know what to call it) and has had his keys taken away?
Is it possible for a president to go apostate and give authority to the wrong men? As a Catholic I ask this in all honesty, because we all know that there have been some abomidable popes.
Thank you for your post, and your willingness to discuss this subject with me; however I do not intend to continue with this discussion, because I don’t think that you have a clear appreciation of the subject you are getting yourself into, and any further discussion of it between us will be a waste of time. Feel free to explore the thread, and glean anything else that you can from it.

zerinus
 
I am a convert to Catholicism from the LDS church. I studied my way out of the lie of mormonism and into Catholicism. I laugh every time I read stuff on these forums written by Mormons. If you think they are difficult to communicate with on a forum board, wait until they show up at your door or you have to face a whole family of them at Christmas.
It is a strange experience indeed to be in an apologetics debate with 16 mormons at the same time and find yourself giving proof after proof from the Bible, History, and other sources only to be told that they know you are wrong because they prayed and got a “burning in their bosom”.
The reason that they don’t give clear answers is that they don’t have the answers. At least not answers that would satisfy a Catholic who knows the Bible, is steeped in Church History, knows the fundamental tenets of Catholicism and knows Mormonism as well. I used to talk with Mormons every chance I got until one day I realized that it was pointless. Of the hundreds of mormons I have talked with, only about 5 were seriously interested in understanding Catholicism. Everyone else would only listen in order to get their chance to talk and try and convert me, or revert me.
I have said it a million times, the problem is that there is no evidence for a complete and total apostasy. It just isn’t there. However, you can prove it to them and it doesn’t matter. One of the scariest things I have heard from several Mormons is when I ask them what it would take for them to leave the mormon church and they say nothing. That under no circumstances would they leave it. I then ask, “What if I proved it was wrong?”. “No not even then” they say. How can you begin to even talk to someone like that? Let alone have a meaningful debate/discussion.
Jesus established a Church. It is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I’m a member. Life is good
 
I’ve read quite a bit today about The Apostasy, and there’s a lot of interesting info out there to ponder. We can’t turn a blind eye to the evils committed in the name of Christianity, or the abuse of power in the Catholic Church over the last two centuries. I read Zerinus’ biblical passages on his blog, statements that support the LDS claim of an apostasy, but I cannot find anything that supports the theory of a total apostasy, a complete and total apostasy. I always come back to the quote that the good will exist alongside the bad, and not that evil will completely and totally eradicate the good. If someone has a biblical quote to this effect, I would greatly appreciate it.

That said, what’s important to me personally is doctrine and whether it is supported by the Bible. My best friend is Mormon and she’s incredible, I love her attitude to life, to people and her commitment to her faith. I greatly admire her, and so I investigated the faith for myself.
When crunch-time came, and I had done enough research to satisfy my questions, I was left with the following:
  1. Do I believe that Joseph Smith was tasked with restoring the true church to the world? 2. Do I believe in the plurality of gods, that we can become godlike, the eternal nature of a temple marriage, that black people are cursed, that Jesus and Satan are brothers, that we exist before conception, that I can’t have coffee or alcohol but I can have an abortion, that God had sex with Mary and Jesus was conceived, that Adam’s fall was anything other than catastrophic for man, and that, if I wish, I can forget my vows - even if I’ve been sealed in an LDS temple - and get divorced (and be sealed to someone else), ignoring the indissolubility of marriage?
    Apostasy or not, the decision whether or not to join the LDS was pretty easy.
 
When crunch-time came, and I had done enough research to satisfy my questions, I was left with the following:
  1. Do I believe that Joseph Smith was tasked with restoring the true church to the world? 2. Do I believe in the plurality of gods, that we can become godlike, the eternal nature of a temple marriage, that black people are cursed, that Jesus and Satan are brothers, that we exist before conception, that I can’t have coffee or alcohol but I can have an abortion, that God had sex with Mary and Jesus was conceived, that Adam’s fall was anything other than catastrophic for man, and that, if I wish, I can forget my vows - even if I’ve been sealed in an LDS temple - and get divorced (and be sealed to someone else), ignoring the indissolubility of marriage?
    Apostasy or not, the decision whether or not to join the LDS was pretty easy.
And you didn’t even mention the fantasy called the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon claims the Native Americans are descendents of Israelites, but science has established that Native Americans came from Siberia, not Israel. Mormons will try to claim the Book of Mormon allows other people besides these Israelites to be in the promised land, but the Book of Mormon exposes their words in 2 Nephi 1:6-8:

“Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever. And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.”

So the Book of Mormon excludes the settlement of Siberians in America. Mormons believe Lamanites come from Israel, but mtDNA studies show they come from Siberia. They acknowledge this and try to make the clear words of the Book of Mormon go away. Their denial of the teachings of the Book of Mormon in this regard speaks for itself.
 
I am not here to convert anyone. I am here to present the legitimate LDS faith and practice for your review and discussion and to answer any questions that I can.
bull pucky. of course you are here to convert–why else would you waste your time? The only reason to present the LDS faith to non-LDS is to convert. Other wise you are preaching to the choir and who would even care?
 
bull pucky. of course you are here to convert–why else would you waste your time? The only reason to present the LDS faith to non-LDS is to convert. Other wise you are preaching to the choir and who would even care?
This is a resurrected thread. He hasn’t been around for ages. The only LDS here are Zerinus, LaMar, and Why Me. And LaMar is obviously not here to try to convert good Catholics.
 
This is a resurrected thread. He hasn’t been around for ages. The only LDS here are Zerinus, LaMar, and Why Me. And LaMar is obviously not here to try to convert good Catholics.
And these three are not really Mormon. They all have made up their own religion, in one way or another.
 
And these three are not really Mormon. They all have made up their own religion, in one way or another.
Just so long as they contribute their 10%, work to convert others, attest that the BOM is sacred scripture and Joseph Smith is their prophet, and don’t cause a scandal, the LDS church doesn’t care how they present their history and theology. There is no such a person as a true Mormon, since they are all heretics from each other.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top