Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[saemo]

Earlier in the thread it was posited that the didache (sp) allowed baptism to acceptably performed by either of full body immersion or a pouring/sprinkling of water...that the didache was older than the NT, and the didache cotained instructions from apostles.

Tevilah is a full body immersion that was performed upon conversion to Judaism. Baptism is a greek word describing the same practice. John the baptist didnt invent it, it's not a christian invention..

Now, whether the Jewish men who were called by Jesus to be special witnesses would change the ceremonial immersion to another washing...that's a huge question.

If a person is damned without baptism, then it becomes very important to be able to quickly and efficiently able to baptize. Those who are near death, infants, etc would benefit from a pouring. If infants who died without baptism werent damned by a loving deity and if proxy babtism was available then the baptism could remain as it was in the OT.

Ezekial 36

23:But I will show the holiness of my great name, desecrated among the nations, in whose midst you desecrated it. Then the nations shall know that I am the LORD—oracle of the Lord GOD—when through you I show my holiness before their very eyes.

24 I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you back to your own soil.

25

I will sprinkle clean water over you to make you clean

; from all your impurities and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

26

I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

We see in this a prefiguring of baptism.

(eta: can't seem to get the odd formatting to go away)

Edited March 15, 2013 by saemo

[Ahab]

What is the evidence that priesthood authority was lost, and when did it happen? (Cue the conspiracy theories.)

Perhaps you would simply say priesthood authority was "diminished" ??? At one time there were living apostles to appoint and oversee bishops, and then at a later point there were no more living apostles. Whatever reasoning you use to try to justify that loss, it is still a loss from the way things were before to the way things are now, in your church.

It is easy for me to see the historical evidence for the continuity of Christ's Church, including priesthood authority.

That's because you've found a way to explain it away while thinking the way it is now is okay. Compare the order in your church to the order in the restored church, though. The restored church has the order of the church as depicted in the Bible.

LDS go on possibilities, and anyone can believe anything is possible. You then have to ask what, based on the evidence, is probable? What I find is that LDS apologists rewrite history in order to make the possible, probable. History then becomes belief, rather than a witness for an age.

I see you guys as the ones who try to justify your beliefs based on history. You think the way things turned out is the way things should have turned out, just because things happened that way. You should at least be able to realize there was a change in the order of things, though. You have no apostles and no higher priesthood authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their hands, like the church of the earlier saints once had. And yeah, I know, that's because you don't think you need it that way. You just explain it away.

LDS believe in eternal marriage, unless you're talking about the Bride of Christ, His Church?

No, he's eternally with his Church, but you have to join it to be a part of it, and to join it you need to have people authorized to bring you into it, rather than just starting some other church while thinking that church is his church. He can spot an imposter church and those who are not doing his work.

Other than that, it is just reinterpretation of scripture, and you can find no evidence that the early Church held any belief that it was going to die and be raised! On the contrary, the belief is in continuity, with the historical evidence pointing to the reality of continuity. If you want to believe the Church died, then where is the evidence for this???? You're going to go to the Church's own historical writings, including the NT, to prove the Church died? Really??????

Yes, really, and without confusing the writings of your church with the writings of the true church of Jesus Christ.

[kenporay]

Yes you can see it how you want. You can say it prefigures sprinkling for a conversion ritual but thats not what its about. It is absolutely undeniable and provable that full body immersion called tevilah by Jewish people was the same conversion ritual practiced by John.

You can go to a number of rabbis, books or websites aboutconversion to Judaism.

To say this prefigures that is to do no more than to say: we changed that based on how we saw that.

Ezekial 36

23:But I will show the holiness of my great name, desecrated among the nations, in whose midst you desecrated it. Then the nations shall know that I am the LORD—oracle of the Lord GOD—when through you I show my holiness before their very eyes.

24 I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you back to your own soil.

25

I will sprinkle clean water over you to make you clean

; from all your impurities and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

26

I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

We see in this a prefiguring of baptism.

(eta: can't seem to get the odd formatting to go away)

[saemo]

Perhaps you would simply say priesthood authority was "diminished" ??? At one time there were living apostles to appoint and oversee bishops, and then at a later point there were no more living apostles. Whatever reasoning you use to try to justify that loss, it is still a loss from the way things were before to the way things are now, in your church.

Either you have authority or you don't. Diminished authority is no authority.

This is an example of LDS changing history to belief. The Apostles did appoint their successors, by the laying on of hands, and they in turn ordained their successors.

That's because you've found a way to explain it away while thinking the way it is now is okay. Compare the order in your church to the order in the restored church, though. The restored church has the order of the church as depicted in the Bible.

That is your belief, not what actually occurred.

I see you guys as the ones who try to justify your beliefs based on history. You think the way things turned out is the way things should have turned out, just because things happened that way. You should at least be able to realize there was a change in the order of things, though. You have no apostles and no higher priesthood authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their hands, like the church of the earlier saints once had. And yeah, I know, that's because you don't think you need it that way. You just explain it away.

Well, I believe the Holy Spirit continues to guide and protect Christ's Church. I hold no belief that Jesus left us as orphans, with no shepherds to guide us and no Spirit to enliven us.

You just make stuff up to say it should be there, because.....well, I have no idea why you would make things up rather than accept REALITY.

No, he's eternally with his Church, but you have to join it to be a part of it, and to join it you need to have people authorized to bring you into it, rather than just starting some other church while thinking that church is his church. He can spot an imposter church and those who are not doing his work.

Amazingly, my view is that is the LDS church who is part and parcel of the apostasy of the faithful. So there.

Yes, really, and without confusing the writings of your church with the writings of the true church of Jesus Christ.

Then STOP using our writings, including the New Testament.

[saemo]

Yes you can see it how you want. You can say it prefigures sprinkling for a conversion ritual but thats not what its about. It is absolutely undeniable and provable that full body immersion called tevilah by Jewish people was the same conversion ritual practiced by John.

You can go to a number of rabbis, books or websites aboutconversion to Judaism.

To say this prefigures that is to do no more than to say: we changed that based on how we saw that.

You really can't see how baptism, the thing that regenerates us and reconciles us to God, is not prefigured in the Israelites who were regenerated and reconciled to God by the sign of God sprinkling water on them?

Honestly, truly, you're not just being obtuse to make some kind of point?

[Ahab]

Either you have authority or you don't. Diminished authority is no authority.

I was referring to authority diminishing in the Church, collectively. Apostles have more authority than bishops, or over more things.

This is an example of LDS changing history to belief. The Apostles did appoint their successors, by the laying on of hands, and they in turn ordained their successors.

This is an example of justifying what you did in contrast to what they did. In the church depicted in the Bible, bishops didn't ordain other bishops to succeed them. The apostles ordained bishops. The fact that your bishops did that doesn't mean it was right.

That is your belief, not what actually occurred.

That was my point. What actually occurred in your church isn't the same as what occurred in the church depicted in the Bible. You guys changed the way things were done, in contrast to the way the Lord established his church as depicted in the Bible.

Well, I believe the Holy Spirit continues to guide and protect Christ's Church. I hold no belief that Jesus left us as orphans, with no shepherds to guide us and no Spirit to enliven us.

He does guide and protect his church, but you have to become a member of it and live by his laws to have his guidance and protection.

You just make stuff up to say it should be there, because.....well, I have no idea why you would make things up rather than accept REALITY.

REALITY is that at some point there were no more living apostles to guide our Lord's church as it had been guided before, with them. You seem to think that's okay, and that the Church no longer needs living apostles as it once did, but just because you think that way doesn't mean what you think is right. The apostles foretold how the church would fall into error without them, as our Lord knew that it would, but back then there were people who didn't think they needed apostles anymore, either, which is why they started acting as if they didn't need them.

Amazingly, my view is that is the LDS church who is part and parcel of the apostasy of the faithful. So there.

Because we're not like your church, but we are like the church depicted in the Bible. So there.

Then STOP using our writings, including the New Testament.

Those aren't your writings. Your people didn't write anything now contained in the Bible. You can keep all of your writings.

[saemo]

Ahab,

Denying the Holy Spirit, his work among God's people, and the fruit of prophecy, is not something I recommend!

a) Do you believe Jesus commissioned the Church to go forth and baptize all nations.

b) Do you believe Jesus would make this commission know full well that it wasn't going to happen?

c) Is your God a trickster?

d) Do you believe the Apostles were so entirely inept that they didn't appoint successors?

e) Why do you view the Lord's appointed in such low esteem?

Other than that.

Acts 1: 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

²² Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Lays out the qualifications for an Apostle, which, no one has claim to today.

Repent and be baptized.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

Denying the Holy Spirit, his work among God's people, and the fruit of prophecy, is not something I recommend!

It's not something I recommend, either. And it's not something I do.

a) Do you believe Jesus commissioned the Church to go forth and baptize all nations.

Yes, and he has reiterated that several times in our dispensation, too.

b) Do you believe Jesus would make this commission know full well that it wasn't going to happen?

No, and it's not just a one time thing. People keep popping up all over the place, so there's always more people to teach.

c) Is your God a trickster?

He can do some pretty neat things, but no I would not call him a trickster.

d) Do you believe the Apostles were so entirely inept that they didn't appoint successors?

Yes, and the people they appointed as successors filled the offices they were appointed to fill, not some other office they weren't appointed to. And they were to do things as they were told to do them, rather than make changes without authorization.

e) Why do you view the Lord's appointed in such low esteem?

I don't. Why do you presume your church has people who are appointed by our Lord to do things?

Other than that.

Acts 1: 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

²² Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Lays out the qualifications for an Apostle, which, no one has claim to today.

Our Lord has the authority to change the standard Peter used to appoint other apostles, and in our current dispensation, he did.

Otherwise our church would be stuck without living apostles like your church is.

Repent and be baptized.

I repent when I can and know I have something to repent from, and I've already been properly baptized by people with the proper authority.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Ahab

[Bart Burk]

All I can tell you is that following the teachings of the Catholic Church has helped me to find peace with God. If the Catholic Church is apostate, I suspect that wouldn't be the case. I suppose faithful Mormons can say the same thing about the teachings of the Mormon Church. In that case I would say the Catholic claim that it isn't in apostasy has a better claim than the LDS Church's claim that the Catholic Church is in apostasy. If the teachings of the ancient Catholic Church can bring me peace with God, why do I need a new church?

[saemo]

It's not something I recommend, either. And it's not something I do.

Yes, and he has reiterated that several times in our dispensation, too.

No, and it's not just a one time thing. People keep popping up all over the place, so there's always more people to teach.

He can do some pretty neat things, but no I would not call him a trickster.

Yes, and the people they appointed as successors filled the offices they were appointed to fill, not some other office they weren't appointed to. And they were to do things as they were told to do them, rather than make changes without authorization.

I don't. Why do you presume your church has people who are appointed by our Lord to do things?

Our Lord has the authority to change the standard Peter used to appoint other apostles, and in our current dispensation, he did.

Otherwise our church would be stuck without living apostles like your church is.

I repent when I can and know I have something to repent from, and I've already been properly baptized by people with the proper authority.

I see, Mormonism is a "restoration" except for any innovations, which are divine exception.

Got it.

[Ahab]

All I can tell you is that following the teachings of the Catholic Church has helped me to find peace with God. If the Catholic Church is apostate, I suspect that wouldn't be the case. I suppose faithful Mormons can say the same thing about the teachings of the Mormon Church. In that case I would say the Catholic claim that it isn't in apostasy has a better claim than the LDS Church's claim that the Catholic Church is in apostasy. If the teachings of the ancient Catholic Church can bring me peace with God, why do I need a new church?

If someone else can say the same thing about the church they are a member of, isn't that a clue to you that we need to analyze our thoughts a little deeper? Maybe what some of us characterize as "being at peace with God" isn't the only thing we should be considering. Our Lord has only one Church, regardless of which one we think that is. I'm in the one I'm in now because he has told me it is his true church and the only one that can lead me to exaltation, through his guidance. And it's not so much the Church I am following, considering the Church is filled with imperfect people, but it is the Lord who I know I am following. Maybe as long as we follow him to the extent we know how the more we feel at peace with God, whichever church we are in, but just because we feel at peace doesn't mean there isn't a lot more for us to learn and do and be and become. I was in another church I liked pretty well and felt very comfortable in before I found about what I now know is the Lord's church. It served a purpose for a time but then I became ready for bigger and better things than I would have been able to enjoy in that church.

[Ahab]

I see, Mormonism is a "restoration" except for any innovations, which are divine exception.

Got it.

Right. Basically, we have what you think you have, except that our church is more like the church depicted in the Bible.

[saemo]

Right. Basically, we have what you think you have, except that our church is more like the church depicted in the Bible.

Here is what I see.

I say, Acts (the Bible), points to a requirement for a man to be an Apostle, and the Apostles appointed Bishops as their successors.

You say, "We don't need to follow what's in the Bible because God changed it for us. However because the Catholic Church follows what is actually IN the Bible, this is sign of an Apostasy".

Makes perfect sense!

Other than that, the Catholic Church is not sola scriptura. Sacred Tradition (the faith handed on) and Sacred Scripture go hand in hand.

Edited March 15, 2013 by saemo

[Bart Burk]

If someone else can say the same thing about the church they are a member of, isn't that a clue to you that we need to analyze our thoughts a little deeper? Maybe what some of us characterize as "being at peace with God" isn't the only thing we should be considering. Our Lord has only one Church, regardless of which one we think that is. I'm in the one I'm in now because he has told me it is his true church and the only one that can lead me to exaltation, through his guidance. And it's not so much the Church I am following, considering the Church is filled with imperfect people, but it is the Lord who I know I am following. Maybe as long as we follow him to the extent we know how the more we feel at peace with God, whichever church we are in, but just because we feel at peace doesn't mean there isn't a lot more for us to learn and do and be and become. I was in another church I liked pretty well and felt very comfortable in before I found about what I now know is the Lord's church. It served a purpose for a time but then I became ready for bigger and better things than I would have been able to enjoy in that church.

The Catholic Church has always been full of imperfect people. The LDS Church is full of imperfect people. If both churches are full of imperfect people then it is impossible to claim a loss of authority because people have sinned in the Catholic Church. The LDS Church never added anything to my salvation that was not already available in the ancient Catholic Church. The grace Jesus offers us through the sacraments of the Catholic Church can lead me to perfect holiness and will allow me to share in the kind of life Jesus has. Those sacraments have been available since Christ founded the Catholic Church through Peter. There isno real evidence those sacraments were ever lost.

[Ahab]

Here is what I see.

I say, Acts (the Bible), points to a requirement for a man to be an Apostle, and the Apostles appointed Bishops as their successors.

You say, "We don't need to follow what's in the Bible because God changed it for us. However because the Catholic Church follows what is actually IN the Bible, this is sign of an Apostasy".

Makes perfect sense!

Here's what I see: The living apostles were the ones who appointed the bishops. It doesn't work that way in your church, because you don't have any living apostles in your church. The Bible doesn't show bishops appointing other bishops. You still do it anyway, though, and you think it's okay.

Other than that, the Catholic Church is not sola scriptura. Sacred Tradition (the faith handed on) and Sacred Scripture go hand in hand.

At least when we start doing things some other way we have the words of our Lord as support for the changes we make. Actual words from the Lord, through a prophet, rather than people just sharing their own ideas without mentioning the Lord as the one who revealed the idea. More scripture, in other words. How long has it been since your church received some more scripture?

[Ahab]

The Catholic Church has always been full of imperfect people. The LDS Church is full of imperfect people. If both churches are full of imperfect people then it is impossible to claim a loss of authority because people have sinned in the Catholic Church. The LDS Church never added anything to my salvation that was not already available in the ancient Catholic Church. The grace Jesus offers us through the sacraments of the Catholic Church can lead me to perfect holiness and will allow me to share in the kind of life Jesus has. Those sacraments have been available since Christ founded the Catholic Church through Peter. There isno real evidence those sacraments were ever lost.

We have the word of the Lord revealing the fact that certain things were lost a long time ago. Things which we now have restored in our Church. Things you don't recognize or appreciate as being additional blessings available from God. From our point of view, you are simply satisfied with a lot less. No gift of the Holy Ghost to any of you. No temple blessings, including no eternal marriage. And you're just fine with that, thinking you don't need what we have to offer. Well, guess what. If you don't want it, we're not going to force you to receive it.

[williamsmith]

I don't necessarily disbelieve in the Apostasy, at least not yet, though I am, and always have, had difficulty with the concept.

You really shouldn't have any difficulty in there having been an apostasy of the ancient church.

First, Christ clearly and unequivocally set up an authoritative Church in organization, leadership, and doctrine.

Second, anyone that has any experience with various religions, especially not having been mormon recognizes that that church simply doesn't exist anymore among the various religions (unless they come upon the latter-day church usually at the end of that journey of recognition).

Third, even the Catholic and Orthodox church's which clearly retained the closest degrees of practice, doctrine, and organization to the original church have clearly lost alot and thus simply can't be claimed to be the self same church as the original. This is not the first time either, apostasy's have happened many times. Further, the absolute loss of the top leadership of the church, when there were somewhere around 8 replaced over time, but then they were gone, makes clear there was an absolute apostasy. Without those keys from God, you have men doing what they want and making their best guess. That's why the Catholic Church for example tried to make it seem the keys were given to the "Pope", even though it clearly never happened.

Anyway, here's one story that echo's many including my own:

Baptist Missionary becomes a Mormon

[3DOP]

In his epistle to the Romans, St. Paul expresses a keen desire to visit the faithful in Rome. Among the unique claims and praises which the Apostle makes for this church, even before his visit, are the following:

:

1) your faith is spoken of in the whole world...

2) All the churches of Christ salute you...

3) For your obedience is published in every place...

Before his martyrdom, St. Ignatius wrote letters to six churches. One can examine the salutations of each of these letters and see the unique praise which is reserved the church at Rome:

1. the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God,

2. worthy of God,

3. worthy of honour,

4. worthy of the highest happiness,

5. worthy of praise,

6. worthy of obtaining her every desire,

7. worthy of being deemed holy,

8. and which presides over love,

9. is named from Christ, and from the Father,

St. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons, in what was then called Gaul.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

---Against Heresies, 3:3:1

But how are we, according to St. Irenaeus, to "contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world"?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority...

---Against Heresies 3:3:2

Who could think that this is some novelty dreamed up by a non-Roman bishop? His words were going to be read everywhere. Was he worried about being declaimed as a kook? It seems to me that the likeliest scenario is that the faithful throughout the world would easily recognize the "preeminent authority" of which St. Irenaeus spoke. What a great comfort to realize that controversies are resolved and truth is recognized in easier ways than becoming an expert on the heresies, like Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus gave the world around two-hundred-fifty pages of encyclopedic print analyzing the errors of his day. But perhaps recognizing that his expertise was rare, he reminded the faithful of his day of the deferential attitude toward Rome which had existed since Apostolic times, and exhorts them that if they would be a sure judge of the true and the good, we need only to look to the faith found in the city of the martyrs and catecombs for our guide.

As it was last Tuesday night, when the 266th successor of St. Peter was proclaimed, so it has been from the beginning of the Church. The eyes of the faithful and even unbelievers are today as then, fixed upon the praiseworthy, remarkable, and imperishable institution that resides at "Eternal Rome". The other Apostolic Churches are gone. Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch have lost their glory. But the Roman Church endures. Why, if it is a mere human institution? Heresies arise and fail, and so do republics and empires, but Rome perseveres with millions of souls who ever approve its "preeminent authority". Why? If Irenaeus was wrong, why doesn't it fall apart when Napoleon captures the pope? When Attila the Hun is at the gates, it appears that all is lost. But a holy pope speaks and Attila unaccountably leaves. The Turks with a superior fleet seem certain to become the masters of the Mediterranean, but are bested at Lepanto when a great pope calls for a Rosary Crusade. 2,000 years of history makes it appear like the leaders of the Roman Church have an uncanny resilience and ability to "rise from the dead" every time somebody says the jig is up. Is it so implausible to wonder if maybe the bishops of Rome are really the successors of the chair of Peter, and thus enjoy the Petrine privileges God promised to St. Peter? Is there really a better explanation?

3DOP

Edited March 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[williamsmith]

The Catholic Church has always been full of imperfect people. The LDS Church is full of imperfect people. If both churches are full of imperfect people then it is impossible to claim a loss of authority because people have sinned in the Catholic Church. The LDS Church never added anything to my salvation that was not already available in the ancient Catholic Church. The grace Jesus offers us through the sacraments of the Catholic Church can lead me to perfect holiness and will allow me to share in the kind of life Jesus has. Those sacraments have been available since Christ founded the Catholic Church through Peter. There isno real evidence those sacraments were ever lost.

Yes, but the "spirit" is not the same as the Lords literal Church. Everyone on the planet has access to the spirit and various degrees of truth and practices that lead one to God and Light. Again, that is not the same as the Lords literal and authorized church. The problem is is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Peter gave this new office of "Pope" which came later by the way the Key's of the Church. The Bishop in Rome was simply another Bishop of the Church. Further, Peter wasn't the last Apostle, further making that authority in question. The only evidence the Catholic church has is that Peter apparently died in the city that Bishop was based. All the changes, the loss of the Apostleship when it was clearly to continue and more gives clear evidence that that church was no longer the Lords.

[Bart Burk]

Right. Basically, we have what you think you have, except that our church is more like the church depicted in the Bible.

Does the LDS teach what Christ taught regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper? The Bible is very clear regarding that, but the LDS deny it. We teach what both Christ and Paul taught, but the LDS don't do so even when it can be found in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 18: 28-29). The LDS deny the teaching of the Trinity even though it is in the Book of Mormon. The Catholic Church has had miracle after miracle since New Testament times to our own. The Catholic Church has continually preached faith, repentance, baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost for nearly 2000 years. The LDS Church adds nothing of significance to my understanding of Christ's atonement. The LDS people are wonderful people who are trying to follow Christ as they believe they should. I believe God blesses them because of that and expect that all of us will eventually be reconciled to God through the faith that we have in Christ. I just believe the claim that Catholics are in an apostate church is difficult to prove and is an assertion with very little evidence to support it.

[saemo]

At least when we start doing things some other way we have the words of our Lord as support for the changes we make. Actual words from the Lord, through a prophet, rather than people just sharing their own ideas without mentioning the Lord as the one who revealed the idea. More scripture, in other words. How long has it been since your church received some more scripture?

Of course, that is the point. LDS *must* believe that the Holy Spirit is not present in the Church that Jesus Christ established during his ministry. No Catholic (east or west) shares this belief. This, I believe, is a matter of faith. We have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it has been, and ever shall be. You have faith in failure.

[Bart Burk]

The entire case of the LDS Church rests on the Book of Mormon. If it is false the LDS Church's claims fall apart.

[Ahab]

Of course, that is the point. LDS *must* believe that the Holy Spirit is not present in the Church that Jesus Christ established during his ministry. No Catholic (east or west) shares this belief. This, I believe, is a matter of faith. We have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it has been, and ever shall be. You have faith in failure.

You don't seem to understand what we consider your church to be. It's not the same church that our Lord founded during his mortal ministry, and it didn't devolve from that church, either. It is an entirely other church, which had many similarities at first, but now is almost entirely different.

Do you see how we see you a little better now? There was our Lord's true church, and then another church rose up with many similarities and people started joining that church instead of the true church. There is only one way to join our Lord's church, so if people do anything different than what it takes to join that church they are then joining some other church, even if the people in that other church are the same people that were formerly in the other church. You never did have any apostles as members of your church, though, so none of the members of your church wrote any part of the Bible.

Some have compared the true Church to the house of Israel, but the way to join either one is different. To be a part of house of Israel all a person has to do is to be born within the same family, and then regardless of whether they're good or bad, they're in. Withi the Church, though, you have to come into the Church properly, through proper baptism and by the proper authority. If you don't get in the right way, then you're not in.

So, picture this: The true church and your church existed simultaneously at one point in time, as 2 different groups of people. The people who got in the church eventually died, and then people started to join a different church which didn't promote being baptized the correct way and even if it had would not have been administered by people with the proper authority. Getting baptized or immersed in water is only part of what it takes to become a member of the true church of Christ. It also takes someone with the proper authority to place their hands upon your head to give you the gift of the Holy Ghost, and if you don't go through that ordinance, then you're not in. You, yourself, have never been admitted into the true church of Christ, because you have never gone through what it takes for you to join it.

I don't think hearing this will upset you very much, though, because you'd probably say the same thing to me. Only one of us is right, though, and I know which one of us that is now.

[saemo]

You don't seem to understand what we consider your church to be. It's not the same church that our Lord founded during his mortal ministry, and it didn't devolve from that church, either. It is an entirely other church, which had many similarities at first, but now is almost entirely different.

Do you see how we see you a little better now? There was our Lord's true church, and then another church rose up with many similarities and people started joining that church instead of the true church. There is only one way to join our Lord's church, so if people do anything different than what it takes to join that church they are then joining some other church, even if the people in that other church are the same people that were formerly in the other church. You never did have any apostles as members of your church, though, so none of the members of your church wrote any part of the Bible.

Some have compared the true Church to the house of Israel, but the way to join either one is different. To be a part of house of Israel all a person has to do is to be born within the same family, and then regardless of whether they're good or bad, they're in. Withi the Church, though, you have to come into the Church properly, through proper baptism and by the proper authority. If you don't get in the right way, then you're not in.

So, picture this: The true church and your church existed simultaneously at one point in time, as 2 different groups of people. The people who got in the church eventually died, and then people started to join a different church which didn't promote being baptized the correct way and even if it had would not have been administered by people with the proper authority. Getting baptized or immersed in water is only part of what it takes to become a member of the true church of Christ. It also takes someone with the proper authority to place their hands upon your head to give you the gift of the Holy Ghost, and if you don't go through that ordinance, then you're not in. You, yourself, have never been admitted into the true church of Christ, because you have never gone through what it takes for you to join it.

I don't think hearing this will upset you very much, though, because you'd probably say the same thing to me. Only one of us is right, though, and I know which one of us that is now.

Seriously, this telling me what I am and what I know is getting old. Have a good evening.

[Bart Burk]

Seriously, this telling me what I am and what I know is getting old. Have a good evening.

As always, the LDS cannot demonstrate where or when we lost our authority. They assert it with no evidence just as they assert the Book of Mormon to be true with no evidence.