Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[Engineer97]

There are other possible conclusions.

What would these be?

[CASteinman]

What would these be?

Well, one is that the individual has not figured out that they got an answer -- their ability to detect the answer may be - compromised by all kinds of things -including false expectations.

[saemo]

None of the points I listed are innovative, although (yes) they have been mentioned over and over in the literature (with footnotes) as restorations. All were part of the early Church. Assertions typically lack academic backing and one may feel good making them, but there is a time when a CFR is called for. Perhaps you could justify your claim of "no evidence." Which items do you claim are "innovative," or are you just making an assertion?

Each could be, and has been a thread of its own. My experience here is every thread around Catholicism devolves into a bashing of the God we worship. So, I have less interest in Mormons-pretending-to-know-anyting-at-all-about-Christianity, than you might imagine.

- no infant baptism - an assertion of your own, with little evidence.

- baptism by immersion - also an assertion of your own, and lacking in the recognition that we do baptize by immersion. It isn't required that baptism be done by immersion. That is your innovation.

- baptism for the dead - something mentioned in passing, distinctly described as "they", not "we". The innovation is everything Mormonism has built around a singular idea that cannot be shown to be doctrinal in the early church, anywhere.

- continuing revelation / open canon - It is a Mormon assertion that everyone else but themselves thinks revelation ended. Perhaps someday you'll stop teaching each other this and actually learn what others believe. Which would help you understand why the canon is closed, as well. But I have to say, I have my doubts that could or would ever happen. It's better to continue propagating what you think others believe, rather than actually understanding what they do believe. I can't say that is innovative.

- priesthood ordination by one having authority (lay priesthood) - seriously- the innovation is you thinking this doesn't happen anywhere, that it was lost, and needed to be restored.

- Plan of Salvation / Great Plan of Happiness - same as priesthood ordination - this one always kills me. No one else in the whole wide world believes God planned for our Salvation or desires our happiness.

- Theosis / apotheosis / Deification - Innovation in what it means. LDS point to Catholic sources yet deny the context entirely.

- Premortal existence of spirits / coeternal with God - innovation entirely! Not to mention non-Biblical.

- Grand Council in Heaven - serious innovation. No where does anyone accept or believe in a council of Gods. To do so is polytheistic and polytheism is not accepted in Christianity. How many examples would you liked to see?

- free agency - Another one of those where you think "we get it, no one else does" - that's the innovation...your assertion

- creation from pre-existent matter - not innovative in coming up with the idea, but innovative in thinking it has anything to do with Christianity.

- corporeality of God the Father / anthropomorphic deities / naturalistic deities / solution to problem of evil-theodicy - same as above

- Heavenly Mother / consort of YHWH - polytheism again, which is outside of Christianity, therefore innovative in context of claiming to be a Christian belief, at any time.

- temple endowment / esoteric rites - I'm not going to discuss your temple rites.

Edited March 22, 2013 by saemo

[Ahab]

No...Peter never claimed to be any high president. He knew what his role was...to be the chief shepherd in building Christ's church.

Even though he didn't use the words "high president" to refer to himself, yes, he knew what his role was. He was given the keys to the kingdom and as the "chief" apostle he had more authority than any other apostle and was what we refer to today as a President of the High Priesthood who oversees the whole Church.

He is claimed by the catholics as the first pope. Do you see any pope claiming to be the high president of anything?

Irrelevant. I'm talking about how the true Church of Christ was set up, not about what the Catholic church claims or doesn't claim.

quote]Peter and his successors see their roles as shepherds....may be should recall the words of Christ to pete....feed my sheep, tend my sheep...in John's gospel.

Yes, I know all of that. Peter, James and John were the 3 highest ranking officials in the Church and were what we would refer to today as the First Presidency of the Church, with Peter being the President (or presiding) elder/high priest/apostle in the entire Church on this Earth. With him, and them, there were other apostles who oversaw the rest of the Church, making up what we refer to today as a "quorum" of apostles. Collectively they appointed/corrected/excommunicated bishops who oversaw others in the Church, with both local authorities and general authorities governing the whole Church following the guideines the general authorities gave them. Without general officers above the local authorities there would have been nobody to correct the local authorities when they needed to be corrected, and then what would you have? False teachings from local authorities, against what the general authorities were teaching.

No...historical evidence would disprove your claim. He called himself the apostle to the gentiles...or the one called to evangelize the gentiles....he never claimed any authority for himself. He was indeed a Catholic bishop in every sense of what a catholic bishop is. He even instructed Titus and Timothy to appoint men to succeed them.

Again, you persist in your misunderstanding. There are apostles today who are teaching the correct doctrine of our Savior and you are refusing to acknowledge their teachings. You think you're justified, just as the Catholic church thinks it is also justified, but just because you think you are doesn't mean that you are. How long do you think you'll go on believing things that aren't true if you refuse to accept correction from those who know better than you about what the truth is?

[MormonMason]

How was it a restoration of all things then?

Where does it say that? The Book of Mormon has never said that it is a restoration of all things. The Church has never said that the Book of Mormon is the restoration of all things. I know no member of the Church who has claimed that the Book of Mormon is the restoration of all things. Where do you get that idea?

[MormonMason]

Our hearts and minds should be reinforce by the true spirit of God.

2 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5.

Who investigated and validated these visions independently? Aside from themselves?

See...this is what I like and admire about the Catholic Church...they have devil's advocates when they investigate claims. They try not to prove these claims as true....by independent investigators.

The most recent is the case of Padre Pio...I mean, how could one not believe him having the Stigmata for about 50 yrs on his body?

Who would investigate it? We have no committees that sit around and argue all day as to whether something was a vision or not. No one else was around to see this visitation but them. But, neither of them denied having the visitation of these physical individuals. If there were fraud, Oliver Cowdery would have exposed Joseph Smith for the fraud that he was when he became his bitter enemy--if fraud there was. Neither ever denied this event happening.

Besides, investigating the validity of a claimed vision or supernatural occurrence does not and cannot determine the true source thereof. You yourself are advocating that approach, if you think your position through to its logical conclusion. Prove that the stigmata you mention came from God. I've seen Satan do some pretty bizarre things to people's bodies, too.

See...that is why it so doubtful. As I said, it should not contradict what had been revealed before. If Smith was truly called, he would have been told to see somebody...and to confirm what has been told him...not him directly, which raised the possibility of fraud or Smith being guided by an angel masquerading as an angel of light.

Define "contradicting what was revealed before." To whom could Joseph Smith have gone? The only ones holding the keys were the original Apostles. There had been an apostasy. No new Apostles had been ordained for more than a thousand years. There was not another Apostle on the face of the earth who could ordain Joseph Smith and commit the same keys as held anciently by them upon him, excepting those who originally held those keys.

And, Joseph Smith was directed to go see someone--namely, Peter, James and John. He was told to do that by John the Baptist, another physical entity who had conferred the priesthood of Aaron upon them previously. He was told that those three would afterward come and that he should receive the priesthood of Melchizedek under their hands at a later time.

And again, Peter, James and John were three, not one. While Satan indeed can manifest himself as an angel (singular) of light--that is a single entity--not three entities with bodies of flesh. Satan is a spirit and only a spirit. He does not have a physical body. Peter, James and John did have physical bodies when they met with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Satan has also legions as his command, and is not alone.

Yes, he does. Your point? Show me just one passage of scripture that shows that all of them have the same power as Satan and can all masquerade as angels of light. Only then can you make this point stick or even have meaning. So far as the scriptures are concerned, only Satan is mentioned as having the power to masquerade as AN ANGEL of light, NOT ANGELS.

[MormonMason]

Well, one is that the individual has not figured out that they got an answer -- their ability to detect the answer may be - compromised by all kinds of things -including false expectations.

I forgot to mention that I have seen a few instances of this over the years as well. One of these times, I was in a meeting with a person who had decided that he was going to pray then and there after being shown that he was being non-specific. He prayed specifically. As he was praying you could feel the Spirit of the Lord in the room. His expression was changing. As soon as his prayer was finished, he then expressed surprise, then gasped. Tears were streaming down his face (that had never happened to him at any time before when we had met with him and he had prayed).

I asked whether he felt any differently. He admitted that he had felt the change in the room and the change in the feeling within himself. He then said that God did not tell him in words he could hear so he could not admit that the Book of Mormon was God's word. After an involuntary facepalm, we then knew we were wasting our time and went our separate ways.

So, yes, sometimes that kind of thing happens. People have certain expectations of what they should or should not feel or experience so they sometimes ignore the manifestation of the Spirit that they did receive.

[Ahab]

You might want to bear in mind that an "angel of light" is simply another way of saying "messenger of truth". It's not necessarily a reference to someone with a body that glows like a light bulb.

When someone appears as an angel of light they "appear" to be telling the truth, but still, how would you know if what that messenger said was true? Would it be true just because the messenger said so? No, it's not the fact that a messenger says something that makes what he says true. It's true because it's in agreement with what God would say if he were to say so himself, even though he might clarify what was said by one of his messengers. Or, actually, it's true because it's in agreement with reality, even if God were not the one to tell us how reality is.

Anyway, let's abandon this notion that an "angel of light" is referring to someone with a body that glows like a light bulb. The point is, anyone who appears to be telling the truth isn't necessarily telling the truth, because appearances can be deceiving, so if anyone appears to be telling the truth you should either get confirmation from God to confirm that what he is saying is true, or you should just go see for yourself, if possible, to see if what that person says is in agreement with reality.

[MormonMason]

You might want to bear in mind that an "angel of light" is simply another way of saying "messenger of truth". It's not necessarily a reference to someone with a body that glows like a light bulb.

...

Not from a linguistic standpoint. Try not to project Masonic vocabulary and terminology back onto the scriptures. But, that is another discussion....

When angels are seen in the scriptures, they typically are surrounded by and/or accompanied by light. Admittedly, single appearances of single, physical entities can be questionable if one makes no physical contact therewith. But, in the case of both the events involving John the Baptist and Peter, James and John, there was physical contact and more than one witness. These latter occurrences support and shore up the validity of the earlier occurrences.

[Ahab]

Not from a linguistic standpoint. Try not to project Masonic vocabulary and terminology back onto the scriptures. But, that is another discussion....

When angels are seen in the scriptures, they typically are surrounded by and/or accompanied by light. Admittedly, single appearances of single, physical entities can be questionable if one makes no physical contact therewith. But, in the case of both the events involving John the Baptist and Peter, James and John, there was physical contact and more than one witness. These latter occurrences support and shore up the validity of the earlier occurrences.

And what is light, in scriptural terms? It is truth. So there are messengers of light/truth, and messengers of darkness/deceit.

I'm not contending that all messengers are mortal. My main point is that someone who "appears" to be a messenger of truth isn't necessary sharing a message of truth.

[MormonMason]

And what is light, in scriptural terms? It is truth. So there are messengers of light/truth, and messengers of darkness/deceit.

I'm not contending that all messengers are mortal. My main point is that someone who "appears" to be a messenger of truth isn't necessary sharing a message of truth.

As is the case with Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So is it with the term "angel of light." The ancients knew what that meant. They did not envision it as meaning "messenger of truth" although certainly an angel can be a "messenger of truth." But they had words that mean that to say that. When one is to understand 'light' as an abstractive for 'truth' or 'knowledge' one can see it in the language and structure of the text.

[Ahab]

As is the case with Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So is it with the term "angel of light." The ancients knew what that meant. They did not envision it as meaning "messenger of truth" although certainly an angel can be a "messenger of truth." But they had words that mean that to say that. When one is to understand 'light' as an abstractive for 'truth' or 'knowledge' one can see it in the language and structure of the text.

What is it about the language and structure of the text which leads you to believe it's not a reference to someone who appears to be a messenger of truth? I once had the idea you seem to have but later realized I was superimposing that idea onto those words. It could still refer to an immortal who comes here from some other realm without that person having a body that glows like a light bulb.

Paul's point was that even if what appears to be an "angel of light" appears to you, what he tells you isn't necessarily true.

If an "angel of light" was always a "messenger of truth", then what Paul said would be redundant, because a message from messenger of truth is always the truth. But Paul was talking about what could appear to be an "angel of light", while saying such an angel wouldn't necessarily be telling the truth. Thus what appears to be a "messenger of truth" isn't necessarily a messenger of truth, even though he would appear to be an "angel of light".

[Engineer97]

Well, one is that the individual has not figured out that they got an answer -- their ability to detect the answer may be - compromised by all kinds of things -including false expectations.

Excuse me...but false expectations? The M missionaries said I should expect something...but did not get anything....so I was given a false expectation then?

[CASteinman]

Excuse me...but false expectations? The M missionaries said I should expect something...but did not get anything....so I was given a false expectation then?

No, you were not given a false expectation, but you may have had one anyway. I know I did.

[Engineer97]

2 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5.

Who would investigate it? We have no committees that sit around and argue all day as to whether something was a vision or not. No one else was around to see this visitation but them. But, neither of them denied having the visitation of these physical individuals. If there were fraud, Oliver Cowdery would have exposed Joseph Smith for the fraud that he was when he became his bitter enemy--if fraud there was. Neither ever denied this event happening.

Well...to prove their authenticity...would it not make sense to throughly vet this out? Investigate it to the fulllest...to prove the claim as true....isn't this the most logical and sensible thing to do?

Besides, investigating the validity of a claimed vision or supernatural occurrence does not and cannot determine the true source thereof. You yourself are advocating that approach, if you think your position through to its logical conclusion. Prove that the stigmata you mention came from God. I've seen Satan do some pretty bizarre things to people's bodies, too.

Well...that is the point of conducting an investigation...to determine the true source. If you do not investigate...then there are lingering doubts....and one can be led to error by such unsubstantiated and unproven claims. And this is where I am in awe of the ability of the Catholic church to sift through such claims.

I mean, if the LDS is the true restored church...it should have the ability, even have more ability to trounce the investigative acument of the Catholic Church. But it seems, what you are saying...forego any such investigation.

As to the Stigmata....the case of Padre Pio, which i have read, had his stigmata from about the 30s to the 60s...and he was subjected to intense investigation. The Catholic C did not discount the divine nature of the occurence. http://www.amazon.com/Padre-Pio-The-True-Story/dp/0879736739

And common...do you think Satan would duplicate the Stigmata?

Define "contradicting what was revealed before." To whom could Joseph Smith have gone? The only ones holding the keys were the original Apostles. There had been an apostasy. No new Apostles had been ordained for more than a thousand years. There was not another Apostle on the face of the earth who could ordain Joseph Smith and commit the same keys as held anciently by them upon him, excepting those who originally held those keys.

Here is the thing...JS could have been directed to go to someone who could have vouched the authenticity of the vision....you can see this is how God did it with St. Paul, in Gal 2:2.

And prior to this, in Paul's conversion, Ananias is told to go see Paul and baptize him. It is along this lines...see, JS was told directly....not told to go to someone, nor was someone told to go to JS....which is why I am suspecting the authencity of the claim of JS. God, following his pattern....which He would not contradict...would have called someone else...to either expect JS or tell somone to seek out JS.

And besides, Peter and Paul were given healing powers as signs, no such sign was given to Joseph Smith.

And, Joseph Smith was directed to go see someone--namely, Peter, James and John. He was told to do that by John the Baptist, another physical entity who had conferred the priesthood of Aaron upon them previously. He was told that those three would afterward come and that he should receive the priesthood of Melchizedek under their hands at a later time.

Again..unsubtantiated claim.

Yes, he does. Your point? Show me just one passage of scripture that shows that all of them have the same power as Satan and can all masquerade as angels of light. Only then can you make this point stick or even have meaning. So far as the scriptures are concerned, only Satan is mentioned as having the power to masquerade as AN ANGEL of light, NOT ANGELS.

Where does Bible teach everything about Satan? Does the Bible teach everything there is to know?

[Engineer97]

No, you were not given a false expectation, but you may have had one anyway. I know I did.

Let me ask you...if one read the BOM and did not get that expectation...and one read the Bible and got something unexpected....how would you explain this?

Another unrelated question...how do you quote? I tried but got message that says exceeded the quotes? Got me scratching my head.

[CASteinman]

Let me ask you...if one read the BOM and did not get that expectation...and one read the Bible and got something unexpected....how would you explain this?

Well, I would have to know more, but generally speaking, I don't think I would try to explain it unless pushed to do so.

[CASteinman]

Another unrelated question...how do you quote? I tried but got message that says exceeded the quotes? Got me scratching my head.

When you hit the quote button there is a some text above and below the "quoted" text. These text strings are important. They start with an "[" and end with an "]"

The first one contains information about who is being quoted and what message is referred to. You actually don't need all of that information but its nice to include it so I COPY AND PASTE THAT ONE STRING at the start of each section I quote.

Then at the end of EACH and EVERY section that you quote you have to have this string: "[" "/Quote" "]" -- without the quote marks.

If you get the wrong set of "[" or "]" you will get errors.

[volgadon]

No....look at Gal 2:2....where the revelation to Paul is to submit his gospel to the apostles at Jerusalem. Any new thing, any new revelation, any new claim of restoration...following that example from St. Paul, would not contradict what has been previously revealed.

Do you know who else claims to have restored the true church? Ellen G white and the SDA....the Campbelites...so which between the LDS, the SDA, the campnbelites, is the true claim to have restored the true church?

How can one tell from all these competing claims?

What if what was previously revealed was by the devil masquerading as an angel of light? Why, if Satan was capable of impersonating an angel, would he be foiled by a mere council of apostles at Jerusalem?

[volgadon]

Faith and reason compliment each other......and other evidences would affirm the faith and reasoning. Example, the Bible places and events are proved by archeological evidence.

This is a classic example of faith and reason not complimenting each other...

[volgadon]

Am an engineer by profession...part of my job is to investigate claims against my employer...assist our lawyers...by punching holes into the claims, recommend holes our lawyers can attack claims. I can pretty much tell if my leg is being pulled.

You might be very good as an engineer and claims investigator, but one needn't assume that the skills necessarily carry over into all other spheres.

Do you think this is baloney: When an archaeological is found or discovered about a Biblical event, the world wants to know about this discovery? Why has no one ever trooped head over heels to an archaeological proof of the BOM?

Weak reasoning. The "world" you are refering to has not only a large Judeo-Christian population, but also many non-believers who came from such societies, so of course it'll be interesting. On the other hand, when has the "world" gone ga-ga over, say, the archaeological work done in Adyghean dolmens? Doesn't diminish the signficance of the work for its sphere. All it means is that it isn't a big headline grabber.

[Stone holm]

This is a classic example of faith and reason not complimenting each other...

Yeah its also an example that isn't based much on sound archaelogy. Some Biblical things have been discovered, many haven't. The difference is in part that we at least know in some instances exactly where to look in the Bible, but we have an entire Hemisphere to search in the Book of Mormon. And even though we think we know where to look in the Bible, it is becoming increasingly uncertain whether they are even looking in the right place in many cases. People do not base their testimony of the Bible upon archaelogical evidence, nor should they. Nor should they base their testimony of the Book of Mormon on archaelogical evidence. Even if they were to find the brass plates, or even if the gold plates were still with us -- that would not be evidence that the miraculous events contained therein actually happened, anymore than the existence of the wailing wall in Jerusalem is evidence that God in fact interacted with the Jews in ancient times. The testimony is a spiritual matter based on interaction between the individual and the Holy Ghost. The purpose of the Scriptures is to focus our minds in a manner that we are more susceptible to communion with God. Is it possible to have that communion without any Scriptures? Absolutely. Its also possible to water ski without wearing skiis -- but skiis help.

[volgadon]

Also, do you know how much public attention the discovery of a house in Nazareth dating roughly to the time of Jesus got in Israel? Hardly anyone tripped (not trooped) head over heels.

[Stone holm]

Also, do you know how much public attention the discovery of a house in Nazareth dating roughly to the time of Jesus got in Israel? Hardly anyone tripped (not trooped) head over heels.

Last I heard they weren't even sure which location was really intended as the "Nazareth" referenced in the New Testament, and they are equally not certain what sea it was that Moses crossed.

[volgadon]

Last I heard they weren't even sure which location was really intended as the "Nazareth" referenced in the New Testament, and they are equally not certain what sea it was that Moses crossed.

Oh, the location of Nazareth has been fairly well established for years. The problem was that little had been found to tie it to a settlment of the time of Jesus.