Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

LDS.....the "only church" ? I beg to differ


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

You mistake "the concept of a pope" for the word, pope, which only means papa. The word pope meant nothing sinister until anti-Catholics started noticing that Catholics identified the bishop of Rome, as Pope. The word carries no hint of grand authority, but rather that of a warmly beloved father. But the concept of the bishop of Rome having the authority of St. Peter is illustrated when Pope St. Victor, as we now call him, threatened the Eastern churches of Antioch for refusing to submit to the Roman practice as regards the date for the celebration of Easter and issued a decree of excommunication. This was in the 2nd Century. St. Irenaeus was among others who persuaded Pope Victor to relent. If you read my previous post you will note that St. Irenaeus insisted that the Churches believe and follow the traditions of the Roman church. Neither he nor his fellow bishops argued against his lack of authority, but appealed to the fact that his predecessors had tolerated this different practice, recognizing their authority to have done the same thing he was doing, but thought it more prudent not to interfere. Victor allowed those Eastern churches to continue with their practice, which eventually came into union on the matter without disturbance. It doesn't matter that he wasn't called "Pope" Victor. The concept of a Roman bishop exercising authority over the universal church is evident. Even earlier, in the first century, while St. John still lived, the Corinthian Church received correction from the bishop of Rome, St. Clement, rather than a still living Apostle to resolve some issues that threatened to divide the Church at Corinth:

"In the time of Clement, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles..."

---Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 3:3:3.

I am not saying that there has never been development in the Church's understanding of the prerogatives of the Successor of Peter. We don't have the definition of papal infallibility until 1870. But the concept of Peter's authority being passed to the bishop of Rome is already begun before the last Apostle has died. With respect, this is why I have to think you are misinformed when you say that "Rome finally invented the concept of a Pope", just prior to the break between East and West in the 11th Century. 

If Interested, one can learn about what is called the Quartodeciman controversy of Pope Victor's time. Here is a partial quote from an article:

"Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church."

Here is the article:   https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm  

 

History stuff I never knew- thanks!

But if "pope" just means "papa" who is just the bishop of the locality of Rome,  how could he have

Quote

"called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church."

I am still not getting it!

Yes God CAN work through what appear to be power struggles between men to achieve his ends- but is that part of the belief system?

I am just looking for a coherent paradigm/theory/ logical path for the BELIEF that the Pope can speak "ex cathedra" on very rare occasions when the succession APPEARS to be confusing to me.

Even the answer "He just does" would be satisfactory for me- or "it's a mystery"- but I am just not following how this fits into a coherent story.   Accepting it on faith is fine- IF that is the answer.   What would the magisterium say?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Is your belief that the true church of Christ continued based on knowing about bishops who were appointed after the death of the apostles ?  That is what I think you were saying.  I don't consider bishops to be successors of apostles, even if those bishops were appointed by apostles, so the loss of apostles in the Catholic church indicates something vital was and still is missing, in my perspective. 

In the church established by Jesus Christ, as shown in the New Testament, apostles appointed apostles and bishops; bishops were not appointed without apostles.  I believe the idea that apostles are not needed in the true church of Jesus Christ was in circulation during the time of the first apostles appointed personally by Jesus Christ.  Both Paul and Peter warned that false teachers would arise in their own flocks, distort the truth, and lead members of the church astray.  Even bishops who were  appointed by apostles needed to be corrected by apostles sometimes, just as some bishops need correction by apostles today.  So it isn't enough to see that some people were still appointed as bishops after the death of the apostles.  We should wonder who had the authority to appoint other bishops after the death of the apostles.  And why so many people believed those bishops were duly appointed by people who were not apostles.

I know LDS believe in the necessity of Apostles. If the early Christian martyrs believed that, I would believe it too. In the past I have argued that there are qualifications for being an apostle. Among other marks, an apostle must have been a bishop, he needed to have seen Christ either in his ministry, or in a vision, as St. Paul did. When they sought for a 12th Apostle to replace the fallen Judas, it is noteworthy that St. Peter says that they need someone to replace Judas' "bishoprick". If someone met the other qualifications, he would be consecrated bishop, and become one of the Twelve. According to the way I have tried to approach this question, I do not consider my position to be clearly proven, only that it is compatible with Holy Scripture, and equally important, aligns with the traditions of those Christians who converted pagan Rome to Christianity after the Apostolic Age. That's about it. In my opinion, I approach the question of Apostasy by observing behavior and outcomes. It seems to me like LDS approach the question according to whether or not they have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. A Restoration demands an Apostasy. I understand, and if those early Christians had demanded Apostles be ordained, or even joined other groups that were waiting for a Restoration, I would look toward Restoration.

One final note that would trouble me as a Restorationist who insisted that the Apostolic office had to continue would be the question of why the Apostles let the office die out. I could believe as you do if all I considered was Scripture.  But it would also necessarily diminish my admiration for the early Christians, who didn't think the Apostolic office was ever intended to be continuous, except in the way it does through the bishops, their successors. I could do that if there wasn't so much heroism. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. From their blood came others, admiring these brave Christians who would not bow to Caesar, many receiving baptism at their hands before they were presented to their executioners.      

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

History stuff I never knew- thanks!

But if "pope" just means "papa" who is just the bishop of the locality of Rome,  how could he have

I am still not getting it!

Yes God CAN work through what appear to be power struggles between men to achieve his ends- but is that part of the belief system?

I am just looking for a coherent paradigm/theory/ logical path for the BELIEF that the Pope can speak "ex cathedra" on very rare occasions when the succession APPEARS to be confusing to me.

Even the answer "He just does" would be satisfactory for me- or "it's a mystery"- but I am just not following how this fits into a coherent story.   Accepting it on faith is fine- IF that is the answer.   What would the magisterium say?

Mark, as Pyreaux pointed out, the word "pope" as identifying the bishop of Rome was a late development. I was pointing that the concept of Peter's authority being carried forward by the bishop of Rome was a concept that existed long before the bishop of Rome also was identified as pope. That is why I mentioned him that we identify now as Pope Victor as exercising apparent authority over other churches in the 2nd Century. If I understand Pyreaux correctly, he thought that the Petrine authority of the bishop of Rome was a theory of late development and cited as proof that he wasn't called a pope almost until the time of the Great Schism

Link to comment
On 6/17/2022 at 3:29 AM, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

I have been reading the Holy scriptures for 27 years and I see nothing about the chirch disappearing off the planet.  When the apostles died it happened?  Where does Jesus or the prophets or any old testament prophet say the church would die after the apostles? 

Because you asked:

John 9 Yeshua Himself says: 4 I must awork the bworks of him that sent me, cwhile it is dday: the enight cometh, when no man can work.

Luke said in Acts 3: 

19  aRepent ye therefore, and be bconverted, that your sins may be cblotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the dpresence of the Lord;

20 And he shall send aJesus Christ, which before was preached unto byou:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of arestitution of all things, which God hath bspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

What Luke is saying is that Yeshua was received into heaven, and wouldn't be back until the times of restitution. Restitution means restoration. So all things had to be restored before He would return. They cannot be "restored" if they were never lost can they?

Then we have John who tells us what the angel told him, which was given him by Yeshua, who says He received it from the Father. In Revelation we are told the false prophet deceived the whole world.. not just part of it. 

Quote

It's ludicrous!!  If it would die off right after the death of the apostles it would certainly die off after this fellow Joseph Smith.  But in fact it didn't cease exist that's why we have so much persecution pretty heavily if you took the time to research church history Rome for centuries was pretty violent towards the then church and how so if it does don't exist.

It's not so ludicrous. It is scriptural.... from multiple scriptures which you didn't seem to pay too much attention to. Rome was pretty violent against the Church, yet claims that it holds the apostolic keys when they now admit they were merely bishops. Like all the other bishops in the Church if you ask me. Then you have the blood of Rome flowing into the Church which took up its governmental form of the curia, etc, even down to the same name of diocese. It fulfills scripture pretty handily if you want to talk about it. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

History stuff I never knew- thanks!

But if "pope" just means "papa" who is just the bishop of the locality of Rome,  how could he have

Quote

"called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church."

I am still not getting it!

Yes God CAN work through what appear to be power struggles between men to achieve his ends- but is that part of the belief system?

I am just looking for a coherent paradigm/theory/ logical path for the BELIEF that the Pope can speak "ex cathedra" on very rare occasions when the succession APPEARS to be confusing to me.

Even the answer "He just does" would be satisfactory for me- or "it's a mystery"- but I am just not following how this fits into a coherent story.   Accepting it on faith is fine- IF that is the answer.   What would the magisterium say?

The title of Pope was adopted from the Alexandrian Bishop actually and I believe somewhat ironically. The empire had about some 1800 bishops in it at the time of Nicea. Some natural sorting had already occurred and the earliest and largest bishoprics had a kind of original authoritative status. However, the bishop of Rome wasn't going to live with that, so we somehow have to live with primacy passing through the place of Peter's death... I am assuming that part you know. I am not trying to be disrespectful here. I realize I probably sound a bit flippant. I just have never bought it. Apparently neither did the bishop of Constantinople.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The title of Pope was adopted from the Alexandrian Bishop actually and I believe somewhat ironically. The empire had about some 1800 bishops in it at the time of Nicea. Some natural sorting had already occurred and the earliest and largest bishoprics had a kind of original authoritative status. However, the bishop of Rome wasn't going to live with that, so we somehow have to live with primacy passing through the place of Peter's death... I am assuming that part you know. I am not trying to be disrespectful here. I realize I probably sound a bit flippant. I just have never bought it. Apparently neither did the bishop of Constantinople.

And then we have archbishops and cardinals.

All I am looking for is a coherent theory of succession.

"It's a mystery" would be fine with me, we all take things on faith. But it seems as though Catholics assume there is coherent authority which I still don't understand.

We had bishops and stakes and Apostles and a logical chain, I believe.  We even have priesthood genealogies where I can allegedly follow who ordained the person who ordained me on up the ladder to Joseph and the Savior himself.  I know we are a young church, which helps, but still there should be at least a theory behind it, regardless of the history.

To me if there is a mess like this in history it would require a restoration or at least an admission and explanation for why the authority is still there at all.

But I suppose even bringing it up would put a spotlight on it now

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 7/5/2022 at 1:06 PM, 3DOP said:

In the past I have argued that there are qualifications for being an apostle. Among other marks, an apostle must have been a bishop, he needed to have seen Christ either in his ministry, or in a vision, as St. Paul did.

How does Barnabas fit into these qualifications?  He is called an apostle, along with Paul, in Acts 14:14.   References to other apostles in the New Testament are possible, although the references are ambiguous (such as Silvanus and Timotheus - 1 Thes 1:1 together with 1 Thes 2:6).

There seems to be an attempt by the early apostles to perpetuate the office and call a new member of the twelve after the death of an apostle.  For example, the martyrdom of James is described in Acts 12:1-2, and Acts 13:1-4 appears to be the setting apart of Paul and Barnabas as apostles.  

And isn't Ephesians 4:11-14 telling us that the offices of "apostles; and... prophets... evangelists, and... pastors and teachers" are intended to be continued until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God"?

Link to comment
On 7/6/2022 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

How does Barnabas fit into these qualifications?  He is called an apostle, along with Paul, in Acts 14:14.   References to other apostles in the New Testament are possible, although the references are ambiguous (such as Silvanus and Timotheus - 1 Thes 1:1 together with 1 Thes 2:6).

There seems to be an attempt by the early apostles to perpetuate the office and call a new member of the twelve after the death of an apostle.  For example, the martyrdom of James is described in Acts 12:1-2, and Acts 13:1-4 appears to be the setting apart of Paul and Barnabas as apostles.  

And isn't Ephesians 4:11-14 telling us that the offices of "apostles; and... prophets... evangelists, and... pastors and teachers" are intended to be continued until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God"?

Hi InCognitus,

Thank you for your questions. As I have said before, I do not find the standard LDS biblical arguments about the continuing offices of the Apostles to be implausible.

My historical difficulty lies with the great success enjoyed by the Church which teaches that the Apostolic succession was passed down to the bishops. The Apostles were gone by the early second century, and yet their disciples, without true shepherds or priests, converted souls, and won the hearts of holy soldiers, prison keepers, physicians, farmers, nobles, and philosophers. Until finally, the faith of generations of supposedly shepherdless disciples of Christ penetrates the very household of Caesar. The world's greatest empire, the great pagan persecutor, wakes up after over 200 years of exposure to "abandoned and apostate Christianity", and finds itself pagan no more. I find that hard to accept. Fast forward to today, and however Christ's modern disciples might question that which is now happening there, the eyes of the world still look towards Rome, and the bishop who occupies the chair of St. Peter. Eternal Rome.

My personal difficulty is probably the same as yours. I won't try to wax flowery about it. I love the Catholic faith no less than any Latter-day Saint loves his faith.

I wanted to say this before I even try to put forth what I consider to be, plausible answers to your biblical questions.

Note also that I use the expression "my historical difficulty". We probably have the same personal personal difficulties, but we do not have the same understanding of history. 

History often does not consider the motivations of ambition and avarice which has caused Catholic history to have been distorted in the minds of virtually the whole educated world. It even enters in to the Church. Today's children of the Catholic Church, do not even seem able or willing to defend, much less, admire and venerate their own dear fathers and mothers in the faith. Even when telling truth, many of the histories are disproportionate in their emphasis on the bad. As an example, for every one bad pope, there are twenty good, just, and even heroic holders of the Petrine office. Above, Pyreaux asked after expressing his view of the historical papacy, "...how are we suppose to believe the keys the Pope was supposed to survive all that?" One simple answer (among others) to this question is that no Catholic is asked to believe what many Catholics and most non-Catholics believe about how evil the Church is accused to have been. Knowledgable and devout Catholics do not believe that the papacy "survive(d) all that" ! They do not believe the historical lies, distortion, and disproportion, which have helped to fuel outrage and fear against Christ's Church for centuries now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend 

Rory   

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
On 7/6/2022 at 10:43 AM, mfbukowski said:

And then we have archbishops and cardinals.

All I am looking for is a coherent theory of succession.

Well good luck with that. But I will show you a coherent comparison to scripture:

Rev 17: 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand afull of abominations and bfilthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, aMYSTERY, bBABYLON THE GREAT, THE cMOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Heck, I even color coded it for you. I could add a picture if it would do any good. The purple is of course the royal purple of kingship... which the Roman pontiff took upon himself with his self appointed third crown of earthly authority.

On 7/6/2022 at 10:43 AM, mfbukowski said:

"It's a mystery" would be fine with me, we all take things on faith. But it seems as though Catholics assume there is coherent authority which I still don't understand.

We had bishops and stakes and Apostles and a logical chain, I believe.  We even have priesthood genealogies where I can allegedly follow who ordained the person who ordained me on up the ladder to Joseph and the Savior himself.  I know we are a young church, which helps, but still there should be at least a theory behind it, regardless of the history.

To me if there is a mess like this in history it would require a restoration or at least an admission and explanation for why the authority is still there at all.

But I suppose even bringing it up would put a spotlight on it now

One of the things that annoys me about Protestants is that they claim things like this dude that the Church was never going to die, but then they turn and lambast Catholics. If anyone has any type of claim to a chain of authority out of the modern churches, Catholics are probably one of only three or four. But they don't seem to know their own history in which their founding fathers called the bishop of Rome the antichrist, etc. Now, doesn't it follow if the Roman pontiff was antichrist that the Church had gone apostate, before the Protestants came along and reformed it? But NOoooo...... they don't ever listen to reason, because to do that or to read the scriptures for what they actually say makes them wrong too. So, we get these ridiculous statements like espoused in this thread. The Catholics at least have some kind of semi-rational argument, even if it isn't good enough to ever convince me. The Protestants have none... which I think they have realized so they have resorted to the "priesthood of all believers" argument and ignore all the early history of Church bishops and priests like those called to Nicea. Yet, they cling to the pronouncements of Nicea... It's really irrational. That is the bigger mess in history imho. Of course they are wrong too about the bishop of Rome being antichrist(I merely brought that up to make the point of the irrationality of their arguments).... that is amply fulfilled by Muhammed tho...

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
On 7/6/2022 at 11:43 AM, mfbukowski said:

And then we have archbishops and cardinals.

All I am looking for is a coherent theory of succession.

"It's a mystery" would be fine with me, we all take things on faith. But it seems as though Catholics assume there is coherent authority which I still don't understand.

We had bishops and stakes and Apostles and a logical chain, I believe.  We even have priesthood genealogies where I can allegedly follow who ordained the person who ordained me on up the ladder to Joseph and the Savior himself.  I know we are a young church, which helps, but still there should be at least a theory behind it, regardless of the history.

To me if there is a mess like this in history it would require a restoration or at least an admission and explanation for why the authority is still there at all.

But I suppose even bringing it up would put a spotlight on it now

The true church legislates for itself: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Cardinals and archbishops are not essential to Catholic ecclesiology. Do you imagine that we think that they are? Cardinals are for now, the electors of the next pope. Nothing prevents it from being returned to the Roman faithful. (Would that it were.)

On what basis would you think that Catholic priests and bishops have no pedigree reaching back to the Apostles? Because there is no list? Well, at the end of the second century after the Apostles, a list is provided by the already cited St. Irenaeus, of the Roman episcopate. But the Church was already apostate...no apostles...right?

No apostles is a much better argument for apostasy than that unordained bishops faked to have ordained bishops. There was definitely a shortage of apostles. But not bishops. You should believe we have the episcopal chain. If that was all you need, ( I know it isn't) you should be Catholic. Mark, with respect, in my opinion, as far as ecclesiology goes, you need to stake your claim on the loss of Apostolic office, not a break in the Roman Catholic episcopate.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The true church legislates for itself: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Cardinals and archbishops are not essential to Catholic ecclesiology. Do you imagine that we think that they are? Cardinals are for now, the electors of the next pope. Nothing prevents it from being returned to the Roman faithful. (Would that it were.)

On what basis would you think that Catholic priests and bishops have no pedigree reaching back to the Apostles? Because there is no list? Well, at the end of the second century after the Apostles, a list is provided by the already cited St. Irenaeus, of the Roman episcopate. But the Church was already apostate...no apostles...right?

No apostles is a much better argument for apostasy than that unordained bishops faked to have ordained bishops. There was definitely a shortage of apostles. But not bishops. You should believe we have the episcopal chain. If that was all you need, ( I know it isn't) you should be Catholic. Mark, with respect, in my opinion, as far as ecclesiology goes, you need to stake your claim on the loss of Apostolic office, not a break in the Roman Catholic episcopate.

Hey Rory, so sorry, I do not mean to offend you ever, but I think I must be pretty good at it anyway.

As I said, it would be fine with me if NO explanation were given about the chain, we both accept what we each believe anyway, and neither position can be justified "rationally" anyway.  Both are faith based.

Honestly though, I do not understand your last paragraph at all, starting with "No Apostles...".

Fake bishops?

St. Irenaeus part of an "episcopate"?

Us country boys don't have none of that stuff. ;)

Gotta look that one up, or we can drop it.

I was not questioning validity, just looking for a justifiable explanation of how it works and what the explanation IS, not if it is reasonably valid.

I mean how does a human decide for God who is worthy to be an Apostle anyway?

We are both vulnerable on that one

Link to comment
23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Hey Rory, so sorry, I do not mean to offend you ever, but I think I must be pretty good at it anyway.

As I said, it would be fine with me if NO explanation were given about the chain, we both accept what we each believe anyway, and neither position can be justified "rationally" anyway.  Both are faith based.

Honestly though, I do not understand your last paragraph at all, starting with "No Apostles...".

Fake bishops?

St. Irenaeus part of an "episcopate"?

Us country boys don't have none of that stuff. ;)

Gotta look that one up, or we can drop it.

I was not questioning validity, just looking for a justifiable explanation of how it works and what the explanation IS, not if it is reasonably valid.

I mean how does a human decide for God who is worthy to be an Apostle anyway?

We are both vulnerable on that one

Mark

Hey Rory, so sorry, I do not mean to offend you ever, but I think I must be pretty good at it anyway.

Rory

You have said nothing that would be offensive even if I was unacquainted with you. But knowing your online personality a little at least, It is impossible that I should have taken offense at what you had written. It seems like you have demonstrated your good will towards me. It seems to me that you can occasionally be terse, as perhaps I can. I might be the same way. Sometimes, it is simply that I want to communicate a point in a limited of time. Let us always assume that both of us have the best wishes for the other in mind, until one of us calls the other a dirty !@#$%^&. Okay? 😇

Gotta go for now. To your further questions, and those of others as time allows. God bless and keep you, Mark.

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment

I had a very “spirited” discussion with a cousin last night about the church. He made an interesting comment. After elaborating for some time about his conversion to know if God is there. He said, “Then I knew without a doubt that the church was true!” He never mentioned which aspects of the church he ever prayed about, just that he felt God was there and that the church was true. It was at this point that I asked him, “What is ‘the church?’” If “the church” is true, what constitutes the church? Is it the doctrine? Is it the ordinances? What about when “the prophet” opens his mouth?

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, dannyg43 said:

I had a very “spirited” discussion with a cousin last night about the church. He made an interesting comment. After elaborating for some time about his conversion to know if God is there. He said, “Then I knew without a doubt that the church was true!” He never mentioned which aspects of the church he ever prayed about, just that he felt God was there and that the church was true. It was at this point that I asked him, “What is ‘the church?’” If “the church” is true, what constitutes the church? Is it the doctrine? Is it the ordinances? What about when “the prophet” opens his mouth?

What was his response?

Generally, what people mean by "the church is true" is that the church of Jesus Christ has been restored with all of the keys and authority necessary to bring about the redemption/exaltation of mankind.  It doesn't mean that the church is perfect and without human fault, or that every word of every prophet is true, or that every teaching of the church is always true.  

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, dannyg43 said:

I had a very “spirited” discussion with a cousin last night about the church. He made an interesting comment. After elaborating for some time about his conversion to know if God is there. He said, “Then I knew without a doubt that the church was true!” He never mentioned which aspects of the church he ever prayed about, just that he felt God was there and that the church was true. It was at this point that I asked him, “What is ‘the church?’” If “the church” is true, what constitutes the church? Is it the doctrine? Is it the ordinances? What about when “the prophet” opens his mouth?

 

For some "knowing the Church is true" is a Primary answer with little actual meaning.  It is said by rote, and while they may believe in many aspects of the gospel they are just using the phrase as a catch-all.
For those who actually have considered what it means when we say it there is a specific meaning.
To say the Church is true is to say it is Christ's restored Church, led by him and his revelations to us.  It also means it is the only Church authorized to act in the name of Christ - in performing ordinances, claiming priesthood authority, and building his kingdom.
That's what it actually means to use that phrase if the weight of the statement is considered.

It's the same when someone says "I know the Book of Mormon is true".  The principles?  The history?  The origin?  The doctrine?  The message?
Some will use the statement generically.  Others have specific meaning when they claim the testimony.

Link to comment

Right out the gate, they don't tell the truth, haven't watched all of it, but think people like this if they are going to criticize they need to get it right. Doubt I'll watch the whole thing, I remember Wilder and her sons' and husband's story and I hung on to their every word during my faith crisis with the LDS church, and believed the Bible must be the only true scripture not the BoM, boy have I changed. Bugs me to no end when critics get it wrong and do it as a deceiving way such as at the very beginning where they open the door to LDS missionaries and the missionaries introduce themselves as missionaries for "The Church of Latter-day Saints". They filmed this and didn't take the time to remember how very important the church makes it to acknowledge that it's Jesus's church, so these filmmakers lost my respect immediately when they knowingly left "Jesus" out of the statement by the missionaries. They are trying to portray the church as non Christian. I stopped watching right after that. Maybe I'll go back and pick it apart.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Right out the gate, they don't tell the truth, haven't watched all of it, but think people like this if they are going to criticize they need to get it right. Doubt I'll watch the whole thing, I remember Wilder and her sons' and husband's story and I hung on to their every word during my faith crisis with the LDS church, and believed the Bible must be the only true scripture not the BoM, boy have I changed. Bugs me to no end when critics get it wrong and do it as a deceiving way such as at the very beginning where they open the door to LDS missionaries and the missionaries introduce themselves as missionaries for "The Church of Latter-day Saints". They filmed this and didn't take the time to remember how very important the church makes it to acknowledge that it's Jesus's church, so these filmmakers lost my respect immediately when they knowingly left "Jesus" out of the statement by the missionaries. They are trying to portray the church as non Christian. I stopped watching right after that. Maybe I'll go back and pick it apart.

Nice catch.  I watched the first half of this video a while back, making a list of things that I thought they got wrong or were misleading, and I missed that part.  That was a very subtle. 

I try very hard to consider the possibility that some critics of the church are simply repeating the lies they heard from someone else (and by this I mean the average Christian who watches videos like this one), and perhaps in such cases they don't realize they are spreading false information.  But then I also come across examples like the one you show in your post, where it is obvious that the responsible parties are intentionally trying to deceive others.  These people know better. 

Edit:  As I was adding your find to my notes of the issues with the video, I noticed that the name tags the missionaries are wearing are "Elder Smith" and "Elder Young", making it an obvious parody.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
On 6/17/2022 at 4:29 AM, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

I have been reading the Holy scriptures for 27 years and I see nothing about the chirch disappearing off the planet.  When the apostles died it happened?  Where does Jesus or the prophets or any old testament prophet say the church would die after the apostles?  It's ludicrous!!  If it would die off right after the death of the apostles it would certainly die off after this fellow Joseph Smith.  But in fact it didn't cease exist that's why we have so much persecution pretty heavily if you took the time to research church history Rome for centuries was pretty violent towards the then church and how so if it does don't exist.

With the foundations of the Church dead, how can the rest of the building stand? 

Link to comment
On 7/15/2022 at 11:09 AM, Tacenda said:

Right out the gate, they don't tell the truth, haven't watched all of it, but think people like this if they are going to criticize they need to get it right. Doubt I'll watch the whole thing, I remember Wilder and her sons' and husband's story and I hung on to their every word during my faith crisis with the LDS church, and believed the Bible must be the only true scripture not the BoM, boy have I changed. Bugs me to no end when critics get it wrong and do it as a deceiving way such as at the very beginning where they open the door to LDS missionaries and the missionaries introduce themselves as missionaries for "The Church of Latter-day Saints". They filmed this and didn't take the time to remember how very important the church makes it to acknowledge that it's Jesus's church, so these filmmakers lost my respect immediately when they knowingly left "Jesus" out of the statement by the missionaries. They are trying to portray the church as non Christian. I stopped watching right after that. Maybe I'll go back and pick it apart.

 

You aren’t having a faith crisis anymore?

Link to comment
On 6/19/2022 at 3:43 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

Not true. The apostles passed on their authority to the  bisishops that they ordained. If it were true that the authority given by Christ to the Apostles was only meant to be here whilst the Apostles lived, what would be the point of that? The Bible tells us that Christ is with us forever, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. And what of the Holy Spirit who came to the Church in His fullness at Pentecost? He is the power of the Church to survive anything. Did He go on a sabbatical till Joseph Smith showed up?  The Orthodox and Catholic churches are Apostolic, the authority of the Apostles having been handed down (traditio) to those they ordained to (put under orders). Christ established His Church upon the foundation of the Apostles with Himself as its chief cornerstone. What would be the point of the great commission if the Church was only to last a generation? Did Christ set the Church up to fail, to disappear. No He did not! 

The Gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church.

the gates of hell keep people in or out of hell.

the gates won’t keep the Church in hell because the resurrection of Jesus Christ has ensured that hell will deliver up its dead (Rev 20:13)

 

the gates won’t keep the Church out of hell either. Because of the sealing power we can preach the gospel to the dead (1 Peter 4:6)

The Lord, in His infinite grace has given the Church the power to redeem the dead.

hell can’t stop us

Link to comment
On 6/19/2022 at 8:56 AM, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

There is no "official" church .  The original members all knew they would die and if one really investigates this thoroughly you will find either through the original cannon of the scriptures or history like the Martyrs Mirror or Foxes book of Martyrs that the church did in fact exist well after the death of all the apostles and the orginal believers.  And when I say there is no "official" church I mean denomination.   It's to whoever believes and is baptised shall be saved and whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.  Yes there has been a falling away and it has happened and I think the LDS is part of that falling away .  In other words I think your part of or have been part of the problem.  I say this because y'all call yourself last days saints but for the most part so far all y'all want to discuss is one book.  And just st now after my fourth some odd years of being a believer now finally are you even mentioning Jesus.

We’ve literally been mentioning Jesus since before the Church was organized so you are making no sense.

Jesus is the center of everything we do. Baptism. Sacrament. Temple. Everything.

 

 

Link to comment
On 6/19/2022 at 10:18 AM, Teancum said:

Even when I was a believing Latter Day Saint it always seemed odd that God would send his Son, establish a church and then let it fall apart all in a matter of decades. Studies have led me to conclude there really were a number of competing orthodoxies and even the 12 apostles did not agree.  Paul was constantly badgering those who did not agree with his vision of Christianity.  Over time one group started to dominate and become proto Orthodox.  That group eventually became Orthodox.  Since then there are reformations and restoration all claiming either some misled doctrines or lost priesthood or both.  It is a quagmire really.

And yet it can be solved by taking it to the Lord.

the Church had to fall away. It’s called the body of Christ because it is a type of Christ. If the Body of Christ wasn’t broken and killed it couldn’t be restored. 

and according to Peter all the prophets looked forward to the restoration.

it’s a little strange that the Lord set up the center stake in Independence knowing the Saints would be driving out a few years later. But it seems like a pattern He has

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

You aren’t having a faith crisis anymore?

I just don't like dishonesty on both sides. The Wilder's know that the missionaries would never leave out the name of Jesus Christ when saying what church they represent, that's just deceiving. Her son went on a mission, she was a professor at BYU etc.

Link to comment
On 7/16/2022 at 10:53 PM, Avatar4321 said:

And yet it can be solved by taking it to the Lord.

the Church had to fall away. It’s called the body of Christ because it is a type of Christ. If the Body of Christ wasn’t broken and killed it couldn’t be restored. 

and according to Peter all the prophets looked forward to the restoration.

it’s a little strange that the Lord set up the center stake in Independence knowing the Saints would be driving out a few years later. But it seems like a pattern He has

Or GOd has noting to do with it at all and it just happens.  But most Christian sects dispute the church fell away a few short years after Jesus died.  I lean towards the idea that there was not one Christian sect but many. One became a proto-orthodox sect and eventually won out and became orthodox.  And the sects have multiplied since then.  Mormonism is a more recent on on the stage. But I don't think there was ever one Christian church.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Or GOd has noting to do with it at all and it just happens.  But most Christian sects dispute the church fell away a few short years after Jesus died.  I lean towards the idea that there was not one Christian sect but many. One became a proto-orthodox sect and eventually won out and became orthodox.  And the sects have multiplied since then.  Mormonism is a more recent on on the stage. But I don't think there was ever one Christian church.

The way I look at it is that the Church began to lose cohesiveness when the apostles died or were translated. At that time there was one Church, but in the next century or two you do begin to see a difference of opinion or debate about  certain issues like those that got argued at Nicea. How was Christ God or in the Godhead was certainly a topic with multiple views espoused in the literature. When the Church began to gain imperial support is where you see an attempt to enforce an "orthodox" view imho, and at that time it was mostly a "battle" between the Arians and what later became the "orthodox." The eastern churches had a lot of Arian support. But, in actuality who you had deciding this matter was bishops, who never held the apostolic keys. They started merely as judges for their respective congregations. The apostles and the seventy(only mentioned in the NT) were gone. You have to realize they were all Hebrews and were mostly killed in the 7 years war with Rome, or died far away from home. In my mind this does not mean the Church had become apostate just yet, but various sects did eventually change teachings.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...