August

It was the teaching authority of the RCC that determined which books were inspired and which ones weren't, the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error. The books of the NT were not necessarily written by the Apostles either. They were often written by the follower of an apostle, in his name. If you reject the RCC as of the AD 300s as false, why not go back through history and make your own determination of what constitutes the cannon? There are plenty of books whose ommission from the cannon were quite controversial.

Some people fell away. The Church has never taught error as dogma/doctrine, but individuals and individual congregations had and will continue to fall away. The Council was needed to resolve these issues, to make sure uniform teachings. Why reject the Catholic Church's authority at Nicea, but accept the Catholic New Testament, which as I understand wasn't formally cannonized until after Nicea?

At the risk of starting a tangent, is that truely the best approach? Surely your rational mind must enter into it somewhere. I mean, what you're saying here sounds to me like you can only understand the BOM if you believe it first.

I suppose what I mean is that the Orthodox Church is the only other Church that has any authority. The Orthodox Church has apostolic sucession. If you aren't familiar with that term, it means basically that the apostles taught new priests who taught new priests so on and so forth up to the present. The Orthodox and Catholic priesthoods streach back to the beginning, no one else can say that.

Do you have sources on this? I'd be interested in reading about it. No one's saying there were no people who believed eroneous things, several of the New Testement letters are written to correct errors.

The Catholic Church is the one, true Church, the Orthodox are schismatic. What Benedict is saying here is that the only Christian Churches are the Catholic and Orthodox, based on our definition of a Church, which requires valid sacraments. Other groups and communities may have Christians, and much Christian truth in them, but they are not Churches of Christ. The Orthodox have valid sacraments, hence they're a true Church in that sense.

He never said that Peter would never fall, he said the Church will never fall.

But assuming that's true, wouldn't Jesus still be saying that revelation wouldn't be lost? This verse is pretty clear to me, Jesus is saying that He will never abandon us, he will never allow the "gates of the netherworld" to prevail. Isn't that what would happen if God had taken the truth away from the world?

just found an interesting passage. Alma 11: 26-31 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An aangel hath made them known unto me. BOM says only 1 God?

Thanks to everyone who's been responding to my thread about multiple gods, very informative. Here's my next one. What makes you believe that a "great apostacy" occured? What evidence, historical or otherwise, do you cite to prove that early Christians diverted from the teachings of the apostles? How do you explain this verse, which Catholics such as myself cite to show that our Church will never fall into error. Matthew 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (New American Bible) Once again, just looking for your perspectives, thanks.

So wait. Do Mormons believe that God the father and Jesus physically came to earth?

I'm not so sure about that, honestly. I'm asking questions about the ultimate nature of God. I think it matters very much what the ultimate power in all creation/every universe etc is. I suppose that's one difference in how Mormons and most Christians look at things.

If God is our father, who is his father? Isn't it usually the oldest elder of a family that is most revered? I guess I'm asking, under this concept, who or what is the ultimate creator?

Could you explain what you mean a little more? Are you saying that the Rev 3:21 says you'll become a God, like Jesus?

My understanding is that Mormons believe in the existence of many gods, that devout mormons can become gods themselves, and that "Heavenly Father" was himself once a man. Is this accurate? If so, what do you use to support this claim? Also, if God isn't eternal and unchanging, but rather an exalted man, why worship only him? Why not worship all the men who've become gods? Or, why worship at all someone who you hope to someday be equal to? I'm not necessarily hoping for a definitive answer, just for a better understanding. I'm sure some one will tell me to talk to the missionaries, but I'm in a position where that really isn't possible, and I don't want to waste their time talking to someone who won't convert anyway. What ever you can tell me will be great, thanks!

Thought I'd introduce myself. I'm a devout and committed Catholic, but I am interested in Mormonism due to a relationship I had with a Mormon girl. While that didn't work out, I found her religion fascinating from a cultural and theological standpoint. While I could never agree with the LDS church, I'm not here to attack or "educate" you, I just want to understand your beliefs. I thought this would be a good context to do so. So Hello, and God bless!