Recommended Posts

Guest

So, if Thanos ever gets all the infinity stones, does that make him a god?

Well, in the Marvel Universe (comic canon) apparently there is one known as "The One Above All."  And two individuals got to meet him: Reed Richards and Peter Parker.  Reed Richards met him in the form of a comic book artist.  Peter Parker got to meet him in the form of an all-wise vagrant who happened to save his life.  So, the "god" of the Marvel Universe is the comic book author and artist that makes the story in whatever way that suits their fancy.  They are pretty much free to do whatever they will.  But they are at least beholden to the fans of their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zil said:

Irrelevant from my personal perspective.  If you're going to believe something other than what the words say (assuming you believe the words at all), then the person/thing contradicting the words better have seriously good credentials - better credentials than the source.  No LDS entity contradicts the words, so I don't have to worry about their credentials for this scripture.  I respect your belief that the Catholic teachings trump the literal interpretation of the words.

 I see the literal interpretation as indicating Jesus not indicating one way or the other. In the context of the whole NT, there is nothing that indicates John is still to this day, walking around.  Where and doing what? In light of Jesus’ commandment and prophecy, any of the Twelve still living should be spending their time teaching the Good News of Jesus Christ.  What an amazing thing that would be, indeed. But the idea that the Beloved Disciple of Jesus, just has been hanging out incognito for 2000 years, has no evidence or justification. You can only come to this conclusion by citing extra-Biblical sources, that I don’t accept.

The examples cited of Elijah or Mary, were assumed into heaven. They aren’t wandering around the earth somewhere.

i don’t want to seem overly critical.  I understand why you believe what you believe, and have respect for your beliefs. 

Edited by Blueskye2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way to look at it for the LDS, but not a perfect parallel.

Imagine that the apostles of the LDS church died without naming anymore apostles.  Who then would be the leaders of the church.  From what I understand, it would be the Seventies, and thus the leadership would probably be the Presidency of the Seventy and the First Bishopric.  In this way, they inherit the mantle of leadership, but they themselves are NOT apostles.

Now, as LDS we believe that the Lord would probably then make a way for more apostles to be appointed, be established, but when one does not accept the idea of continuing prophets and revelation, you would be stuck with the Bishops.

Not a perfect parallel, but hopefully that can explain it in a way some LDS could understand how the Bishops each have the apostolic power in regards to Catholicism.  Now, of interest, The Great Schism (of I think 1054) are viewed differently between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.  The Orthodox do not believe in the supremacy of Rome, but that all Bishops and hence churches were made equal.  For who was the greater and who said what to whom, Peter to Paul, or Paul to Peter?  Who reprimanded whom, and in the Lord's eyes, was Peter greater than the others, or were they all brothers and equal as apostles to the Lord?  The Orthodox may recognize that there was some order, but not the degree that the Church in Rome decided upon it in the years preceding the Great Schism, and more directly after the Great Schism.

The Roman Catholic church interprets the Biblical verses where the Lord tells Peter upon this rock, as literally saying that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built (if I recall from many years ago when I learned this).  Hence, as per the Biblical justification, the throne of the church lies upon the church which comes from Peter, which is the church in Rome.  As it is his seat that the Bishop in Rome dwells upon (aka...known as the Pope), it is the authority of Peter that dwells upon him in his purpose as the Bishop of Rome or the head of the church.

As Peter and the other apostles are no longer around, it falls upon the Bishops that inherit that apostolic succession to lead the church (ala, similar to the LDS example I put above...but not a perfect example).  Orthodox churches that do NOT believe in the Supremacy of Rome, still believe in the apostolic succession though, but that each Bishop is equal in their authority within the church, rather than Rome have supremacy (if I understand the Orthodox teachings correctly).

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Another way to look at it for the LDS, but not a perfect parallel.

Imagine that the apostles of the LDS church died without naming anymore apostles.  Who then would be the leaders of the church.  From what I understand, it would be the Seventies, and thus the leadership would probably be the Presidency of the Seventy and the First Bishopric.  In this way, they inherit the mantle of leadership, but they themselves are NOT apostles.

Now, as LDS we believe that the Lord would probably then make a way for more apostles to be appointed, be established, but when one does not accept the idea of continuing prophets and revelation, you would be stuck with the Bishops.

Not a perfect parallel, but hopefully that can explain it in a way some LDS could understand how the Bishops each have the apostolic power in regards to Catholicism.  Now, of interest, The Great Schism (of I think 1054) are viewed differently between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.  The Orthodox do not believe in the supremacy of Rome, but that all Bishops and hence churches were made equal.  For who was the greater and who said what to whom, Peter to Paul, or Paul to Peter?  Who reprimanded whom, and in the Lord's eyes, was Peter greater than the others, or were they all brothers and equal as apostles to the Lord?  The Orthodox may recognize that there was some order, but not the degree that the Church in Rome decided upon it in the years preceding the Great Schism, and more directly after the Great Schism.

The Roman Catholic church interprets the Biblical verses where the Lord tells Peter upon this rock, as literally saying that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built (if I recall from many years ago when I learned this).  Hence, as per the Biblical justification, the throne of the church lies upon the church which comes from Peter, which is the church in Rome.  As it is his seat that the Bishop in Rome dwells upon (aka...known as the Pope), it is the authority of Peter that dwells upon him in his purpose as the Bishop of Rome or the head of the church.

As Peter and the other apostles are no longer around, it falls upon the Bishops that inherit that apostolic succession to lead the church (ala, similar to the LDS example I put above...but not a perfect example).  Orthodox churches that do NOT believe in the Supremacy of Rome, still believe in the apostolic succession though, but that each Bishop is equal in their authority within the church, rather than Rome have supremacy (if I understand the Orthodox teachings correctly).

Pretty good! Just to clarify, we don’t view Bishops as being a defacto kind of succession because the Apostles didn’t plan, but done with purpose and planning. The idea that the Apostles wouldn’t plan is a “whoa and say what?” kind of thing for us.

The East calls Peter “the first among equals”.  The Western Church’s view of Peter shouldn’t be exaggerated (and some Catholics exaggerate it). All of our Bishops are equal in authority in regards to their jurisdictions.  As an example, I have an obligation to follow the directions of my Bishop, first, before that of the Pope. My Bishop is in communion with all the Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. They act as one body.

The primacy of the seat of Peter is not a unitary function.  He acts in communion with all the Bishops, and in this way he does in fact act as first among equals. Where the East differs is that we view disputes will be settled first locally, then regionally, then in the Curia, then by the Pope.  The Great Schism occurred when the Patriarch of Alexandria did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as having the final say in a dispute.

The only other difference is that the Bishop of Rome appoints other Bishops. Again this shouldn’t be exaggerated. He takes recommendations and council from other Bishops. And then there are the Eastern Churches who are in communion with Rome. They select their own Bishops (they call their Bishops, Patriarchs), and present their decision to the Pope for approval.  He has never not approved one of the East’s selections.

 

Edited by Blueskye2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zil said:

Or by believing the literal words. :)

I’m smiling here, because as I’ve already said, I do believe the literal words. I said we’re both not sola scriptura,  but no one is. EVERYONE interprets the Bible.Mine is not a self interpretation. The Bible itself teaches against self interpretation. 

Edited by Blueskye2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, Apostolic succession is as indicated in Acts.  It is your own assumption that the successor to Peter in the seat of Rome was not given apostolic authority.  Catholics do not believe in a Great apostasy.  They do not believe that the Apostles of the New Testament did not pass the authority to anybody else beyond the scope of the New Testament records.  As a matter of fact, they believe that apostolic authority was passed to the Bishops as the apostles got martyred (except for John who was in exile) and they were called in their stead.

 

I have no problem with what any person or group believes.  However, what I want to know is why they believe as they do.  For some reason, religious (and political) circles seem to believe stuff just because they "want" to.  Often the want would have precedence over logic, recorded revelation (scripture) and historical evidence.

For example, Isaiah prophesied of apostasy.  He prophesied that apostasy would involve 3 phases – Altering the law, changing the ordinances and breaking the everlasting covenant.  I believe the emphasis on doctrine as “the” proof or “the” disproof of apostasy is a clear indication that what Isaiah prophesied is no longer embedder in an evolving church that once was once a divinely appointed and authorized kingdom.  Do you understand that apostolic succession is an ordinance – that was obviously changed?  I can understand that someone believes the ordinance was changed – perhaps you and @Blueskye2 can see why I see such belief as something founded in prophesied apostasy.

 

The Traveler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

I’m smiling here, because as I’ve already said, I do believe the literal words. I said we’re both not sola scriptura,  but no one is. EVERYONE interprets the Bible.Mine is not a self interpretation. The Bible itself teaches against self interpretation. 

 

I would agree - as long as self-interpretation is not a veiled attempt to criticize divine spiritual revelation imparted to an individual.  For example, I believe that when Tyndale made up English words (such as Atonement and Passover) in order to translate ancient Biblical text into English - that such was not an act of self-interpretation (as expressed above) but was divine spiritual revelation imparted to Tyndale – and that burning Tyndale at the stake was the example of institutionalized interpretations as wrong as any self-interpretation.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

I have no problem with what any person or group believes.  However, what I want to know is why they believe as they do.  For some reason, religious (and political) circles seem to believe stuff just because they "want" to.  Often the want would have precedence over logic, recorded revelation (scripture) and historical evidence.

For example, Isaiah prophesied of apostasy.  He prophesied that apostasy would involve 3 phases – Altering the law, changing the ordinances and breaking the everlasting covenant.  I believe the emphasis on doctrine as “the” proof or “the” disproof of apostasy is a clear indication that what Isaiah prophesied is no longer embedder in an evolving church that once was once a divinely appointed and authorized kingdom.  Do you understand that apostolic succession is an ordinance – that was obviously changed?  I can understand that someone believes the ordinance was changed – perhaps you and @Blueskye2 can see why I see such belief as something founded in prophesied apostasy.

 

The Traveler

 

Of course, that's your perspective.  To a Catholic's perspective, the claim of Joseph Smith about his calling and ordination and the Book of Mormon are clearly outside of established apostolic succession and revelation.

The Catholic has a very clear line of apostolic succession that the LDS do not believe.  The LDS have a very clear line of apostolic succession that the Catholics don't believe.  It is futile to argue which one is logical.  None of them are.  Catholics and LDS both CANNOT PROVE they have authority as authority is a spiritual truth that only the Holy Spirit can testify to every one of us.  Pointing a finger at the other and saying, "you're not making any sense so you are wrong" doesn't get you anywhere and only serve to foster unnecessary animosity.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Of course, that's your perspective.  To a Catholic's perspective, the claim of Joseph Smith about his calling and ordination and the Book of Mormon are clearly outside of established apostolic succession and revelation.

The Catholic has a very clear line of apostolic succession that the LDS do not believe.  The LDS have a very clear line of apostolic succession that the Catholics don't believe.  It is futile to argue which one is logical.  None of them are.  Catholics and LDS both CANNOT PROVE they have authority as authority is a spiritual truth that only the Holy Spirit can testify to every one of us.  Pointing a finger at the other and saying, "you're not making any sense so you are wrong" doesn't get you anywhere and only serve to foster unnecessary animosity.

 

Are you saying Catholics do not believe Luke had authority to commit to scripture the ordinance method of Apostlic succession whereby Matthias was chosen?  (See Acts 1:20-26)  or that Isaiah was a "false" prophet?

Anyone can claim to believe anything and as I said; it is not what but why someone believes something - but in this case of the ordinance of apostlic succession that the method was not an individual to chose a successor but all those that remained whom Jesus had chosen as apostles.  And if John was still alive when Peter chose a successor - the ordinance was changed.  Peter had authority to make any change scripture - what is clear is Peter did not commit any such change to scripture.  So either the law of keeping scripture was violated or the ordiance of apostolic successors was changed - both of which would fulfill the prophesy of Isaiah.   I would be interested in any better examples of the prophesy of Isaiah being fulifilled - especially the interpertation of scripture by Catholics as something associated with or day - if these are the "last - days". 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Are you saying Catholics do not believe Luke had authority to commit to scripture the ordinance method of Apostlic succession whereby Matthias was chosen?  (See Acts 1:20-26)  or that Isaiah was a "false" prophet?

Anyone can claim to believe anything and as I said; it is not what but why someone believes something - but in this case of the ordinance of apostlic succession that the method was not an individual to chose a successor but all those that remained whom Jesus had chosen as apostles.  And if John was still alive when Peter chose a successor - the ordinance was changed.  Peter had authority to make any change scripture - what is clear is Peter did not commit any such change to scripture.  So either the law of keeping scripture was violated or the ordiance of apostolic successors was changed - both of which would fulfill the prophesy of Isaiah.   I would be interested in any better examples of the prophesy of Isaiah being fulifilled - especially the interpertation of scripture by Catholics as something associated with or day - if these are the "last - days". 

 

The Traveler

Of course they do.  Are you saying that the Apostles did not ordain Linus (the next Bishop of Rome after the death of Peter) with Apostolic Authority in the manner of Matthias because... why?   1.) It's not recorded in the Bible?  Joseph Smith's ordination was not recorded in the Bible either so that can't be the reason.  2.) Or because Catholics stopped using the title Apostles in deference to the respect they impart on the Biblical apostles?  If the duly ordained has the keys to the kingdom and they collectively decide to reserve the title to the biblical apostles and start using another title, does that invalidate your ordination?  3.)  You're a Mormon and therefore do not believe in Catholic authority?  Irrelevant to Catholics.

So yeah, you are still trying to pit your spiritual rightness against the Catholic faithful when there's no need for it.  This is an LDS Gospel discussion board not an attack-a-Catholic board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Of course they do.  Are you saying that the Apostles did not ordain Linus (the next Bishop of Rome after the death of Peter) with Apostolic Authority in the manner of Matthias because... why?   1.) It's not recorded in the Bible?  Joseph Smith's ordination was not recorded in the Bible either so that can't be the reason.  2.) Or because Catholics stopped using the title Apostles in deference to the respect they impart on the Biblical apostles?  If the duly ordained has the keys to the kingdom and they collectively decide to reserve the title to the biblical apostles and start using another title, does that invalidate your ordination?  3.)  You're a Mormon and therefore do not believe in Catholic authority?  Irrelevant to Catholics.

So yeah, you are still trying to pit your spiritual rightness against the Catholic faithful when there's no need for it.  This is an LDS Gospel discussion board not an attack-a-Catholic board. 

 

What I am saying is that it is rather difficult to take the prophesy in Daniel Chapter 2 and claim that it is the Catholic Church that is that kingdom that was cut out of the mountain in the last days.  If someone has questions about the title of G-d or if there is more than one g-d as defined in the structure of ancient kingdoms – they should (at a minimum) understand the ancient structures of a kingdom and the titles given to (in this specific case) judges.  Now if you like I can quote Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. that is a devout Catholic and expert scholar in ancient kingdoms and titles.  He has provided some rather interesting dialog about Melchizedek given the title of El (G-d) and how that relates to Jesus being ordained a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek as validation of his (Jesus) claim to be the “Son of G-d”.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

What I am saying is that it is rather difficult to take the prophesy in Daniel Chapter 2 and claim that it is the Catholic Church that is that kingdom that was cut out of the mountain in the last days.  If someone has questions about the title of G-d or if there is more than one g-d as defined in the structure of ancient kingdoms – they should (at a minimum) understand the ancient structures of a kingdom and the titles given to (in this specific case) judges.  Now if you like I can quote Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. that is a devout Catholic and expert scholar in ancient kingdoms and titles.  He has provided some rather interesting dialog about Melchizedek given the title of El (G-d) and how that relates to Jesus being ordained a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek as validation of his (Jesus) claim to be the “Son of G-d”.

 

The Traveler

What relevance does any of that have on your question of AUTHORITY?

This is really simple.  Either Linus was ordained with the apostolic keys or he wasn't.  Can you prove it?  Nope.  Same way you can't prove that Joseph Smith was given the apostolic keys when he started calling himself Apostle.  Same way Peter couldn't have known Jesus is the Son of God by any other justification but that the Father revealed it unto him.  These are spiritual questions that can only be answered by the Spirit and no other justification for such claim is relevant.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, anatess2 said:

What relevance does any of that have on your question of AUTHORITY?

This is really simple.  Either Linus was ordained with the apostolic keys or he wasn't.  Can you prove it?  Nope.  Same way you can't prove that Joseph Smith was given the apostolic keys simply because he calls himself Apostle.  These are spiritual questions that can only be answered by the Spirit and no other justification for such claim is relevant.

 

Again, we are talking about a "Kingdom" and yes, I can prove that the ordinance of apostolic succession as claimed did not follow the ordinance as described in Acts (which BTW followed ancient LAW.  You are speaking of AUTHORITY - in ancient kingdoms - authority ALWAYS resided exclusively with the supreme Suzerain – while it was true that a Vassal of the Suzerain could act as the Suzerain one thing a Vassal cannot do is pass Suzerain authority by themselves – there must be more than one Vassal acting in concert.  Peter was a Vassal not the Suzerain – I would hope that even the most devout Catholic would agree?

I am not making this up because I am a Mormon – it was the established law of ordination (coronation) in ancient Middle Eastern kingdoms.  Again, I cannot prove that Peter, James and John did ordain Joseph Smith – but I can show that Peter, James and John followed the ancient LAW of kingdoms in the claimed ordinance of authority given to Joseph Smith.

We can see that laws can be broken and there can be an entire culture that believes otherwise – we are currently see this play out in our own government.  Just because a lot a people want something to be – is very different than the “rule of law”.  And Yes, I do understand that when it comes to politics (and religion) that the rule of law is such an inconvenience to belief.

Again, I would remind everyone that Isaiah prophesied of an apostasy – an apostasy where the law would be altered (rule of law set aside), the ordinances changed and the everlasting covenant broken.  Not a heresy of doctrine.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Again, we are talking about a "Kingdom" and yes, I can prove that the ordinance of apostolic succession as claimed did not follow the ordinance as described in Acts (which BTW followed ancient LAW.  You are speaking of AUTHORITY - in ancient kingdoms - authority ALWAYS resided exclusively with the supreme Suzerain – while it was true that a Vassal of the Suzerain could act as the Suzerain one thing a Vassal cannot do is pass Suzerain authority by themselves – there must be more than one Vassal acting in concert.  Peter was a Vassal not the Suzerain – I would hope that even the most devout Catholic would agree?

I am not making this up because I am a Mormon – it was the established law of ordination (coronation) in ancient Middle Eastern kingdoms.  Again, I cannot prove that Peter, James and John did ordain Joseph Smith – but I can show that Peter, James and John followed the ancient LAW of kingdoms in the claimed ordinance of authority given to Joseph Smith.

We can see that laws can be broken and there can be an entire culture that believes otherwise – we are currently see this play out in our own government.  Just because a lot a people want something to be – is very different than the “rule of law”.  And Yes, I do understand that when it comes to politics (and religion) that the rule of law is such an inconvenience to belief.

Again, I would remind everyone that Isaiah prophesied of an apostasy – an apostasy where the law would be altered (rule of law set aside), the ordinances changed and the everlasting covenant broken.  Not a heresy of doctrine.

 

The Traveler

And why do you think that Linus did not get ordained in the exact same manner as the ancient "Law of Kingdoms"? 

Isaiah prophesied of the coming of Christ - Jews do not believe he has come because the Jews do not believe Jesus fit key elements of the prophecy.

Isaiah prophesied of an apostasy - Catholics believe the Protestants among others fulfilled this and it continues to be fulfilled today to which the Catholic Church holds fast as the rock that holds the keys to the Kingdom.

Mormons believe otherwise.  Another one of those spiritual questions that is a futile debate because ONLY THE SPIRIT can testify the truth of it to anyone.

My advice to you - do not concern yourself about how the Catholic Church is not the true Church.  Let that be the concern of Catholics..  All you need to be concerned about is that the LDS Church is the true church.  If your reason to believe that the LDS Church is the true Church is because the Catholic Church isn't, then your testimony is lacking.  In any case, it is not necessary for you to prove to people that the Catholic Church is not the true Church to proclaim to them that the LDS Church is the true Church.  Doing so does nothing but get you in trouble.  

And that's all I have to say about that.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I just had an epiphany.  And regardless of the jovial language I shall use, I am being quite serious in the analogy.

So, I had to get my air ducts cleaned.  I called up the usual HVAC company.  I haven't used them long enough for them to know me personally.  So I had to inform them that my wife handles all the scheduling things.  I handle the money.  The truth is that it is her house and somehow she's roped me into paying the bills.  Other times in history, such a thing would either be called theft, extortion, or slavery.  My wife's slave.  Well... I've been treated worse.

Anyway, the dispatcher replied,"So, she's time and you're money."  Doggonit!  I have to give her credit.  I never thought of it that way.

"As they say, Time is Money.  So I guess my wife and I are one." I found myself saying.  Hmmm...  There's got to be an analogy here.

The Father and the Son are one.  So Jesus as the Son of God is also God.  This isn't saying that the Father and Son are some united metaphysical identity such as the Trinity.  But they are one -- just as my wife and I are one.  Mr. and Mrs. Carb.  Father and Son God.

So, am I really trying to redefine what "are" is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And why do you think that Linus did not get ordained in the exact same manner as the ancient "Law of Kingdoms"? 

Isaiah prophesied of the coming of Christ - Jews do not believe he has come because the Jews do not believe Jesus fit key elements of the prophecy.

Isaiah prophesied of an apostasy - Catholics believe the Protestants among others fulfilled this and it continues to be fulfilled today to which the Catholic Church holds fast as the rock that holds the keys to the Kingdom.

Mormons believe otherwise.  Another one of those spiritual questions that is a futile debate because ONLY THE SPIRIT can testify the truth of it to anyone.

My advice to you - do not concern yourself about how the Catholic Church is not the true Church.  Let that be the concern of Catholics..  All you need to be concerned about is that the LDS Church is the true church.  If your reason to believe that the LDS Church is the true Church is because the Catholic Church isn't, then your testimony is lacking.  In any case, it is not necessary for you to prove to people that the Catholic Church is not the true Church to proclaim to them that the LDS Church is the true Church.  Doing so does nothing but get you in trouble.  

And that's all I have to say about that.

I champion the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not because of belief but rather a dedication to finding and identifying truth – both by revelation and empirical evidence.  If I were to find a better more accurate example of truth I would embrace it in a heartbeat – as I would suggest for all.  I believe the mission of mortality is to search for truth and fearlessly declare truth to every nation, kindred, tongue and people (including Catholics).

Now I would ask a question – why are you as more concerned about my opinion than you think I am of the general Catholic opinion?  My concern begins with the prophesy of Isaiah - but you seem to declare that the law has remained valid, the ordinances have not been changed and the everlasting covenant unbroken.  If I am wrong – then I would that you would correct me and show me (by revelation and empirical evidence) that the law has been upheld – the ordinances unchanged and the everlasting covenant unbroken.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Traveler said:

I champion the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not because of belief but rather a dedication to finding and identifying truth – both by revelation and empirical evidence.  If I were to find a better more accurate example of truth I would embrace it in a heartbeat – as I would suggest for all.  I believe the mission of mortality is to search for truth and fearlessly declare truth to every nation, kindred, tongue and people (including Catholics).

Now I would ask a question – why are you as more concerned about my opinion than you think I am of the general Catholic opinion?  My concern begins with the prophesy of Isaiah - but you seem to declare that the law has remained valid, the ordinances have not been changed and the everlasting covenant unbroken.  If I am wrong – then I would that you would correct me and show me (by revelation and empirical evidence) that the law has been upheld – the ordinances unchanged and the everlasting covenant unbroken.

 

The Traveler

Why would you think I - an LDS - believe such a thing?  CATHOLICS believe in such a thing.  But as you can see, I, an LDS, do not feel inclined to prove to anybody that the Catholic ordination is not the correct ordination (that's what gets you in trouble).  I simply need to show them how the LDS ordination is of God.  Then they can seek the truth out for themselves.  Now, if you REALLY are interested in finding out the truth of the Catholic claim (and not just to attack them for their beliefs to bolster your LDS claim) then you may investigate the Catholic faith if you wish and you can pore through the history of the ordinances in Sacred Tradition.  Just as anti-Mormons are pests to the LDS faith, anti-Catholics are just as much pests to the Catholics.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I find the topic of what we consider "God" or "gods" to be quite a problem for people outside the faith, but from polar opposites, it appears.

One critical site that I visited determined that Mormons are NOT Christians because we don't worship Jesus Christ as GOD.  So says the author,"They refuse to even pray to him" explaining that we pray to the Father rather than the Son.  I'm not sure why that makes a difference when they believe they are the same being.

Then we have the idea that somehow the BoM changes from "God" to "Son of God" somehow proves we don't believe our own teachings.  I don't see how when they believe they are the same being.

The truth is that such accusations are both right.  And they are both wrong.  The lens they are looking through is first through the Trinity doctrine, THEN through their perception of Mormon theology on the matter.  If they understood Mormon theology better, they might realize we're being quite consistent in all of this.  But as humans are human, people have a tough time seeing through someone else's eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I find the topic of what we consider "God" or "gods" to be quite a problem for people outside the faith, but from polar opposites, it appears.

One critical site that I visited determined that Mormons are NOT Christians because we don't worship Jesus Christ as GOD.  So says the author,"They refuse to even pray to him" explaining that we pray to the Father rather than the Son.  I'm not sure why that makes a difference when they believe they are the same being.

Then we have the idea that somehow the BoM changes from "God" to "Son of God" somehow proves we don't believe our own teachings.  I don't see how when they believe they are the same being.

The truth is that such accusations are both right.  And they are both wrong.  The lens they are looking through is first through the Trinity doctrine, THEN through their perception of Mormon theology on the matter.  If they understood Mormon theology better, they might realize we're being quite consistent in all of this.  But as humans are human, people have a tough time seeing through someone else's eyes.

It's a normal reaction.  The black dot on the yin and the white dot on the yang are both considered anomalies that have to be controlled/eradicated by the yin and the yang to prevent the whole from contamination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now