• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Great Apostasy

dan

Well-Known Member
Victor, I know what the Catholic church practices in some parts of the world. I may not be up on every different congregation's beliefs, but I spent six months living with a missionary in Uruguay who was a Catholic priest in Paraguay for a long time. He taught me Guarani and South American Catholic stuff. I learned how to do Hail Mary's and all the prayers for the Rosary (In Paraguay they do it in "vos", a slightly different type of Spanish). I own a couple of Rosaries from Brasil. They're souvenirs of mine.

The most interesting stuff was what they teach priests. Priests have to read books of scripture from all different faiths. I found that very interesting. In some parts of Central and South America they have red flags hanging in the cathedrals. This is to warn authorities that the leaders of this particular congregation have the authority to kill apostates. I know you don't believe me, but I'm not worried about that.

In all of South America everyone runs around with little Saint playing cards. There's a picture of a saint on one side and a prayer to that saint on the other. When people are in specific circumstances they will hold up that card and say the prayer. In many towns there are very famous statues of saints that are frequently visited and given gifts. In a town in Uruguay called Florida (flohr-EE-dah) there's a Saint that has thousands and thousands of dollars worth of gifts around it. There are other statues of this saint, but this one apparently has special powers, and people leave everything from jewelry to cars in front of it to thank it and petition blessings. In Brasil they chuck perfume and jewelry into the ocean to seek blessings from some saint that died in the ocean or something. The poor people in town then swim out and pick up all the valuable stuff. In Argentina they don't say "Thank God" or "Thank the Lord," they say "Thank the Virgin" whenever something good happens. I've been in several cathedrals and I often count the different statues in them. I have yet to find a Catholic church that had as many images of Christ as of Mary. The Christ statues all show Him bleeding and dying helplessly while the Mary statues show her looking upon Him with sympathy and a slight smile, as if to say, "Don't worry, it's gonna be ok."

These are all things that I've seen with my own two eyes over and over again. I am well acquainted with the Catholic church and their history. I watched and studied the Conclave with much interest and have read their own writings just as much as the writings of others about them.

The Catholic church has placed human beings in between Jesus and us, despite the Bible's expressed prohibition. They have explained it to me on numerous occasions in the following manner, "We don't worship the Saints, but we worship God through the Saints." This is exactly what the Israelites did in Horeb.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
As for the early Christina writings, I was just giving people a resource to read the texts of dozens of apocryphal early Christian writings. It has no bearing on any argument whatsoever.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
nutshell said:
What an interesting mish-mash of nonsense. If you haven't checked recently, the LDS Church is prospering.

I did not say the LDS church was not prospering. It is prospering because it is a denomination of Christianity, not a new revelation, and should not be considered as such in the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Baha`i tradition of a new revelation.

Let me repeat the LDS is one denomination of Christianity amongst all the other 30,000 denominations of Christianity. It is NOT a new Revelation. Joseph Smith is a "nabi" rather than a "rasul" - in English a (p)rophet, not a (P)rophet. ALl of Joseph Smith's authority is declared through Jesus Christ's name, not Joseph Smith's name.

Clarity?

Regards,
Scott
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
Victor, I know what the Catholic church practices in some parts of the world.

You have proven otherwise and apparently struggle with the difference between our practices (which can be all over the radar) and doctrine/dogma.

~Victor
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Well, Paul considers true Christianity to be an establishment of unity, without schism. You're saying that the church doesn't have to be consistent or righteous in order to represent God. There is no place in the Bible where this is condoned.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
Well, Paul considers true Christianity to be an establishment of unity, without schism.

Enlighten me an show me?
By the way I suggest you talk further with benjosh from RLDS who I assume is in Schism from you guys, no?

See:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/latter-day-saints/25669-lds-vs-rlds.html

dan said:
You're saying that the church doesn't have to be consistent or righteous in order to represent God. There is no place in the Bible where this is condoned.

Where in the world am I saying this?
 

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
Popeyesays said:
I did not say the LDS church was not prospering. It is prospering because it is a denomination of Christianity, not a new revelation, and should not be considered as such in the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Baha`i tradition of a new revelation.

Let me repeat the LDS is one denomination of Christianity amongst all the other 30,000 denominations of Christianity. It is NOT a new Revelation. Joseph Smith is a "nabi" rather than a "rasul" - in English a (p)rophet, not a (P)rophet. ALl of Joseph Smith's authority is declared through Jesus Christ's name, not Joseph Smith's name.

Clarity?

Regards,
Scott
What in the world are you talking about? Duh Joseph Smith's authority was through Jesus Christ. That's one of the things we've been trying to tell you. And the LDS faith isn't growing fast, just because we a Christian denomination, it's because people, if open minded, can see the truth in our teachings. We are the fastest growing Christian denomination. http://www.700club.com/spirituallif...lism/Mormons_Are_Fastest_Growing_Religion.asp. This could be saying something.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
the pattern of Apostate groups is to soon lose their identity within that group. The RLDS church doesn't exist anymore. They are now the Community of Christ. They were subsidized by another church when they went bankrupt. As part of their subsidy they had to deny the Book of Mormon, deny Joseph Smith as a prophet, deny revelation and any ongoing scripture. They now use a cross and are more Catholic than LDS. That's not a valid example.

You are saying that the leaders of the church can rape, murder and steal, and still maintain authority. Then you insist that the practices around the world can be in utter opposition to each other and still be part of the true church. Thus your assertion is that consistency and righteousness are not a necessary part of the true Church of Christ.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
mormonman said:
What in the world are you talking about? Duh Joseph Smith's authority was through Jesus Christ. That's one of the things we've been trying to tell you. And the LDS faith isn't growing fast, just because we a Christian denomination, it's because people, if open minded, can see the truth in our teachings. We are the fastest growing Christian denomination. http://www.700club.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/Evangelism/Mormons_Are_Fastest_Growing_Religion.asp. This could be saying something.

That Joseph Smith traced his authority through Jesus means he did not speak with his own authority. Moses spoke with His own authority. Jesus spoke with His own authority. The religion of Mani was a different case he attempted to speak with his own authority but that religion did NOT prosper, it was gone within a hundred years of its founding. Muhammad spoke with His own authority, that religion has prospered. Joseph Smith spoke with the authority of Jesus, not his own, therefore he is not the bearer of a Revelation he is a minor prophet speaking under the authority of Christ.

That you claim to be the fastest growing denomination of Christianity takes you out of the running for claiming to a new religion. You are an older religion with a different label.

Regards,
Scott
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
dan said:
the pattern of Apostate groups is to soon lose their identity within that group. The RLDS church doesn't exist anymore. They are now the Community of Christ. They were subsidized by another church when they went bankrupt. As part of their subsidy they had to deny the Book of Mormon, deny Joseph Smith as a prophet, deny revelation and any ongoing scripture. They now use a cross and are more Catholic than LDS. That's not a valid example.
Dan,

I am appalled! I doubted some of your statements about the Community of Christ and decided to check things out for myself. According to their official website, they continue to use the Book of Mormon and still accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet. I don't believe the Community of Christ is the true Church of Jesus Christ any more than you do, but for heaven's sake, don't be guilty of the same thing we as Latter-day Saints find ourselves up against every day. Don't post inaccurate information about this church. It's wrong, Dan! Tearing the Community of Christ down by posting lies about them is not going to make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints look any better. It takes very little effort to be accurate, and you are able to maintain your own integrity in the process.

http://www.cofchrist.org/
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Dan,

Given your silence in response to my post, can I assume that you are admitting your ignorance of eastern Christianity, or are you just trying to compose some sort of a response? Any time you're ready....

James
 

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
Popeyesays said:
That Joseph Smith traced his authority through Jesus means he did not speak with his own authority. Moses spoke with His own authority. Jesus spoke with His own authority. The religion of Mani was a different case he attempted to speak with his own authority but that religion did NOT prosper, it was gone within a hundred years of its founding. Muhammad spoke with His own authority, that religion has prospered. Joseph Smith spoke with the authority of Jesus, not his own, therefore he is not the bearer of a Revelation he is a minor prophet speaking under the authority of Christ.

That you claim to be the fastest growing denomination of Christianity takes you out of the running for claiming to a new religion. You are an older religion with a different label.

Regards,
Scott
You have yet to not confuse me. Where did Moses get his authority from? He got it from GOD! He held the Priesthood, which is the POWER AND AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THE NAME OF GOD. God gives us the power to act in His Name. Every true prophet has his power from God. Joseph Smith held the same Priesthood. I hold the Aaronic Priesthood, which is a prepartory priesthood. It will prepare me to recieve the Melchizedek Priesthood. Your right, Muhammad spoke w/ his own "authority". This is why I don't view Him as a prophet of God. goodness
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
mormonman said:
You have yet to not confuse me. Where did Moses get his authority from? He got it from GOD! He held the Priesthood, which is the POWER AND AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THE NAME OF GOD. God gives us the power to act in His Name. Every true prophet has his power from God. Joseph Smith held the same Priesthood. I hold the Aaronic Priesthood, which is a prepartory priesthood. It will prepare me to recieve the Melchizedek Priesthood. Your right, Muhammad spoke w/ his own "authority". This is why I don't view Him as a prophet of God. goodness

The dogma of your church tells you hold the priesthood - well and good. The direct sayings of the Prophet-Founder of my Faith says God has abolished the clergy and priesthood completely.
"WHATSOEVER hath been announced in the Books hath been revealed and made clear. From every direction the signs have been manifested. The Omnipotent One is calling, in this Day, and announcing the appearance of the Supreme Heaven.
THIS is not the day whereon the high priests can command and exercise their authority. In your Book it is stated that the high priests will, on that Day, lead men far astray, and will prevent them from drawing nigh unto Him. He indeed is a high priest who hath seen the light and hastened unto the way leading to the Beloved.
O HIGH priests! The Hand of Omnipotence is stretched forth from behind the clouds; behold ye it with new eyes. The tokens of His majesty and greatness are unveiled; gaze ye on them with pure eyes.... Say, O high priests! Ye are held in reverence because of My Name, and yet ye flee Me! Ye are the high priests of the Temple. Had ye been the high priests of the Omnipotent One, ye would have been united with Him, and would have recognized Him.... Say, O high priests! No man's acts shall be acceptable, in this Day, unless he forsaketh mankind and all that men possess, and setteth his face towards the Omnipotent One. "
(Baha'u'llah, The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 105)

In my eyes the Church and Revelation of Christ have been restored - in the word of God through Muhammad and the Word of God through Baha`u'llah.

So why should I accept a doctrine of your church in direct opposition to the words of the Prophet I have come to follow?

The answer is I should not. You do what you think best, as shall I and when we face God, He will decide.

Regards,
Scott
 

dan

Well-Known Member
JamesThePersian said:
Dan,

Given your silence in response to my post, can I assume that you are admitting your ignorance of eastern Christianity, or are you just trying to compose some sort of a response? Any time you're ready....

James

I already responded to that.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
dan said:
I already responded to that.

No, you didn't, and I just checked again to make sure. I'm referring to post 78 and not the one I posted before that. At no point since I made that post (which was a response to your apparently poor grasp of our history as demonstrated by your own words) have you made any reply to me whatsoever, other than the one quoted here, which hardly constitutes a response.

James
 

dan

Well-Known Member
From the Community of Christ's own website on their beliefs:

"At this point, a vision surrounded him with love and mercy. From that light came a voice as clear as his own. As the vision ebbed and the voice faded, Joseph felt that he knew the truth. He felt the healing presence of God within and the forgiving mercy of Christ. He knew that God would be with him."

If you visit the Kirtland Temple now you can ask a tour guide why they don't mention that Jesus Christ appeared there. They said to my friend, "We're not sure that happened anymore." They deny direct revelation. They believe revelation comes in this way:

"God is revealed to us through scripture, the faith community, prayer, nature, and in human history."

Prophets? Nope. Can't find a word on them, only that all of Joseph Smith's visions were examples of when he "felt called" to do something. How do they feel about the Book of Mormon? Well, it's hard to outright say they don't believe it anymore, so they tapdance around it:

"With other Christians, we affirm the Bible as scripture for the church. In our tradition, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are additional scriptural witnesses of God’s love and Christ’s ministry."

What does "in our tradition" mean? Let's look at their explanation:

"The Book of Mormon spoke to many of the needs of the early church. Its story referred to the "land of promise," the "choice land," and other images that were part of the heritage of the United States. It presented a vision of a perfect social order based on religious principles. It advocated a system of lay priesthood and a preference for democracy rather than monarchy."

Every single thing is in the past tense. You will not find a reference to the Book of Mormon that puts it in the present. "In our tradition" means "we used to believe".

What about the nature of God? Well, they believe in the Trinity:

"The one eternal, living God is triune: one God in three persons. The God who meets us in the testimony of Israel is the same God who meets us in Jesus Christ, and who indwells creation as the Holy Spirit."

That enough?
 

dan

Well-Known Member
JamesThePersian said:
There was a split, but we were never under the Pope of Rome's jurisdiction.

That's not what the Catholic church says. This is why the split happened. You guys acted in a way that they felt was overstepping your bounds. You then split apart. From a strictly historical point of view you were part of the Catholic church. As part of your particular belief, you were not, but I don't share those beliefs.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
dan said:
That's not what the Catholic church says. This is why the split happened. You guys acted in a way that they felt was overstepping your bounds. You then split apart. From a strictly historical point of view you were part of the Catholic church. As part of your particular belief, you were not, but I don't share those beliefs.

Absolute gibberish. No Pope of Rome prior to Leo ever claimed jurisdiction over the Church except as first among equals. Leo's claims were rejected by the entire church and we didn't overstep our bounds at all, that was the Poep when he tried to unilaterally depose St. Photios the Great. Photios was vindicated and the so called 'Photian schism' healed by an Ecumenical council that all sees agreed was such for some 2 centuries. Real history does not in any way support ultra-Montane claims of Papal supremacy. Prior to the Great Schism the Pope never had the rights over the Church that he claims today which is why 4 out of 5 sees disgreed with him when he tried to asert those claims. We were, and according to Orthodox ecclesiology, still are the Catholic Church but we never were part of the Roman Catholic Church and nor were we ever under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.

You appear completely ignorant of the pre-Schism governance of the Church by the Pentarchy but I can provide you with canons of the Ecumenical Councils to prove that what you suggest is false, not to mention the words of a pre-Schism Pope of Rome, St. Gregory the Great. You seem to be latching onto the claims of those most extreme proponents of Papal Supremacy (who are a fringe even within Roman Catholicism - Pope Benedict, for instance, has acknowledged that in the first millennium his predecessors did not have the position he now has) simply because they make your claims of a Great Apostasy easier to hold onto. That is a cop out and intellectually dishonest, particularly for one who does not accept that Rome has any authority.

James
 
Top