Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What secret financial records are you referring to?They could have both a civil marriage and a temple marriage, I did. There were secret financial records during Christ's time.
God and his notions of time and generation are the same us as for you.And your god is bound by human notions of time and generation why, exactly?
If Mormonism is as Christian as its partisans claim it to be, then how come there was never such a ban on black Africans being priests in types of Christianity that maintain a sacerdotal priesthood, like Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?
There are many things the Lord did not reveal to the Christian churches because of their resistence to his commandents. Here is a good example:two other things He never revealed to anyone before JS in the at the time 1,800 year history of Christianity?
No.In LDS teaching, then, it is possible to serve God and love Him enough to keep His commandments and still be part of the Church of satan?
Bad situations?I can see how having a civil marriage service first would be a possible solution, and that's a good idea.
Even with two separate marriage ceremonies, though, there is still certainly potential for bad situations arising. So again, it looks to me like LDS are giving under compulsion, even if they actually are happily giving more than 10%.
I believe that there were financial records kept of the money that was cast into the treasury. I could be wrong. Was the amount of money cast into the treasury made public?What secret financial records are you referring to?
The problem with this kind of assertion is that it assumes that JS was telling the truth and not subject to spiritual delusion, and therefore that his 'visions' (plural) didn't need any kind of verification from an actually-existing church. This is very unlike, for example, St. Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Emmaus. If you'll recall, he had this encounter and at its conclusion he was told to enter the city where he would be met by one of the believers who would receive him (see Acts 9).
I am aware of your God-mocking belief, but again, the problem is that you are simply stating it as though it is fact because you believe it. And when you or other Mormons are asked where the proof is that this 'priesthood authority' was lost, you post Bible verses that mention the future when people will fall away from the faith, as though it is self-evident that these are referring to the Mormon 'Great Apostasy' idea, and not, I don't know, the coming of parasitic, pseudo-Christian religions like Mormonism which would draw people away from Christianity. Again, a propos of nothing. It's just something you already believe, so it's true. Well I'm sorry, that's not going to do it. You're going to have to show how, when, and where this was the case, and you cannot do that. Or if you can, you and every other Mormon here have not done so yet, despite being asked whenever this topic comes up.
That makes no sense. He wouldn't suffer it to be misused, so He allowed it or caused it to be lost?
We were in communion with the Church of Rome, but it was not the "Roman Catholic Church" at that time, as the characteristics which mark it as unique today (its unique ecclesiology, theology, etc.) were largely absent at the time. For instance, the filioque -- the addition of the phrase "and the Son" in the clause of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which was unique to the Latin churches before the creation of the first Eastern uniates after the Great Schism -- wasn't added until c. 580s. Ask any Roman Catholic: even that name wasn't applied to their Church until the time of the Reformation, by Protestants. Etymology Online gives the date of 1554 AD, which is over a millennia after Chalcedon and at least a few centuries after the 'Great Schism' between the Eastern and Western Chalcedonians (generally dated to 1054, though some say it wasn't finalized until the sacking of Constantinople in 1204).
No. That makes no sense. How would priesthood in the Egyptian Church 'come from' Rome? Rome has never had any kind of ecclesiastical authority over Egypt, or even real presence there. Rome did not even form its own uniate Church in Egypt (the Coptic Catholic Church, an Eastern Rite church of some 187,000 people) until 1824, and even then it was basically titular. In fact, the first vicar of the Coptic Catholics was appointed in 1781 to oversee less than 2,000 people, and very shortly afterwards thought better of his decision and returned to Orthodoxy in repentance.
By 1824, we were already on our 109th Pope, HH St. Peter VII. How could that have been the case if our 'priesthood lineage' came from Rome? In truth, HH St. Peter VII refused the overtures of the Latins and the Russians alike. He famously responded to the Russian tsar's offer of protection by asking him rhetorically if he planned to live forever, and when the answer came that he would die like any man, HH told him he will stay with the Protector of the Church who does not die (Christ). These aren't the words of someone who recognizes Rome or the Chalcedonian churches more generally as being the origin of the Church or its 'priesthood lineage', and he is not unique at all in our history.
No more than the Chalcedonian Church could be said to be formed in that year. That's the thing about mutual anathematizations: they're mutual. They establish us as separate from those we anathematize (though to be more technical about it, we did not anathematize the Chalcedonians as people, only the Tome; HH St. Timothy II, the direct successor to our teacher HH St. Dioscorus, mandated that any who wished to return to Orthodoxy from Chalcedonianism be accepted by profession of faith only, after an appropriate period of reflection to make sure that this is what they really want to do). They also establish those who we are separated from as their own unique population. Think about it logically: before 451 AD, no one was Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, as Chalcedon hadn't happened yet. So did Chalcedon create a 'new' church, or two new churches? It depends on who you ask, of course, but just as the Chalcedonians would say that they changed nothing between 450 and 451, we likewise say that we did not change in rejecting Chalcedon, and we have the record to prove it, in the sayings of the likes of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite of the White Monastery (pre-Chalcedonian Coptic saint, b. c.347), the historical record on both sides of the divide with regard to the Trisagion or Agios prayer (both Zacharias Rhetor on the OO side and Patriarch Ephrem of Amida on the EO side say that what has been recast as the 'OO understanding' was common to all the people of Syria since the days of HH St. Eustathios of Antioch, who was patriarch before the founding of Constantinople, which the 'EO understanding' of the hymn is traditionally tied to), etc.
The questions surrounding the schism of the 5th century open a very deep hole, and I think if you're going to attempt to traverse it in order to make some kind of point against my Church in particular, I will warn you that you will not be able to get out of it with such a shallow understanding of the conflict such as you have now. And again, it is unrelated to any of my questions about Mormonism. So you might not want to go there, or at least instead request that a separate thread be made. (I'd absolutely be willing to participate in it, but as you can probably tell from this post, that comes with a lot of background reading to get the necessary information to even make sense of what you're looking at. To this very day, the two 'sides' don't even necessarily agree on the substance of what the schism was actually about. So get ready for a lot of references, and a lot more history than you are probably equipped to deal with, if this is where you want to go...that is to say, if it is not just a cheap ploy to recast my Church as something akin to the Protestant churches or some other western phenomenon that you are more familiar with.)
"Then" as in since Chalcedon? So Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus are all preserving the true faith? Well dang, man, in that case I'll see you at liturgy as soon as we're able to have them again!
God and his notions of time and generation are the same us as for you.
Some Christian churches allowed it, some did not. During the 1800's and part of the 1900's many Christian churches would not allow blacks to hold priesthood in their churches. Many Christian churches would not allow blacks to even enter into their churches.
There are many things the Lord did not reveal to the Christian churches because of their resistence to his commandents. Here is a good example:
1 Corinthians 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
You keep jawing on the past
no Christian church has a glowing past
their are flaws and imperfections galore, because our churches are made up of imperfect people and imperfect leaders.
However, our leaders got the word in 1978 that all worthy men should now have the right to hold the priesthood of God.
You wish to continue to present the past, so you can be negtive about the church as always, and do not give anything to the present which is positive in all ways toward the black community. 10 temples now in Africa, one of the most growing communities in the church today. Very positive.
A disagreeing opinion does not an apostasy make.
Was the Catholic faith the only option back then? You've failed church history lessons with @dzheremi so I don't expect you to know that answer.
Isn't it interesting that none of the churches mentioned in the New Testament have the name of Jesus Christ in their name? Obviously not a determining factor in which is the "true" church.
Luther disagreeing with some of the practices of Rome does not mean that an apostacy
occurred. Christianity existed outside of Rome's influence. People sin. People in high places sin. God is all about repentance and forgiveness. Absolutely does not mean a "great apostasy" occurred that needed a false prophet to pretend to restore.
(Please pardon my jumping in here.)...no Christian church has a glowing past, their are flaws and imperfections galore, because our churches are made up of imperfect people and imperfect leaders.
Okay, then I'm confused again as to how this works in LDS teaching.
You did not make a mistake, there have always been people who follow God and those who follow Satan. Those who follow God are of God's church and those who follow Satan are of Satan's church. The wheat and the tares are mixed. That being said there needs to be way for God's ordinances to be performed with the authority of His priesthood. That authority has been restored to the earth. God has made it available to all of His children alive or dead, but He will force no one to heaven. We all have choices to make, it is my hope that everyone will choose wisely to LOVE God and serve Him.Okay, then I'm confused again as to how this works in LDS teaching.
From post #251:
We believe there are only two churches on the earth, Christ's church and Satan's church and that everyone belongs to one or the other.
LDS - The Infallibility of the Prophets
If it isn't possible to serve God and love Him enough to keep His commandments and still be part of the Church of satan,
And if there have always been people on earth who served God and loved Him enough to keep His commandments,
then Christ's Church never left the Earth.
Does that all follow, or did I make a mistake somewhere?
You are right about a simple disagreeing of opinion. But a disagreeing of opinion that leads to moving millions of people out of God's "supposed" church and creating hundreds of new churches in it's stead is at least gounds to consider why?
In europe, at the time of the reformation, there were small factions of people such as the Wandenese, the Lollards, the Ana Baptists, the Hussites, that were not in line with Rome, and Rome was killing and persecuting them in the attempt to anihilate them. So Martin decided to form his own church. So did Zwingli, so did Calvin.
Dzheremi has his opinion of church history, I have mine. He may know more about church history, but his opinion of church history may or may not be right. I think it is not right. Just look at the ecumenical councils and you can see that it was not the Holy Ghost that guided the decisions, it was the faction that got the most bishops there first that made the decisions, regardless of the Holy Ghost.
Your right, having the name of Jesus Christ in the name of your church is not a determining factor as to whether you are the true church. But it is 1 factor. If you aren't sure you are the true church, you definately will not put Jesus's name on it.
It is, however, one factor. And when you add up all the factors, disagreeing with Rome so emphatically as to put your life on the line is a pretty decent factor that Rome had apostatised from the true church.
The reformation folks tried to right the ship, but they fell flat because they did not have the priesthood.
When JS came along, he was not a reformer, but a restorer, and he came to know that he needed the priesthood, the keys of the kingdom which Christ had given to Peter in order to do the work that heaven would recognize. So he sought after it by prayer and his prayers were answered and he received the priesthood and the work moved quickly on.
My hero? Your ignorance is showing...Especially if your hero Martin Luther is right about Rome being satans home.
Still showing...Dzheremi has his opinion of church history, I have mine. He may know more about church history, but his opinion of church history may or may not be right. I think it is not right.
Still showing... It either is or isn't a determining factor. You contradict yourself. None of the early churches in the NT had his name on them (7 churches in Revelation, churches at Antioch, Corinth, etc.). Christ's redeeming message is for people, all people, whether they are members of a certain church or not, regardless if the name of a church has the name of Christ in it or not. People are saved, not churches.our right, having the name of Jesus Christ in the name of your church is not a determining factor as to whether you are the true church. But it is 1 factor. If you aren't sure you are the true church, you definately will not put Jesus's name on it.
You keep missing the point. The LDS church claims a "Great Apostasy". Despite what "Rome" may or may not have done, Christianity as a whole never disappeared. You ignore historical facts in the name of your church's false claims.It is, however, one factor. And when you add up all the factors, disagreeing with Rome so emphatically as to put your life on the line is a pretty decent factor that Rome had apostatised from the true church.
As has been discussed in the other thread, the "priesthood" as the LDS try to define it never existed in the NT or early Christian church. We are a priesthood of believers, but none of us hold an "Aaronic" or "Melchizedek" priesthood. Jesus is the one and only Melchizedek priest.The reformation folks tried to right the ship, but they fell flat because they did not have the priesthood.
No apostasy, no lost priesthood, no need for the LDS "restoration".When JS came along, he was not a reformer, but a restorer, and he came to know that he needed the priesthood, the keys of the kingdom which Christ had given to Peter in order to do the work that heaven would recognize. So he sought after it by prayer and his prayers were answered and he received the priesthood and the work moved quickly on.
Well, suppose the temple ritual is done first. Wouldn't the couple already be married then by the time of the civil ceremony? I assume there are people at the temples registered to sign marriage licenses.Bad situations?
I don't know if the temples financial records were public or not. I don't think, though, that the temple at Jesus time was a good model for Christian financial record keeping. These are the same people who bribed Judas.I believe that there were financial records kept of the money that was cast into the treasury. I could be wrong. Was the amount of money cast into the treasury made public?
(New Testament | Mark 12:41 - 44)
41 ¶ And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
I agree that God wants us to be cheerful givers! And as Paul talks about, give what you've decided in your heart.God is happy with people who give cheerfully, but not so happy with those who don't:
(New Testament | Acts 5:1 - 5)
1 BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
Well, suppose the temple ritual is done first. Wouldn't the couple already be married then by the time of the civil ceremony? I assume there are people at the temples registered to sign marriage licenses.
Suppose the civil ceremony is done first. Then those with a temple recommend head off to the temple. haven't you ever had the experience of your friends and family going to a party to which you were not invited? How did you feel?
Suppose the temple is maybe an hour's drive away. I think the OP talked in a previous thread about the common practice of carpooling to the temple, and how because of that it was obvious who had a recommend and who did not. So even though it's theoretically confidential, in practice it largely is not, it sounded to me.
But maybe you're thinking these are not really examples of compulsion.
Well, I have a choice about whether or not to rob the bank down the street. I could rob it, probably get caught and go to prison. But I do have a choice. Am I under compulsion?
When I pull up in front of the library in the small town where I live, I have a choice of whether or not to put a quarter in the parking meter. I can choose not to, and risk a parking ticket which I think is $3 (gasp). Again, compulsion?
I say yes in both cases, the parking meter is just very mild compulsion.
Amen to loving God and serving him!You did not make a mistake, there have always been people who follow God and those who follow Satan. Those who follow God are of God's church and those who follow Satan are of Satan's church. The wheat and the tares are mixed. That being said there needs to be way for God's ordinances to be performed with the authority of His priesthood. That authority has been restored to the earth. God has made it available to all of His children alive or dead, but He will force no one to heaven. We all have choices to make, it is my hope that everyone will choose wisely to LOVE God and serve Him.
I'm glad you haven't heard of any bad situations.In my case I had the civil ceremony first and after some time (a few years later) we were sealed in the temple. I have not heard of any bad situations.
it sounds like your experience is different from what the OP related.It has never been obvious as to who does or does not have a recommend. It is not uncommon for a person to let their recommend lapse, besides we don't judge members on whether they have a temple recommend or not. I didn't have a recommend for many years and no one treated me any different.
The compulsion is not to rob the bank, people are compelled not to rob it.**********
No I do not see those examples as examples of compulsion. No one has to park at a parking meter. No one has to rob a bank. No one has to go to the temple. That being said our choices have their consequences either bad or good.
The priesthood was lost due to corruption:Amen to loving God and serving him!
If Christ's Church was never taken from the earth, then why was the priesthood taken from the Earth in LDS thinking?
No. The Christian God is not bound by time. See, e.g., Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. God exists outside of time, as time is a human-created concept. There is nothing that dictates a 7-day week, for instance (that idea likely originated with the Babylonians
Okay, so again, how is it that you're any better than they are when so many of them didn't do these things?
but it's not the knock-out piece of evidence for a worldwide great apostasy or anything of the kind.
Does this mean in any way, shape, or form that the Church became irrevocably corrupted such that it vanished from the face of the Earth only to be restored later by Joseph Smith via visitations with "God and Jesus" and various Biblical personages?
Well if you have a way that we can discuss an event or period that is said to have happened in the past, involving people and events in the past, and extending for a long time in that past until another point that was also in the past, without "jawing on the past", I'd like to hear about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?