Why is it always the Mormons?

[Draka]

And here, up to the last page, I thought the perpetrators of the offences mentioned in the first place were going to be ignored. Ahhh, too bad. Was nice to see one talking to thin air for a while though. Not even dignified with a response. Was nice while it lasted though. :yes:

 

[Scott1]

Well the only real historical church would be the Catholic church. Since it is the one that decended directly from Christ's original church. Any other church that stemmed from it couldn't be true.

Nope.... Catholic and Orthodox are separate but equal in my opinion.

So either the Catholic church is the true church, or the apostasy did happen and a restorationist church is true.

So either the Catholic Church or Orthodox church is the true church, or the apostasy did happen to one of them.... or was it both? Dueling apostasies? I guess the Orthodox faith is apostate by relatation.... that it?

 

[uss_bigd]

So either the Catholic church is the true church, or the apostasy did happen and a restorationist church is true.

or both of you can be wrong.

Peter was not really the rock and the restoration referred to another church

 

[Scott1]

Peter was not really the rock and the restoration referred to another church

Peter was not the rock.... what's your point?

 

[Smoke]

Well the only real historical church would be the Catholic church.

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.

So either the Catholic church is the true church, or the apostasy did happen and a restorationist church is true.

If the apostasy occurred, it doesn't follow that a restorationist church is true. It may be that the restoration will not occur, or that it will but has not yet occurred. What was the true church in 1650?

 

[jonny]

Over the year and a half or so I've been a member of RF, I've noticed that Protestant Christians who identify as "evangelicals," "fundamentalists" and "born again" ("EC" for short) regularly target the beliefs of LDS far more so than any other belief system, even though, frankly, LDS and EC have what appear to me to be very similar aesthetic values. Not to say that all EC do it . . . . just that many of them do . . . and when they do, they almost always zero in on Mormons.

Why is that? I'd like to hear opinions from anybody on the subject. Why not Buddhism? Judaism? Or Islam?

Why do you think it's so important for so many EC to argue with Mormons?

Because they've been brainwashed by their pastors, who are scared that their members will convert over to Mormonism. If people convert, the pastors lose their paychecks, and they wouldn't want that now, would they?

Short and to the point.

 

[uss_bigd]

Peter was not the rock.... what's your point?

Jesus is the Rock...

The catholic church claims apostolic succession by claiming peter was the first pope, isn't that correcT?

 

[Draka]

Or, none of it was true to begin with and, therefore, none of the churches are right.

 

[uss_bigd]

Because they've been brainwashed by their pastors, who are scared that their members will convert over to Mormonism. If people convert, the pastors lose their paychecks, and they wouldn't want that now, would they?

Short and to the point.

since my pastor and chruch workers don't get paid, i can proudly agree with you Jonny.

 

[Smoke]

Jesus is the Rock...

The catholic church claims apostolic succession by claiming peter was the first pope, isn't that correcT?

Those are two separate issues. All the historic churches claim apostolic succession. The primacy of Rome is a separate (though related) matter.

 

[jonny]

I don't see that very often reading posts by our LDS members. Is that something important to LDS, that there's an apostasy of the Catholics and Protestants? Does it really matter? Why?

It matters, but we don't like to rub stuff like that in people's faces. Although it is a foundation of our belief, I've been taught to respect other people and their choice of religion. I do that usually, but I have a hard time with some Evangelicals. There are some beliefs that don't deserve respect.

Fundie Christians (also known as "Jesus Freaks" or "Bible Bashers" or sometimes they go by the names of "Southern Baptist" or "Non-denomination Christian" and more often than not "Born Again Christians") are taught that they are called of God to tell everyone that they're going to hell. I've had fundies tell me that they are following the example of Christ when they insult people. Seriously.

 

[Smoke]

Or, none of it was true to begin with and, therefore, none of the churches are right.

Seems so obvious, doesn't it?

 

[Scott1]

The catholic church claims apostolic succession by claiming peter was the first pope, isn't that correcT?

Nope... Jesus was the Rock... the Papacy came about 200 years later.... thanks for asking.

 

[Charity]

Do the Catholics use the verse in Mat 17:18 ?
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I know that Jesus is the Rock, but he is also referred to as the Chief corner stone in scriptures.

 

[Scott1]

Do the Catholics use the verse in Mat 17:18 ?
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I know that Jesus is the Rock, but he is also referred to as the Chief corner stone in scriptures.

The verse can refer to Peter, Christ, Peter's confession... none of them have anything to do with Apostolic Succession.

 

[Draka]

Not that you would often find me complaining over a frubaling I've received, BUT due to the comment from one frubaling on this thread I find I must clarify a previous statement so it is not taken like this again.

When I said:

Or, none of it was true to begin with and, therefore, none of the churches are right.

I was NOT referring to just specific churches mentioned in this thread. I was referring to ALL churches. Any and all denominations of Christianity. That the bible, itself, and the stories within, are not, and have never been true. Therefore, none of the belief systems based on them literally happening are correct.

I was NOT talking about just the LDS and the RC churches. Sheesh!

 

[Apex]

I've had fundies tell me that they are following the example of Christ when they insult people. Seriously.

You mean like this? This is a guy from another board, I save some of his posts since they are just filled with so much Christ like "love".

Again, if you knew what the Bible said, and more specifically what Jesus and his disciples said and wrote, then you wouldn't be asking such foolish questions. For Jesus and his disciples regularly used "name-calling" and "labels" to define the characters of those who propagated falsehoods under the guise of truth. Names such as "ravenous wolves," "dogs," "false prophets," "ungodly persons," etc. Moreover, the "traps" were called "schemes of the devil." So, now you know, at least in part, why you're labeled as an infidel, or unbeliever, simply because your character, as evidenced through your posts, is consistent with the label.

 

[SoyLeche]

Hey, our forbearer's were special before your special even thought it was special!

A little late into this one, but...

Oh, yeah? Well, we've gone ahead and baptized your forbearers, so they are all Mormon now anyway. Take THAT!

 

[doppelganger]

The verse can refer to Peter, Christ, Peter's confession... none of them have anything to do with Apostolic Succession.

That's not what I understand to be the "official" Roman Catholic answer.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth . . . The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17 . . . The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations.

 

[doppelganger]

Or, none of it was true to begin with and, therefore, none of the churches are right.

Or all of it is true, from the perspective of the person who believes it, and also untrue from the perspective of the person who doesn't. Hence, it is all psychologically true, even if not literally true.