The Prophet Boasts

Post by **_harmony** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:10 am

The LDS church does not recognize the priesthood (and thus does not recognize their authority to act in God's name) of the Catholic Church. Jersey.

What I want to know is... how do we account for John the Beloved, who was promised he would not die until the 2nd coming. He and his [original] priesthood are still present on the earth.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:10 am

Polygamy Porter wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:What authority?

Jersey Girl

Lemme spell it out for ya ;)

A P O S T O L I C Authority.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???

Post by **_The Nehor** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:13 am

harmony wrote:The LDS church does not recognize the priesthood (and thus does not recognize their authority to act in God's name) of the Catholic Church. Jersey.

What I want to know is... how do we account for John the Beloved, who was promised he would not die until the 2nd coming. He and his [original] priesthood are still present on the earth.

He spent some of that time preaching on Kolob and Vega IX.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:14 am

The Nehor wrote:
harmony wrote:The LDS church does not recognize the priesthood (and thus does not recognize their authority to act in God's name) of the Catholic Church. Jersey.

What I want to know is... how do we account for John the Beloved, who was promised he would not die until the 2nd coming. He and his [original] priesthood are still present on the earth.

He spent some of that time preaching on Kolob and Vega IX.

*blink* and I'm sure you're going to quote a scripture from the D&C for this one?

Post by **_The Nehor** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:27 am

harmony wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
harmony wrote:The LDS church does not recognize the priesthood (and thus does not recognize their authority to act in God's name) of the Catholic Church. Jersey.

What I want to know is... how do we account for John the Beloved, who was promised he would not die until the 2nd coming. He and his [original] priesthood are still present on the earth.

He spent some of that time preaching on Kolob and Vega IX.

*blink* and I'm sure you're going to quote a scripture from the D&C for this one?

No, but Joseph said that the ministry of Translated Beings includes other worlds besides our own. If John was a transient then the authority could still be gone unless you think an angelic visitation counts as Priesthood being on the Earth too. He could hardly work full-time as an Apostle here if he had to fly to Vulcan every time the Romulans got frisky.

Post by **_twinkie** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:56 am

grrr... I just have to say that the blatant "joseph worship" is one of the things that really peeves me about the Mormon church. If he in fact did what he claimed to have done, he did not do it, Jesus did it. No prophet does anything of their own power.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon May 28, 2007 5:01 am

Nehor

His followers fled realizing he was most likely going to his death. Joseph's followers had a pledge of protection.

Yes, I read about that just now and also Joseph's letter to Emma telling the Saints to essentially stay away.

So here's another question. If none of Joseph's allies/friends/followers were in Carthage, why did he make the Masonic sign of distress before his death?

What's your take on that?

Jersey Girl

Post by **_The Nehor** » Mon May 28, 2007 7:25 am

Jersey Girl wrote:Nehor
His followers fled realizing he was most likely going to his death. Joseph's followers had a pledge of protection.

Yes, I read about that just now and also Joseph's letter to Emma telling the Saints to essentially stay away.

So here's another question. If none of Joseph's allies/friends/followers were in Carthage, why did he make the Masonic sign of distress before his death?

What's your take on that?

Jersey Girl

I assume he saw Masons (former members?) he knew in the mob trying to kill him and tried to appeal to them not to kill him. It failed obviously. The other explanation is that it was a purely religious sentiment. I ascribe to the Masonic explanation though.

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:18 pm

harmony wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Methinks one cannot see the apostasy for the trees. Er, uh, splinters.

Jersey Girl

I think it's quite common for members of the LDS church to see these "splinter" groups as insignificant numbers of apostates, while the "true" church holds itself together. McConkie described these people as yapping dogs nipping at the heels of the church, but "the caravan moves on." Uh-huh.

Can you show any one that has really prospered at all other then the SLC Church and maybe the CoC?

Prospered? What does that have to do with anything?

The truest church is the most prosperous, duh. Only a true church will have millions of members, billions of dollars in cash, more billions in business investments, and hundreds of great and spacious buildings with golden statues on top. That's the sign of a true church. A church with modest membership numbers meeting in an inexpensive structure that doesn't buy up real estate and invest in business ventures cannot possibly be true.

by the way, don't even try to bring up the Catholic church with it's hundred million members, real estate holdings, and extravagantly expensive buildings. We all know the Catholic church can't possibly be true, so their prosperity doesn't count.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon May 28, 2007 5:03 pm

SatanWasSetUp wrote:
harmony wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Methinks one cannot see the apostasy for the trees. Er, uh, splinters.

Jersey Girl

I think it's quite common for members of the LDS church to see these "splinter" groups as insignificant numbers of apostates, while the "true" church holds itself together. McConkie described these people as yapping dogs nipping at the heels of the church, but "the caravan moves on." Uh-huh.

Can you show any one that has really prospered at all other then the SLC Church and maybe the CoC?

Prospered? What does that have to do with anything?

The truest church is the most prosperous, duh. Only a true church will have millions of members, billions of dollars in cash, more billions in business investments, and hundreds of great and spacious buildings with golden statues on top. That's the sign of a true church. A church with modest membership numbers meeting in an inexpensive structure that doesn't buy up real estate and invest in business ventures cannot possibly be true.

by the way, don't even try to bring up the Catholic church with it's hundred million members, real estate holdings, and extravagantly expensive buildings. We all know the Catholic church can't possibly be true, so their prosperity doesn't count.

If that's the criteria, I'm not sure where the LDS church would stand, worldwide. Per capita, maybe, but overall? Catholics are undoubtedly first, but wouldn't the Shiite Muslims be next? I'm sure someone with more Google experience than I can find a website that would tell us which is the richest church in the world.