LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[chevyontheriver]

The two great commandments were taught in the Old Testament. Certainly there were prophets like Moses, Abraham, Nathan, Isaiah, etc. who lived and taught God's word. Jesus quoted some of these great prophets. Were they not part of His church?

Yes there were lawgivers and prophets before Jesus started His Church. And they can even be referred to as Saints. But the New Testament speaks clearly of Jesus building His Church on the rock. So while we do have continuity with the Temple and the prophets it was Jesus doing a new thing. Which is why we have the priesthood of Melchizedek, of which Jesus held and passed on. But we don't have the priesthood of Aaron, which has passed. In fact many of the Cohen became priests in the Church, priests in the order of Melchizedek.

Our churches have seen a lot of unity and I believe that is a good thing.

[/QUOTE]
And yet we are miles apart still. We do not agree on the nature of God, on the creeds, even on baptism. For you do not accept baptisms conducted by Catholics and we do not accept baptisms conducted by the LDS. Now if things are changing among the LDS I'm all for it. But one of the first things you would have to give up is your idea about the great apostasy. Because there really isn't any historical evidence for it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

We believe that the priesthood needed to be restored.

What that means is that we were left orphaned for a considerable time, from about 100 AD (the approximate date of your great apostasy) to the 1800's (when Joseph Smith rediscovered everything). That's a lot of orphanage time. And Jesus said he would not leave us orphans. Can we take him at his word?

 

[Rescued One]

We believe that the priesthood needed to be restored.

That isn't all your church teaches.

Joseph Smith said that all other churches were wrong and that all the creeds are an abomination, etc.

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372; History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476)

"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit."
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.269



1 God Was Once a Man
As We Are Now (p. 151)
When he was a young man, Lorenzo Snow was promised by the Lord through the Patriarch to the Church that through obedience to the gospel he could become as great as God, “and you cannot wish to be greater”(Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 9-10).

President Lorenzo Snow recorded this experience that occurred when he was still a young elder: “The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun shone at noon-day, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man.” Elder Snow expressed this new found understanding in these words: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” Later the Prophet Joseph Smith assured him: “Brother Snow, that is true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you” (quoted by LeRoi C. Snow, in “Devotion to Divine Inspiration,” Improvement Era, June 1919, pp. 651-56).

The Prophet Joseph Smith said:
“...It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth” (Teachings, pp. 345-46; italics in original).

(Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Copyright 1984, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pp. 151-152)

 

[chevyontheriver]

That isn't all your church teaches.

Joseph Smith said that all other churches were wrong and that all the creeds are an abomination, etc.

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372; History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476)

"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit."
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.269



1 God Was Once a Man
As We Are Now (p. 151)
When he was a young man, Lorenzo Snow was promised by the Lord through the Patriarch to the Church that through obedience to the gospel he could become as great as God, “and you cannot wish to be greater”(Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 9-10).

President Lorenzo Snow recorded this experience that occurred when he was still a young elder: “The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun shone at noon-day, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man.” Elder Snow expressed this new found understanding in these words: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” Later the Prophet Joseph Smith assured him: “Brother Snow, that is true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you” (quoted by LeRoi C. Snow, in “Devotion to Divine Inspiration,” Improvement Era, June 1919, pp. 651-56).

The Prophet Joseph Smith said:
“...It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth” (Teachings, pp. 345-46; italics in original).

(Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Copyright 1984, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pp. 151-152)

Trying to get back to the original post here, is there ANY evidence that the early Church Fathers, or even the later ones, would have or could have said ANYTHING like the above quotes? Just checking.

 

[He is the way]

Yes there were lawgivers and prophets before Jesus started His Church. And they can even be referred to as Saints. But the New Testament speaks clearly of Jesus building His Church on the rock. So while we do have continuity with the Temple and the prophets it was Jesus doing a new thing. Which is why we have the priesthood of Melchizedek, of which Jesus held and passed on. But we don't have the priesthood of Aaron, which has passed. In fact many of the Cohen became priests in the Church, priests in the order of Melchizedek.

And yet we are miles apart still. We do not agree on the nature of God, on the creeds, even on baptism. For you do not accept baptisms conducted by Catholics and we do not accept baptisms conducted by the LDS. Now if things are changing among the LDS I'm all for it. But one of the first things you would have to give up is your idea about the great apostasy. Because there really isn't any historical evidence for it.[/QUOTE]
So more questions, which church did John the Baptist belong to? Why was it Jesus' custom to attend church on the Sabbath?

(New Testament | Luke 4:16)

16 ¶ And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

I believe Jesus was building His church, not starting it. Paul predicted the apostacy:

(New Testament | Acts 20:29 - 31)

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

 

[Peter1000]

If you really would change your position, then I shall try. Over the weekend.

I have already started in a small way by asking you if you believe that Jesus started a Church with a two generation shelf life. Did Jesus appoint apostles who could appoint bishops knowing that when the last apostle died there could be no new bishops? That when the last bishops died there could be no new priests? That when the last priests died, the Church would be orphaned? I recall Jesus said something about not leaving us orphaned. If the keys are gone we are orphaned. If the keys are still here we are not.

I'll come back to this later if I can.

I believe that Jesus knew the temperment of the people in the first century. That they were a stiff-necked people, given to fables and stories and would not endure long in the gospel. I believe Jesus knew this. For his revelations to especially Paul confirms he was right.

Just look at his experience with this people. He was the most holy and righteous man that ever existed on the earth. He healed the sick, gave life to the lifeless, taught men about his Father and his God so they could understand who He really was, etc., etc., etc. And what did the people do to this man of men, the holy Son of God? They crucified him on a cross. He was put to death in the most horrible way known to man at that time.

So Paul tells Timothy to expect this:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears,
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Will this be in Timothy's lifetime. I suspect it is, since Paul is warning him of it.

Paul tells Timothy:
2 Timothy 1:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

This is not in the 2nd generation, but the 1st.

Paul tell the elders in Ephesus:
Acts 20:29-30 King James Version (KJV)
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

This will be in the 2nd genertion.

So through these verses we know that Paul knew that it would not take long for the church to be in trouble. And if Paul knew that, where do you think he got his revelation from. Jesus.

However, the Lord did not leave them orphans. Although the priesthood was not among them after the 2nd generation, about 120 ad, Jesus did not leave them orphans. He gave them the Holy Ghost so they could still be comforted that way. Righteousness could still be found in millions of good people.

Even though heaven would not accept their ordinances, because they were done by people who did not have the authority to do them, millions have, and eventually all will have the opportunity to have their saving ordinances done through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who understand this great work, and have the "keys to the kingdom of God" to perform that work. That is a great work being done today, and the completion of the work will be done in the 1000 years when Jesus comes a second time to reign.

So even though the true church did not last very long, all will have the opportunities to be saved in the kingdom of God. Jesus's plan is flawless.

 

[Peter1000]

That's novel. The rest of us consider the Church was founded by Jesus Christ. That he hand-picked the Twelve and bestowed power upon them at Pentecost to go to the ends of the earth. We think Jesus meant what he said when he said that on a great rock he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. You seem to think that Church was already built.

Catholics and Mormons at least agree that there is a priesthood, and that it is conferred by the laying on of hands. We Catholics start with Jesus, who chose the Twelve, and chose Peter as the leader of the Twelve. The Twelve appointed and laid hands on bishops who continued their work. And those bishops appointed and laid hands on priests and deacons. The priesthood they conferred is that of Jesus, which is of course the priesthood of Melchizedek. That priesthood endures in the bishops, who have continued the apostolic mission. Our differences come down basically to your idea of a complete apostasy of the Church. It seems to be a requirement of your religion, but it does not have a historical basis of actually happening.

And I admire the Mormons for their good habits.

Talking about the Catholic church vs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I read an article from a man that said, in regards to the prieshood, the true church has to be either the Catholic church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He came to this conclusion this way:
Peter was given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". The Catholic church believes that Peter handed down those keys to through their line of bishops to the present day. And therefore the priesthood was been maintained by the Catholic church from the beginning. So any church that broke off from the Catholic church has no claim to the keys. That is all eastern orthodox churches and all protestant churches. In otherwords all Christendom except Catholic.

On the other hand, he says, the only other church that can lay ligitimate claim to those keys is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who claim that those keys were taken from the earth and now have been restored by messangers of God who held those keys in the past, namely Peter. Peter, James, and John came to the earth and ordained JS with the "keys of the kingdom of Heaven". He took those keys and was guided to choose 12 apostles and gave them the same authority that the original apostles held from Jesus Christ.

Now the work of the ministry could go forth because the proper foundation of the church was restored:
Ephesians 2:19-21 King James Version (KJV)
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

And the priesthood was restored with 12 new apostles as necessary in the church for these reasons:
Ephesians 4:11-14 King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceieve.
(proof scripture that Jesus true church still needs living apostles)

So look for the church that has the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", and has a foundation of apostles and prophets and Jesus as the chief cornerstone.

According to one man, the true church can only be the Catholic church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since both claim to have the "keys to the kingdom of heaven", check to see which one has 12 acting apostles.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but the first part of that hypothesis is bunk. It's not what the history actually amounts to. Rather, it is the Roman Catholic Church's description of the image it holds of itself. All the other historic churches have competing ones.

Therefore, what you and the unnamed man you cited are comparing is the Roman Catholic Church's functional mythology against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints' functional mythology.

Which of these stories is the most appealing is what the exercise might as well be called, but it's not a real analysis of real Christian history.

 

[dzheremi]

Talking about the Catholic church vs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I read an article from a man that said, in regards to the prieshood, the true church has to be either the Catholic church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He came to this conclusion this way:
Peter was given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". The Catholic church believes that Peter handed down those keys to through their line of bishops to the present day. And therefore the priesthood was been maintained by the Catholic church from the beginning. So any church that broke off from the Catholic church has no claim to the keys. That is all eastern orthodox churches and all protestant churches. In otherwords all Christendom except Catholic.

On the other hand, he says, the only other church that can lay ligitimate claim to those keys is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who claim that those keys were taken from the earth and now have been restored by messangers of God who held those keys in the past, namely Peter. Peter, James, and John came to the earth and ordained JS with the "keys of the kingdom of Heaven". He took those keys and was guided to choose 12 apostles and gave them the same authority that the original apostles held from Jesus Christ.

Now the work of the ministry could go forth because the proper foundation of the church was restored:
Ephesians 2:19-21 King James Version (KJV)
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

And the priesthood was restored with 12 new apostles as necessary in the church for these reasons:
Ephesians 4:11-14 King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceieve.
(proof scripture that Jesus true church still needs living apostles)

So look for the church that has the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", and has a foundation of apostles and prophets and Jesus as the chief cornerstone.

According to one man, the true church can only be the Catholic church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since both claim to have the "keys to the kingdom of heaven", check to see which one has 12 acting apostles.

We dealt with that particular thinking already in another thread in the not-so-distant past. The conclusion was, as far as I can remember without rereading it, that this is a false choice, since there are more historical perspectives and ecclesiologies out there than just the RC or Mormon. That's still the conclusion even as you restate it now.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So more questions, which church did John the Baptist belong to? Why was it Jesus' custom to attend church on the Sabbath?

Not trying to get off track from the OP, but the baptism of John the Baptist would be the baptism of Jesus Christ and his Church if John the Baptist did indeed belong to the Church Jesus founded. But John's baptism was, according to the NT, an incomplete baptism. John was a precursor, a forerunner, a sign of things to come. Just as Moses and the prophets were precursors, forerunners, and signs of things to come.

Jesus attended synagogue on the Sabbath. Which makes perfect sense being a good Jew raised by an observant and most excellent Jewish mother. And in honor of his day of resurrection, most Christians observe the first day of the week as a day of common worship.

I believe Jesus was building His church, not starting it.

And I believe Jesus started His Church with a natural inheritance from synagogue and temple worship. Spiritually we are Semites. And the Church we Christians belong to is the one Jesus the good Jew founded upon a rock. Which comes right back to the OP and the keys.

Paul predicted the apostacy.

Which is likely to happen soon enough. But to presume it happened round about 100 AD is to lose contact with history.

For the record it is 'apostasy' with two 's's.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Talking about the Catholic church vs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I read an article from a man that said, in regards to the prieshood, the true church has to be either the Catholic church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Who is the man? How can I read the article?

He came to this conclusion this way:
Peter was given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". The Catholic church believes that Peter handed down those keys to through their line of bishops to the present day. And therefore the priesthood was been maintained by the Catholic church from the beginning. So any church that broke off from the Catholic church has no claim to the keys. That is all eastern orthodox churches and all protestant churches. In otherwords all Christendom except Catholic.

Not exactly. The authority of the Church is held by it's bishops including the pope, as successors to Peter and the rest of the Twelve. Yet Orthodox bishops are real bishops with real authority. So your unnamed author got it a bit wrong. Pass on his name so I can look at the whole thing.

On the other hand, he says, the only other church that can lay ligitimate claim to those keys is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who claim that those keys were taken from the earth and now have been restored by messangers of God who held those keys in the past, namely Peter. Peter, James, and John came to the earth and ordained JS with the "keys of the kingdom of Heaven". He took those keys and was guided to choose 12 apostles and gave them the same authority that the original apostles held from Jesus Christ.

IF what the LDS claims is true, this would be the case. And yet that is a HUGE if. First problem is there is no historical evidence of a 'great apostasy' around the year 100. Second problem is picking Joseph Smith. St. Joseph was an honorable and holy man. Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter. And why the early 1800's? Why not 5000 years later? Or 1500 years earlier? Or why not just keep the Church alive? That is the far simpler thing, rather than the complex story of the keys being lost and then found in upstate New York.

So look for the church that has the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", and has a foundation of apostles and prophets and Jesus as the chief cornerstone.

Thanks, but I already got one.

According to one man, the true church can only be the Catholic church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since both claim to have the "keys to the kingdom of heaven", check to see which one has 12 acting apostles.

Nice. But with a much bigger Church it makes a lot of sense to have more than twelve. Which is why we have a few thousand bishops doing the work of the apostles today. By the way, was Paul an apostle?

 

[He is the way]

Not trying to get off track from the OP, but the baptism of John the Baptist would be the baptism of Jesus Christ and his Church if John the Baptist did indeed belong to the Church Jesus founded. But John's baptism was, according to the NT, an incomplete baptism. John was a precursor, a forerunner, a sign of things to come. Just as Moses and the prophets were precursors, forerunners, and signs of things to come.

Jesus attended synagogue on the Sabbath. Which makes perfect sense being a good Jew raised by an observant and most excellent Jewish mother. And in honor of his day of resurrection, most Christians observe the first day of the week as a day of common worship.

And I believe Jesus started His Church with a natural inheritance from synagogue and temple worship. Spiritually we are Semites. And the Church we Christians belong to is the one Jesus the good Jew founded upon a rock. Which comes right back to the OP and the keys.

Which is likely to happen soon enough. But to presume it happened round about 100 AD is to lose contact with history.

For the record it is 'apostasy' with two 's's.

Yes we do have some fundamental differences, but I don't believe that Jesus Christ's true church would have tortured people and put them to death:

"The Inquisition was a powerful office set up within the Catholic Church to root out and punish heresy throughout Europe and the Americas. Beginning in the 12th century and continuing for hundreds of years, the Inquisition is infamous for the severity of its tortures and its persecution of Jews and Muslims. Its worst manifestation was in Spain, where the Spanish Inquisition was a dominant force for more than 200 years, resulting in some 32,000 executions."

From: Inquisition

 

[chevyontheriver]

I believe that Jesus knew the temperment of the people in the first century. That they were a stiff-necked people, given to fables and stories and would not endure long in the gospel. I believe Jesus knew this. For his revelations to especially Paul confirms he was right.

Just look at his experience with this people. He was the most holy and righteous man that ever existed on the earth. He healed the sick, gave life to the lifeless, taught men about his Father and his God so they could understand who He really was, etc., etc., etc. And what did the people do to this man of men, the holy Son of God? They crucified him on a cross. He was put to death in the most horrible way known to man at that time.

The eternal Son of the Father came at the fullness of time. At least that is what Galatians 4:4 says. So it's not that Jesus just came at the wrong time, a time when the Church was doomed to fail. He came when the people of Israel were ready for a messiah, when the Church would be able to launch, and when His sacrifice could be made. Your speculation that the Church was doomed fails because Jesus did say that he would not leave us as orphans.

Will this be in Timothy's lifetime. I suspect it is, since Paul is warning him of it.

So through these verses we know that Paul knew that it would not take long for the church to be in trouble. And if Paul knew that, where do you think he got his revelation from. Jesus.

The problem here is making this into an absolute apostasy, which historically did not happen yet, and of making the absolute apostasy a rush thing. There have been small apostasies all along, and there will be more, and perhaps soon enough there will be a big one. But the big one has yet to happen.

However, the Lord did not leave them orphans. Although the priesthood was not among them after the 2nd generation, about 120 ad, Jesus did not leave them orphans. He gave them the Holy Ghost so they could still be comforted that way. Righteousness could still be found in millions of good people.

I'm not sure how you can say the followers of Christ were not left orphans. According to your view they lost the apostles, and their bishops, and their priesthood. For about 1700 years. But what in actuality happened was that baptisms continued, confirmations continued, the Eucharist continued, confessions continued, marriage continued, ordinations continued, and last rites continued. The faith spread throughout the Empire and beyond. Bishops continued on in the faith and the keys stayed with the Church. The keys stayed because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Which they did not do.

And then you have the historical record.

Even though heaven would not accept their ordinances, because they were done by people who did not have the authority to do them, millions have, and eventually all will have the opportunity to have their saving ordinances done through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who understand this great work, and have the "keys to the kingdom of God" to perform that work. That is a great work being done today, and the completion of the work will be done in the 1000 years when Jesus comes a second time to reign.

Are you by chance referring to the LDS baptism of the dead here?

So even though the true church did not last very long, all will have the opportunities to be saved in the kingdom of God. Jesus's plan is flawless.

Jesus' plan was to found a Church, of which the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That's Jesus speaking. Your version has the gates of hell prevailing from about 120 AD until 1820, when some guy rediscovered it all. But that's just not the Bible's version.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes we do have some fundamental differences, but I don't believe that Jesus Christ's true church would have tortured people and put them to death

In other words, the RCC can't be 'the true church' because the people in it acted badly at some point(s) in history. Is that right?

If so, I wonder how you'll talk your way out of things like

• the Mountain Meadows Massacre
• Mormonism's historical treatment of and teachings about black people
• the disputed doctrine of blood atonement
• Mormonism's attempt at theocracy, 'theodemocracy'
• the justification of slavery by early leaders, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young

Etc., etc., etc.

I guess all of these things mean that Mormonism can't be 'the one true church', either.

 

[He is the way]

In other words, the RCC can't be 'the true church' because the people in it acted badly at some point(s) in history. Is that right?

If so, I wonder how you'll talk your way out of things like

• the Mountain Meadows Massacre
• Mormonism's historical treatment of and teachings about black people
• the disputed doctrine of blood atonement
• Mormonism's attempt at theocracy, 'theodemocracy'
• the justification of slavery by early leaders, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young

Etc., etc., etc.

I guess all of these things mean that Mormonism can't be 'the one true church', either.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was not approved by the prophet and the apostles. Brigham Young tried to stop it from happening. Blacks were NOT tortured, killed or denied membership. Capital punishment (blood atonement, though slightly different) has always been carried out by the government. Capital punishment is a form of theocracy. Slavery is justified in the Bible. This is from the article you posted:

"Mormon scripture simultaneously denounces both slavery and abolitionism in general, teaching that it was not right for men to be in bondage to each other."

That being said Joseph Smith didn't have anyone tortured or killed, nor did he kill anyone. Neither did Brigham Young torture or kill anyone. Here is how Joseph Smith treated Blacks:

On one occasion, when mayor of the city of Nauvoo, it became his (Joseph Smith's) duty to fine a black man for violating the city ordinance, with regard to selling liquor. The black man plead for mercy: said that his object in doing so, was to raise money to send for his family. The mayor would not shrink from his duty and he fined him $75.00 but, if he would not be guilty of doing so again, he would make him a present of a horse, to assist him. Which he accepted.

That is why I believe the article is skewed. The things you listed here is nothing compared to the many thousands who were tortured and killed by the early leaders.

 

[Rescued One]

We believe that the priesthood needed to be restored.

Oh, so you think Old Testament prophets had the priesthood and then no one did for the silent years between Old and New? Did Jesus redstore it when he was 12 or later on? Why wasn't he baptized at age 8? Did they have deacons, teachers, apostles, and seventies in the Old Testament? There were no seventies even in the New Testament. Seventy was a number, not a priesthood office.

 

[Rescued One]

In other words, the RCC can't be 'the true church' because the people in it acted badly at some point(s) in history. Is that right?

If so, I wonder how you'll talk your way out of things like

• the Mountain Meadows Massacre
• Mormonism's historical treatment of and teachings about black people
• the disputed doctrine of blood atonement
• Mormonism's attempt at theocracy, 'theodemocracy'
• the justification of slavery by early leaders, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young

Etc., etc., etc.

I guess all of these things mean that Mormonism can't be 'the one true church', either.

You might be interested in this:

Jane Elizabeth Manning James (1822 – April 16, 1908),[1][2] fondly known as "Aunt Jane",[3] was one of the first recorded African-American women to enter Utah.[4]:32–34 She was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and lived with Joseph Smith and his family for a time in Nauvoo, Illinois.[5] She traveled with her husband to Utah, spending the winter of 1846–1847 at Winter Quarters. She petitioned the First Presidency to be endowed and sealed; as a result of her requests she was adopted as a servant into the Joseph Smith family through a specially created temple ceremony. Not satisfied to be an eternal servant in the Smith family, she continued to petition to receive her own temple endowment but was denied these rites during her lifetime. She was posthumously endowed by proxy in 1979.
Jane Manning James - Wikipedia

Jane Manning James - Wikipedia

 

[Rescued One]

First problem is there is no historical evidence of a 'great apostasy' around the year 100. Second problem is picking Joseph Smith. St. Joseph was an honorable and holy man. Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter. And why the early 1800's? Why not 5000 years later? Or 1500 years earlier? Or why not just keep the Church alive? That is the far simpler thing, rather than the complex story of the keys being lost and then found in upstate New York.

I agree. How can anyone claim that Joseph Smith was holier (more worthy) than any other Christian in all those years?

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was not approved by the prophet and the apostles. Brigham Young tried to stop it from happening. Blacks were NOT tortured, killed or denied membership. Capital punishment (blood atonement, though slightly different) has always been carried out by the government. Capital punishment is a form of theocracy. Slavery is justified in the Bible. This is from the article you posted:

"Mormon scripture simultaneously denounces both slavery and abolitionism in general, teaching that it was not right for men to be in bondage to each other."

That being said Joseph Smith didn't have anyone tortured or killed, nor did he kill anyone. Neither did Brigham Young torture or kill anyone. Here is how Joseph Smith treated Blacks:

On one occasion, when mayor of the city of Nauvoo, it became his (Joseph Smith's) duty to fine a black man for violating the city ordinance, with regard to selling liquor. The black man plead for mercy: said that his object in doing so, was to raise money to send for his family. The mayor would not shrink from his duty and he fined him $75.00 but, if he would not be guilty of doing so again, he would make him a present of a horse, to assist him. Which he accepted.

That is why I believe the article is skewed. The things you listed here is nothing compared to the many thousands who were tortured and killed by the early leaders.

Pot calling kettle black. Oh my. Bad Catholics. Good Mormons.

Until you own your own history you have no basis to complain about the history of others. When you own your own history then you can say things about the history of others. But you will be more understanding and less excited to launch into self-righteousness.

The LDS claim of a total apostasy of the Church is convenient. But it does not grapple with history as it really was, neither Catholic history, nor Mormom history.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You might be interested in this:

Jane Elizabeth Manning James (1822 – April 16, 1908),[1][2] fondly known as "Aunt Jane",[3] was one of the first recorded African-American women to enter Utah.[4]:32–34 She was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and lived with Joseph Smith and his family for a time in Nauvoo, Illinois.[5] She traveled with her husband to Utah, spending the winter of 1846–1847 at Winter Quarters. She petitioned the First Presidency to be endowed and sealed; as a result of her requests she was adopted as a servant into the Joseph Smith family through a specially created temple ceremony. Not satisfied to be an eternal servant in the Smith family, she continued to petition to receive her own temple endowment but was denied these rites during her lifetime. She was posthumously endowed by proxy in 1979.
Jane Manning James - Wikipedia

Jane Manning James - Wikipedia

So they made her a slave? Did she stop being a slave at the Emancipation Proclamation? I kind of doubt it. Colorado just removed slavery from their constitution a few years ago and Nebraska just removed slavery from their constitution this year.

How long ago was it that a black man could not become a god because he was black?

Sorry. This is a tangent. Can anyone find anything in the early Church Fathers relating to the LDS claims for their priesthood? Has anyone else read the early Church Fathers?