The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God


Let me trace this.
I was told that a press conference demonstrated convincingly that President Nelson was not the prophet. I quoted the Bible and explained why I didn’t think there was any such evidence. I truly believe being Biblically literate would have helped, but I wanted to point out that it requires a great deal of Charity to believe Pope Francis has any chance of being an infallible Pope (concerning faith/morals speaking from Chair of Peter…). I would then ask for a tenth of this degree of charity to be afforded to the CoJCoLDS leaders (who are not infallible and hold the same office Moses - the Bible guy I mentioned).
In response to that Horton said something that is not true. Something that 4 Cardinals believe to be untrue, something that 62 priests and scholars believe is not true. I just pointed it out.
I do frequently point out that Catholicism falls easily with the type of criticisms you offer against my church. I admit there are problems with my church, seldom do I see anti-Mormon Catholics here (on the open board) admit there are any problems. I have regularly claimed to follow Cardinal Newman’s appeal, “10000 problems do not a doubt make.” Newman was a faithful Catholic, but he would not ignorantly defend everything that is defended by anti-Mormon Catholics here.
I said above that the priesthood ban is a blight. It is. It is a small problem when it comes to the LDS truth claims and there is one big problem, but it is a blight.
What are the biggest Catholic problems in your opinion?
Oh, and do you agree with Horton that:

I am guessing you do not agree with her. I am guessing you will not respond. But, I really do not know.
Charity, TOm


Done here. Setting thread to “ignore.”


By alluding you imply. Because you allude and imply so often you get replies like: wa wa wa waaaaa. I’ve stopped hunting down your implications because they almost always led to nothing.

So you, in fact, have no response.

I did and the answer was not there, because I’m not in error. I responded on Jan 22 giving explanations from Joseph Smith and Spencer Kimball about why I’m not.


Frustrating isn’t it?


Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

Eusebius referring to his own day wrote:

We [sank] into negligence and sloth, One in being and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, on the point of taking up arms against each other, and where is sailing each other with words as with darts and Spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity; … we added one wickedness in misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strides, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other. (Eusebius, ecclesiastical history, 8:318)

Tertullian observed “The gospel was wrong we preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized… so many priestly functions, so many ministries were wrongly executed.” (The Ante-Niceness Fathers, 3:256)

Pope Adrian VI stated in 1522:

We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

I hope this helps…


So are using these writings to say the Catholic Church is wrong and your church is right? I don’t see where the church failed, by the church I mean Christ. Men are sinful and do wrong. It does not mean the Church failed. Everyone here knows that the Catholic church has had bad popes and clergy. It happens. Your church is no different. The only difference is that we don’t believe in Christ failing were as your church is built upon this assumption. Anyone can take writings and twist them to say it says something that it doesn’t.


These quotes show something amiss in the ancient church. The New Testament tells us that:

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock (Acts 20:29)


For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths (2 Timothy 4:3, 4)

Fortunately, The Bible also tells us there will be a restitution of all things.

and that the Lord may grant you times of refreshment and send you the Messiah already appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old (Acts 3:21)

Here are three things that IMHO needed restoration.

1. Baptism by immersion. The word “baptize” comes from the greek meaning “to immerse”. Yet many churches today accept sprinkling and pouring in addition to immersion.

The Epistle of Barnabas states:

Blessed are they that set their hope on the cross, and go down into the water,… because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth. and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the spirit. (The Apostolic Fathers, page 185)

In addition, around 250 AD, Cyprian was asked the question: Could those who were sick and infirm merit God’s grace and be “accounted legitimate Christians” if they had only been sprinkled and not immersed? (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:400)

It seems an odd question to ask were affusion already an accepted practice.

Will Durant observed: By the ninth century, the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in the Northern climes… (Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, pg 738)

2. Confirmation with two hands

Acts 19:6 And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Confirmation in the Cathlolic Church is performed with a single hand.

CCC 1300 The essential rite of the sacrament follows. In the Latin rite, "the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand

Does the RCC today consider Paul’s confirmation invalid? The two forms are different.



3. Communion

John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day

The belief in the Catholic Church today is that the “body, blood, divinity, and soul” are found in both the species of the bread and the species of the wine. And this has led to the practice of allowing participant to receive either the bread or the wine. Scripture clearly requires both. John 6:54 does NOT say "Whoever eats my flesh and blood or drinks my flesh and blood has eternal life…

I hope this helps…


William McLellin spent time with Joseph Smith’s brother and was made a Mormon Apostle. He never heard of heavenly visitors giving Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood authority until 1834.

Here is more of the Painesville article you quoted:

By this authority, they proclaim to the world, that all who do not believe their testimony, and be baptized by them for the remission of sins, and come under the imposition of their hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and stand in readiness to go to some unknown region, where God will provide a place of refuge for his people, called the “New Jerusalem,” must be forever miserable, let their life have been what it may. If these things are true, God has certainly changed his order of commission. When Jesus sent his disciples to preach, he gave them power against all unclean spirits, to cast them out, to heal all manner of diseases, and to raise the dead. But these newly commissioned disciples have totally failed thus far in their attempts to heal, and as far as can be ascertained, their prophecies have also failed. Jesus Christ has forewarned us not to believe them: “There shall arise false Christs and false Prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect behold – I have told you before, we give too much credit to these men.”

As you can see the author of the article was NOT a Mormon. He was writing about Mormonism and what he thought of their leadership. It is not a record of what Mormons were saying about themselves, so I would not take any stock in the words used in the article. After reading other articles about Mormons at the time, I think the author was probably being sarcastic about Cowdery’s “commission from God.”

There is no record of a Melchizedek Priesthood being received until 1834-35.


Catholics receive both the Body and the Blood (ie: what you refer to as the bread and wine). Mormons are not to drink wine. Therefore, yours would be cracker and grape juice or perhaps, water, and merely a symbol. Jesus is not a symbol to Catholics.


Are you referring to the Confirmation of children/teens or ordination? You are actually referring to both of these in your post.


Yes, that is the reason given and believed by most Mormons at the time. David O. McKay did call it a practice not a doctrine which means it could change. Two points:
Mormonism only has a problem with changing practice when Catholics do it. It is the excuse for the Great Apostasy. Yet, Mormonism does it all the time.

The belief by most Mormons in the Mark of Cain actually makes it dogma which can never change, yet they changed it. There were a lot of Mormons shaken by this at the time.


While you want to use your confused understanding of the above paragraphs as proof the Catholic Church is false, none of it proves the LDS to be true. None of it legitimizes your next prophet or spokesman of you god.


What is the ancient church? There was no mention of a church until Christ founded it. You have it backwards. Acts came after Jesus. The apostles are teaching about what is to come. Namely anyone that would preach another gospel and lead Jesus flock astray. As far as baptism, what if there is no water for a full immersion? The baptism wouldn’t count then? Of course Pauls conformation is valid. Just because one does not lay hands but rather one hand doesn’t make it invalid. So if you have a group of people laying hands and one person can only get 1 hand in is it invalid? As far as communion, the C.C has had it right from the beginning. Some people don’t like the wine, so are they sinful because they don’t want the wine? There are times where the may run out of wine at Mass. You can try and twist scripture to suit your needs and to make it sound like everyone else is wrong but those with ears will hear the truth and whats not the truth.


Amen, Apache75. And the Catholic Church speaks the truth. We preach, teach and believe the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.


This passage is from Tertullian’s Prescription against Heretics ( and it is interesting that you quote this particular work by him. The particular passage may be found in chapter 29 of his work, written about the year AD 200… The start of this chapter reads,

In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns!

Here, Terullian is being just a little bit snarky. He’s saying that IF heretics (Marcionites and Valentinians) had to provide the truth, then before they showed up, the gospel was wrongly preached, etc. Clearly, reading the rest of the work indicates that Tertullian does NOT see a Great Apostasy. He sees heresy, it’s true, But he is not saying that everything is falling apart. He’s saying the exact OPPOSITE of what you were implying, that there was an Apostasy. Here is the beginning of the work (chapter 1),

The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being approved. 1 Corinthians 11:19 Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offense of the many who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies prevail to such a degree

There was no Apostasy.



@ Gazelam. Since you quoted Second Timothy I will quote something from 1st Timothy. II: Sound Teaching. “Warning Against False Doctrine” 3 I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines 4 or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received in faith. 5 The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. 6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, 7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses the law, 9 with the understanding that the law is meant not for the righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who would kill their fathers or mothers, murders, 10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.


Cont… Actually I’m not surprised that you would only pick and quote what you seem would be a good defense for your religion. These 2 books themselves show and teach me what is wrong with your religion and those who follow it. You may think “No, that’s not us or me” but your own church thinks its righteous. Look at all the stuff that’s out there for sale with the CTR inscription on them. Chose The Right? Sounds to me like your church thinks its perfect and righteous. I would believe it if it was humble but its not. Think about these things. I don’t want your soul I to go to hell. I want to go to heaven and meet you there along with all the LDS and others from different religions.


I love Paul’s warning against teaching false doctrine. Thanks for the refresher!!


I hope that we all go to Heaven. Take care and God bless you.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit