Mormonism, The Cancel Culture Of Christianity!

[@stephanieburns4560]

Wow! I just discovered your videos & I am an under 10 yrs convert to Orthodoxy. Prior to my conversion, I was about to be divorced under terrible circumstances. I needed support & looked around my list of friends & decided to run to the Mormon family I know bc they believe in family. I flew to SLC to avoid the process server & from there was able to text my husband lovingly & get a grip. They supported me in my going to the Orthodox Church on Sunday (loaned me a car) & when I went to a service of theirs, their bishop (God coming through, I think) really read my soul & gave me comfort. I am eternally grateful for my Mormon friends and can in no way judge or condemn this church; I'm still married thanks to them.

[@LadyMaria]

Well, the organization is bad but the people are individuals and there's good ones and bad ones. I'm glad you met the good ones, I wish I'd been so lucky.

[@joliettraveler]

I agree, there is no theological basis for Mormonism.

[@yrgalembokure9137]

God bless you ., Thank you 🙏 so much

[@ramonparson7695]

I am a history buff also a good one my friend keep them coming

[@BILLOFRIGHTSDANGER]

And this year an EQ cracked the SLC temple foundation and trumpet fell off moroni on top of temple. Is there a message ?

[@LadyMaria]

Within recent years a Moroni was struck by lightning and fell off of a temple. Signs are everywhere.

[@dougwbenson]

Cool video Dave. Would highly recommend Bema Discipleship Podcast with Marty Solomon. It will be incredible.

[@marclucas9701]

Rightttt.....

[@marclucas9701]

Sarcastically..... Yeah don't know what you're talking about.

[@grantamann6510]

idk, that Why 1820 talk by Hyrum Smith is a quick example of not cancelling Christian history.

[@myeyepie]

They dont cancel they disagree. Cancel culture tries to silence by coercion.

[@dukeofsahib4967]

That talk is riddled with historical blunders. First of all, there were never two linuses that served back to back as leaders of the Roman Church. According to christian tradition Peter was the first bishop of Rome AKA the pope and was followed up by Linus after his martyrdom around 67 AD and not 42 AD ,as Hyrum Smith claims, and Linus was followed up by Anacletus around 76 AD. He also claims that Romans 1 is evidence of a full scale apostasy with Linus in charge. However, the book of Romans was written in the 50's AD when Peter was still the bishop of Rome. Why would Christ have laid hands on Peter in Matthew 16:18 if he knew he would lead the church into apostasy? Christ promised the exact opposite in the verse and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. He also conveniently ignores the history of the great schism of 1054 between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Also the fact that he was seriously stating debunked anti catholic propaganda as fact such as pope joan makes him essentially lose all credibility when it comes to early church history.

[@myeyepie]

@@dukeofsahib4967 Peter didn’t lead the church into apostasy the Bishops did. Christ didn’t lay hands on Any Bishops. He called Apostles with a Chief Apostle to lead them. That’s why they attempted to replace Apostles when they died because they were required to lead the full Church. A Bishop only leads the temporal needs of a small geographic portion of the church. Bishops are called, answer to, and serve at the pleasure of the Apostles, not other Bishops. Bishops have no authority to pass down their position to others. They must be called as the original Bishop was, by those apostles acting under the authority of the keys which the chief apostle held to direct the work. Why would Christ have called Judas iscariot if he knew he would betray him? God has a purpose and he doesn’t need to explain himself to us. So if the people eventually killed all the apostles then what remained? The same wicked wolves in sheeps clothing that existed during Peter’s and Pauls time trying to deceive the members of the church, AND the same honest and devout members that were doing the best they could to serve God and be a light in a dark world. I don’t think God will fault them for doing the best they could with what they had available.

[@LadyMaria]

@@dukeofsahib4967 Actually history states that St. Peter was not the first Pope. That's Roman Catholic revision. The Roman Bishop didn't start to gain power for centuries and the title of Pope wasn't even used for several centuries. Antioch and Alexandria are both Sees of St. Peter. St. Peter merely died in Rome however it is assumed he was Bishop not substantiated. The only reason why Rome was first among equals was because of its being the hub of Christian activity. When New Rome (Constantinople) emerged old Rome no longer had its sole prominence.

[@LadyMaria]

@@myeyepie You really don't know how the first century Church operated. St. Timothy was a Bishop and he was told to lay hands on men and pass his Succession on by St. Paul who was himself an Episkopos (Bishop in Greek). Therefore he along with many other Episkopoi laid hands on and passed their Succession onto others as they were given the capacity to do. That's how it worked since the first century. All Bishops are Apostles as it means messenger. They are messengers.

[@dietrichjohnson2809]

Hi Dave, I have a question for you. St. Paul indicates in 1 Cor 11:4 that men should not pray or prophesy with their head covered. I have noticed that some Eastern Orthodox Christian priests have their head covered when they pray or preach. What is their argument for doing that?

[@DaveBartosiewicz]

Good question, not sure.

[@myeyepie]

@@DaveBartosiewicz Christ is sometime portrayed as covering his head when reading at synagogue also. It’s probably related to that practice. Can’t say that I know though.

[@BaseCampWV]

Hi Dietrich, St. John Chrysostom wrote on this. paraphrasing- It’s important to understand what is determined to be “prayer” or “preaching” or “prophecy”, and where those definitions differ from instruction & practice. according to both the language & tradition, and also where those prayers take place; whether in the Nave or The Sanctuary. in the Russian tradition the priest will always uncover his head for certain Liturgical prayers in the Sanctuary. It’s important to remember that The Divine Liturgy is for worship, and the sacrament of the Eucharist. Examples in the Russian tradition, the priest uncovers his head for certain prayers at the alter. The Priest never has his head covered when “teaching” such as Catechism classes. i know of no Priest who would lay claim to prophesy. note, this is my own understanding, both as explained to me, and from my own readings so i pray you forgive me where i err.

[@LadyMaria]

I think it has to do with shepherding their flocks. It is like a shepherd's covering of old. If you go to a Divine Liturgy it is removed for prayers.

[@BaseCampWV]

“none of the brethren have seen God, Christ or angels” - Dallin H. Oaks. they’ve even cancelled their own claims to be prophets, seers & revelators.

[@on_the_journey_101]

???

[@myeyepie]

He didn’t actually say that. After describing the forceful call to repentance by an angel that Saul on the road to Damascus received as well as Alma the younger (whom was persecuting the church of Christ) he then said he had never gotten that kind of manifestation and wasn’t aware that any of the other apostles had either. Why would apostles that weren’t persecuting the church require or receive a rebuke like Saul and Alma did? You have to really read their words carefully because oaks especially is a trained lawyer. He chooses his words very carefully. If they were to have had manifestations of this sort, would it be possible that they keep them sacred and not share them freely like casting pearls before swine? After all what would saying so prove to anyone? Nothing. They would simply call them liars and get more outraged. To what end? God clearly doesn’t walk around proving himself to unbelievers as a rule. It doesn’t really work. And it serves only to condemn the ones that condemn it. God doesn’t want to condemn us. He wants to give us every chance he can. But he does reward the faithful with miracles for their diligence and long suffering.

[@BaseCampWV]

@@myeyepie There was no Alma, it’s a fictitious character in a openly plagiarized work of fiction. Comparing Oaks to Paul is laughable. Nice diversion from point, by attempting to separate “the experience” from the circumstances surrounding it. Paul boldly proclaimed Christ, his visions, and the manifestations of Christ, and was martyred as a result. ‘That, should answer your ‘to what end?’ line of reasoning. The pearls before swine analogy and ‘attorney’ argument is a clever way to provide cover for a man who is either a liar, or a coward, or both. God doesn’t require an understanding or recognition of legalese for man to recognize a scam. God, unlike the LDS, doesn’t operate in the rhelm of the absurd. Kudos for adding more evidence to your self evident confirmation bias. You tried.

[@on_the_journey_101]

@@myeyepie im not calling any one out here for not having profound revelation in the sense that paul did however some clarity on the behalf of these men if he did indeed say that hes not aware that any of the high leaders of the lds church did does that mean ever? or current? and its a valid point to ask or clarify athough its good that hes being honest in saying whether he has or not had such revelation the point is i think that the vast majority of mormons believe there high leaders to be apostles prophets seers n revelators correct? that they have a direct connection more than the average person to the almighty? its not wrong to seek clarification of this as the lds church call its leader a prophet in there view as moses was a prophet correct? it wouldnt be wrong to clarify that these men havnt been recieving messages in the same manner as moses

[@myeyepie]

@@BaseCampWV you seem pretty proud of yourself for misattributing a quote that wasn’t said by anyone other than you. It’s your paraphrase. Filtered through your confirmation bias. It goes both ways. If your response isn’t an example of why you don’t cast pearls before swine, I don’t know what is. My response was on point. Yours is just smearing with a straw man argument. Would Paul be proud? Does dishonesty in the name of Christ really track? Hope not. Christ hid all sorts of things in his parables. He did it with the tax trap as well. Everything belongs to God. Nothing belongs to Caesar. Yet he said to render to Caesar what was Caesars even though NOTHING was Caesars. and he let people assume he meant that paying confiscatory and oppressive taxes was somehow right and even owed and fair. At least that’s how the ones that didn’t know the gospel at all took it. And for those that did know Caesar wasn’t owed a dime, Jesus paying tribute for himself and Peter was meaningful. He wasn’t there to solve petty political problems outwardly. Only to see the Israelites back in the same problems with another oppressor. He was there to change hearts. He was there to save souls. And then to let them solve the political problems as well as everything else if they would have him as their King. Go ahead and keep locking what you don’t understand. But one day, hopefully you will realize that Christ wasn’t about mocking but about lifting each other. He was about loving your neighbor AND those you see or see themselves as your enemy. Remember that the way we treat others and the way we forgive their imperfections sets the standard we will be judged by. I wish you well

[@myeyepie]

Thanks for the perspective Dave. But as member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, I can tell you it is quite conservative at it roots. Progressives are trying very hard to change that of course, and they are trying now to change our own history as well. But rather than argue with you about what history is or isn't in regards to apostolic succession, let me ask you this. If you think the restoration of the church is cancel culture and denies the roots, what do you think of all protestantism doing the same? Many of the reformationists like Luther left and at one point or another acknowledged that the Catholics no longer had any authority. So in essence you would be saying that only your sect, the catholic/orthodox church is the authorized church and all others deny that history as a fact according to the way you see it. You cant level an accussation against restorationsists that doesnt usually stick to reformationists as well. Both of those groups agree or realized that the atrocities committed by the catholic branchs were evidence that it was not Gods church but merely an empty form or shell of what it originally was. The vast departure from the biblical record in practice and doctrine also led people there. Disagreeing isnt the same as cancel culture. No member of Christ's church is trying to silence you but cancel culture does attempt that. We are taught to seek knowledge from everywhere and anywhere. If its true it is part of our religion. If its false then we reject it and move on looking for more truth. We don't discriminate on the source although we do measure it by the word of God. We have entire colleges and universities that teach ancient religions and history. You are under a false impression of what the Church of Jesus Christ teachs.

[@DaveBartosiewicz]

Thanks. My purpose was simply to focus on the perspective of JS said that all sects were an abomination to God. It is true that your faith does teach the Priesthood and the Church ended with the Apostles and afterwards it all went haywire especially during the ecumenical councils. When one is taught this, which I was as a Mormon, when just believes it without truly studying the History well. As for as the Roman Church from the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, there was a schism in 1054 from the other 4 jurisdictions/sees of Christ's Church. The other 4 Jurisdictions/Christian Centers are the Eastern Orthodox Church. We never left the faith or altered it and it grew eastward. The Roman Church changed the understanding of the agreed and historically written Nicean Creed from the Church and altered a number of other things regarding the papacy, filioque, original sin, purgatory, immaculate conception of Mary, etc. From the Roman Church, the reformation started and many denominations as well as you. We were predominational, the first that started with the Apostles and still have all the same dogmas, sacraments, teachings, etc. The priesthood never failed, 2,000 years later, we are still here today. How can something be restored if it was never broken? Something to think about?

[@myeyepie]

@@DaveBartosiewicz the church and the gospel didn’t fail, the people did. You might interested to know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn’t just teach that priesthood line was broken from Christs church to our day. But that basically happened every dispensation of time. What I mean is that every dispensation has a restorative prophet that acts as head of that dispensation and that church. Adam was the first prophet and established the first church. Then over the course of time the people became increasingly secular until the church was essentially lost and only Noah and his family remained. The ark and flood marked the end of. Dispensation and start of a new one where Noah reestablished or restored the gospel again. Then it slipped into apostasy again until Abraham’s day. And then Moses came to restore the gospel again and establish the laws again etc. then Christ, then Joseph smith, and at the start of the millennium Christ will come back again for that. I may have missed one. But essentially this is a pattern that repeats. It isn’t meant to attack the remnants of Christs dispensation. But after killing the Christ and the apostles there was a pretty undeniable dark period called the dark ages for a reason. The gospel needs a restorative every thousand years or so. We believe the catholic priesthood claim comes through an apostate Bishop in Rome that has. I authority to call or pass the priesthood on to anyone. A police man can’t just run around making everyone else a police man because he wants too. He can’t setup his own department because he wants too. He can’t start rewriting the laws because he wants too. Neither could the orthodox or catholic church’s. This was clear to so many that’s why they tried to start their own reformations even though they knew they didn’t have authority they expected that one day Christ would have a prophet restore his church and keys of authority again. I get that you see it differently and that’s fine. I guess I am saying it’s not personal. Everything these people have done at whatever time and place they existed, is legit and counts for something in that they truly tried to serve God the best they knew how go own the circumstances. We believe something like 90% of those that have ever lived will accept the gospel of Christ once they are finally the opportunity. But no fault will be applied where they simply didn’t have it available due to the choices of generations before of which they had no control.

[@swagner7767]

Conservativism is cancel culture incarnate. Who was responsible for the satanic panic, red scare, and prohibition? It wasn't the "left", that's for sure.

[@DaveBartosiewicz]

@@myeyepie Yes, your view is not based on the factual history of the Church but based on projection and incorrect analysis. Jesus declared that His Church would not fail and Orthodoxy declares not subjectively but objectively that His Church still stands today. Please research it and if you sincerely desire to discuss the Truth of it, we can.

[@paulpaul1802]

The LDS Church claims to have the only priesthood authority. No other church can reunite us with God the Father. No other church can baptize with authority etc. Can you please show me where in the Bible that it teaches that this authority must be handed down by apostles? Prophets? This authority never came from apostles in the first place. It came from God the Father through the Holy Spirit. I don’t think as many people would have major issues with the LDS church if they didn’t claim to be the only church with any authority. Authority was never lost in the church just because apostles and prophets passed away. There is no scriptural support for this claim.

[@dustdustdust807]

you could say the SAME THING ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH......actually after John it gets very sketchy..actually during the original 12 apostle it was sketchy.....hell while Jesus was on the cross christianty looked pretty dead no?.....why dont you talk about the CANCEL CULTURE OF THE PHARISSSSSSSSESS

[@LadyMaria]

(Orthodox) Christianity began at Pentecost AD 33. No idea what your point is.

[@ernestmarcucella6918]

Yes it makes sense to me.

[@dustdustdust807]

i am trying to find real mormons.....are there any real mormons out there????

[@myeyepie]

What’s a “real Mormon”? I would call myself a devout saint if that qualifies in your book.

[@jimmymendez9995]

I agree

[@mahonrimoriancumer9932]

sorry mormonism didn't work out for you. Move on man. Enjoy the safe and conservative culture of Saint George largely because of the good people of the LDS faith . Let is go.

[@LadyMaria]

No one is good.

[@sisknothinbutruth2684]

🤣🤣🤣Funny how you managed to "cancel" all your religions evil practices by simply dismissing their bad behavior while attacking others for "canceling". You're probably better off staying in your own lane.

[@LadyMaria]

What evil practices or bad behavior?

[@marksanderbeck4246]

Another spot on vidio. You went over many of the points you discussed yesterday. Thank you for your intellectual conversation of their cancel culture. Your in site of mormanism is awesome.

[@myeyepie]

if thats true for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that their perspective on Christian history is accurate then it applies to all of protestants as well because they believed the church apostatized as well. I have found Dave to be kind, sincere, and devoted to finding and seeking God. I love that. But as a member of the church in question, I can say that one members experience is not always the full perspective and not usually a fully accurate view. My experience in the Church of Jesus Christ has been different than Daves from what I gather.

[@LadyMaria]

@@myeyepie Protestantism is predicated on the Roman church going off the rails provoking Luther to write up his 95 theses. We Orthodox Christians believe that the Roman church went off the rails too, though in a different way. We believe it started going off the rails as early as the 9th century when the Papacy started really pulling for power over the other Patriarchs (our Patriarchs). It started implementing things into its beliefs that were not taught before and even against the previous Ecumenical Councils. Of course this can just be seen by history.

[@buellerferris]

PS: Ironic and quite hypocritical of you to talk about cancel culture when you made a video trying to get people to cancel Spencer's. You are so double stardard and a true hypocrite