A Catholic Look at Mormanism

[TexanKnight]

Ok, kids are in bed. Let me answer the questions about the priesthood, the three Nephites who were to tarry on the earth, and John who was also to remain till the Savior comes again. In answering this question I am trying to present the LDS view. It is not meant as an attack on the Catholic faith.

I believe the main question is: How can the priesthood be lost if John or the three Nephites were still on the earth?

We believe a restoration was required because Christ’s Church was not on the earth. This does not necessarily mean that there was no person on the earth who held the priesthood. As has been discussed it is possible that John or the three Nephites were on the earth. But the point here is that even if they were here they did not have authority to establish the church or perform the ordinances. The authority from God is necessary to re-establish his church.

There was also a secondary question about what these translated beings were doing during the approximately 1500 - 1700 year span after Christ died.

Of course we don’t know specifically. But from the Book of Mormon we may have a clue. Mormon a Nephite prophet who live 400 years after Christ speaks of the three Nephites. He writes, “…who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.” (Mormon 8:10). So the three Nephites did not stay with the people. This may have also been the case with John but we don’t kow. I think that is about the extent of what can be said.

Ok…if John was still here baptizing and preaching, how was the Church NOT on the earth? What was John bapitizing them into?

 

[Janderich]

What about ancient Christian documents, artifacts…the martyrs, those who kept their faith and worshipped in the catecombs…?? The ancient liturgies…how could anyone define them as corrupt?

What happened to the Holy Spirit at Pentecost???

Why didn’t the Apostles have the same rights and zeal as the original leaders of Mormonism who were able to appoint successors when the Apostles, who witnessed Christ our Lord for 3.5 years, were not??? How come the Holy Spirit not work the same in the Apostles as He did with the Mormon founders?

Kathleen,
In my previous post I don’t mean to imply that the Apostles,the experience at Pentecost and no doubt other experiences and people were all corrupt. Our believes come from our scripture and leaders.

I’m sure you have a lot more knowledge than me on subjects such as those who worshipped in the caetcombs, the ancient liturgies, etc. Why don’t you point me to a good book or two about these and I’ll take a look.

 

[theidler]

Well, this is rather startling…
wivesofjosephsmith.org/

 

[SteveVH]

It is interesting that, while many of Joseph’s wives were very young virgins (the youngest 14 years old), others were women who were already married to other men when Joseph “espoused” them. How can that possibly square with D&C 132?

Joseph also married two pair of sisters (forbidden under Mosaic law) as well as a mother and her daughter (also forbidden under Mosaic law and just really creepy). Both of these the Lord Jehovah declared to be abominations. And yet Joseph Smith gets a free pass from Mormons. I can’t imagine why.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I was just thinking of the rigorous process the Catholic Church imposes when considering the canonization of a person to sainthood. Then I compare this to the life of Joseph Smith, both prior to and subsequent to the establishment of his church. And I wonder how anyone can possibly follow such a man, much less consider him a prophet. We have many examples of saints living a not-so righteous life prior to their conversion; St. Francis comes to mind immediately. But subsequent to his conversion he became so Christ-like that he even bore the wounds of our Savior. It seems that Joseph Smith just slipped further into the darkness. Keep in mind that I would not wish to compare my life to that of St. Francis either, but for a man to establish doctrines and practices in order to satisfy his own fleshly desires at the expense of his so-called flock goes beyond the pale.

 

[KathleenGee]

Amazing differences between the sanctity of Joseph Smith and all his followers vs St Francis of Assisi and all the saints of Christ’s Church.

 

[Janderich]

Ok…if John was still here baptizing and preaching, how was the Church NOT on the earth? What was John bapitizing them into?

TexanKnight, I don’t believe that John was preaching or baptizing. If he was among the people at all they likely did not know who he was.

 

[KathleenGee]

John knew Christ on their first encounter…when they were both in the womb…

Christ was baptized with water…Jesus, the Tree of Life…I think of the tree that grows next to the river, whose roots go down deep in time of drought to draw on living waters…

Water symbolizes washing, making clean…For Christ, the baptism at the River Jordan was the event marking the beginning of His ministry…

John’s entire life was one of penance, to prepare people for the coming of the Lord…

Actually, Jesus drew on many large crowds in the feeding of thousands, many followed Him up to Calvary…many Gentiles converted to Christ in foreign lands when the time was fulfilled for His coming…

If it wasn’t the right time, and there was the Great Apostasy…what Jesus did…His baptism, preaching, healing…was really the wrong time in terms of Mormon beliefs.

However, we see Christ as the One True God, Our Lord, and many people came to Him through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Apostasy means to believe in Christ, then change your mind, reject Christ and then oppose and persecute Him in Christ’s believers.

Actually, this did not happen and many turned to Christ after His resurrection and persevered even into martyrdom.

 

[KathleenGee]

Pentecost is the beginning of the Church. The priesthood and basics of liturgy and morality were already established with the Apostles. To have Church, we must have a consecrated priesthood, successors to the Apostles, consecrated in spirit and truth.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight, I don’t believe that John was preaching or baptizing. If he was among the people at all they likely did not know who he was.

Ah. So you believe John disobeyed Jesus and cared nothing for Jesus" orders?

 

[theidler]

This seems to be just going in circles. I just, I don’t know…this is very frustrating. I had no particular bias towards the Catholic Church, other than I simply wanted to follow the truth where it lead, as they say (look where I ended up!). I’ve studied many world religions, and many have truth in them on some level.
But when I look at Mormonism, it just has zero credibility, it makes zero sense, it cannot stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny, it has changed and morphed so much in the past not even two hundred years, the Book of Mormon has been changed a couple thousand times, Joseph Smith’s dubious past, his polygamy, the absolutely bizarre rants of Brigham Young, the masonic links, the lifting from the KJV Bible, entire civilations who left not a single trace of any kind (even the Olmec civilization left behind remnants of its existence though it disappeared so suddenly), not even DNA behind…the list goes on and on and on and on…I can try and give it the benefit of a doubt, and I am no born skeptic. I like to think I can find truth in every religion. And indeed, the Book of Mormon does teach some find and good things here and there…but for goodness’ sake.
Any of the major world religions can stand up to scrutiny to some degree. But Mormonism is starting to give Scientology a run for its money. I just see nothing that one could even remotely attempt to defend, without descending into blatant historical revisionism or outright sophistry. I’m sorry, I mean it with all due respect. I’m not even someone who likes being skeptical, not in the least. And I respect Mormons as individuals, but the actual doctrines, the actual history, the actual beliefs of Mormonism are just…I just don’t even what to say anymore. I’m kind of at a loss for words here guys.

 

[KathleenGee]

Your blog is beautiful and spiritually rich, reflecting yourself as an adopted son/daughter of the Lord…Ascent of Carmel…

I am under the patronage of Our Lady of Mt Carmel…

 

[theidler]

Your blog is beautiful and spiritually rich, reflecting yourself as an adopted son/daughter of the Lord…Ascent of Carmel…

I am under the patronage of Our Lady of Mt Carmel…

I am humbled, thank you Kathleen - I will be posting often, so feel free to comment, follow it, or whichever you wish.
:blushing:

 

[pablope]

TexanKnight, I don’t believe that John was preaching or baptizing. If he was among the people at all they likely did not know who he was.

What is your basis for this belief? Can youi cite any historical document that says so?

He also ordained and trained some of the early chuch Fathers…among them…

Ignatius of Antioch…who later became the 3rd bishop of Antioch

Polycarp…ordained by John to be bishop of Smyrna, (now part of Turkey)…who later taught Irenaeus.

He also wrote his Gospel and Revelation towards the latter part of his life…so much for him not being active, eh…

 

[theidler]

What is your basis for this belief? Can youi cite any historical document that says so?

He also ordained and trained some of the early chuch Fathers…among them…

Ignatius of Antioch…who later became the 3rd bishop of Antioch

Polycarp…ordained by John to be bishop of Smyrna, (now part of Turkey)…who later taught Irenaeus.

He also wrote his Gospel and Revelation towards the latter part of his life…so much for him not being active, eh…

But apparently the Church went apostate right after the apostles, so really all the martyrs were deluded… and then suddenly 1800 or so years later, TADA! The real church is back!!!
Or something like that anyways…

 

[PaulDupre]

Your blog is beautiful and spiritually rich, reflecting yourself as an adopted son/daughter of the Lord…Ascent of Carmel…

I am under the patronage of Our Lady of Mt Carmel…

I love his blog, too. Very well researched and well written, and very inspiring.

Paul

 

[theidler]

I love his blog, too. Very well researched and well written, and very inspiring.

Paul

Wow…I’m really honored. Thank you! Please feel free to “follow” it, leave comments, or whatever you wish.

:tiphat:

 

[Janderich]

What is your basis for this belief? Can youi cite any historical document that says so?

He also ordained and trained some of the early chuch Fathers…among them…

Ignatius of Antioch…who later became the 3rd bishop of Antioch

Polycarp…ordained by John to be bishop of Smyrna, (now part of Turkey)…who later taught Irenaeus.

He also wrote his Gospel and Revelation towards the latter part of his life…so much for him not being active, eh…

I believe there is some misunderstanding here. I am speaking nothing about John’s known life. This has to do with what happened to John hundreds of years later since we believe he remained on the earth (see John 21:20-23).

 

[Telstar]

I believe there is some misunderstanding here. I am speaking nothing about John’s known life. This has to do with what happened to John hundreds of years later since we believe he remained on the earth (see John 21:20-23).

*[20] Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? [21] Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? [22] Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. [23] This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And **Jesus did not *say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?
Jesus was making an absurd comment as an example that they shouldn’t care what God does for anyone else. Instead, they should focus their attention on their own walk with God, and not be jealous of what anyone else receives from God as spiritual favors. There will always be one person or another that seems to be more favored by God, but it shouldn’t have any affect on our own relationship with Him, because He loves us all. He gave a perfect example of that in His parable of the prodigal son.

 

[KathleenGee]

Agree…

And there are Mormons who believe St. John the Evangelist walked the earth for a long long time…to make up for the Holy Spirit’s exit.

I am very limited in my expressions with Mormonism because it defies common sense.

there was no great apostasy…to call the Catholic Church corrupt in its priesthood and doctrines…this is the crux…and many former Mormons know very well that the main opposition or adversary…in Mormonism’s mind is the Catholic Church…they use the temples to baptize the dead…more up, more baptisms…

Mormonism wants to take the place of the Catholic Church on earth. So the former Mormons were especially delighted to read our responses when the Mormon Church finally got permission to build their temple in the countryside surrounding Rome…where St. Justin the Martyr described to the Roman Emperor in 155 AD in how the Mass was said.

It is Jesus Christ Himself Who spoke through St. John. His gospel explains the contemplative side of Christ’s witness, life, and teachings. He was the apostle closest to Christ…but Christ chose Peter as the primary apostle upon which to build His church.

St. John was entrusted with the care of the Blessed Mother until her passing from this earth.

I prefer to study the truth of Scriptures, the life of Christ and His apostles and from sources who knew them. So much of Mormon teachings are based on some kind of mythoiogy, and many see it through academic research that Joseph Smith probably did not write those papers he claims.

You can bring forth documents, scripture, reasoning…and you go in circles…but you see many reading the Mormon posts…they reflect those seeking the truth, those gleaning for future arguments with Catholics.

 

[pablope]

I believe there is some misunderstanding here. I am speaking nothing about John’s known life. This has to do with what happened to John hundreds of years later since we believe he remained on the earth (see John 21:20-23).

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I apologize.

John 21:

20 Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?
21 Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do?

Lord, what shall this man do? S. Chrysostom thinks, it was the love and friendship, that S. Peter had for S. John, that moved him to ask this question.

*22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me.
*

When Christ told S. Peter to follow him, he meant, that he should go like himself to the death of the cross; but when he says of S. John, So I will have him to remain till I come, he insinuates that his beloved disciple should not undergo a violent death; but remain in the world, till he should visit him by death, and conduct him to glory. It may likewise be understood of the Revelations, in which our Saviour manifested himself in his glory to this his beloved disciple. In the Greek, it is, if I will have him to remain; and this is the true reading, according to Estius, and Jansenius, bp. of Ghent, authorized by many Latin copies. Others refer these words of Christ to his coming to destroy Jerusalem: an epoch which S. John survived.

23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?

This saying, therefore: [4] that is, a report went about among the disciples, the John was not to die. **But S. John himself, as S. Aug. and S. Chrys. observe, took care to tell us, that Christ said not so. **Nor do we find any sufficient grounds to think that S. John is not dead.

From: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_21

Because of the last comment by St. John, as attested by St Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, this means John was to die a natural death, and not be subject to martyrdom…as has been proven as John was the only one of the Apostles to die of old age.