A paradox in "The Apostasy"

[JMM1957]

**He was not infallible. He was right. ** I have taken many tests in school and received perfect scores. I am not infallible, just right.
The requirement that the church is incable of making errors (in certain things) is a Catholic requirement for the Catholic Church. For those who do not study history, it might be comforting, but for those who study history it requires ALOT of explaning. I have tried to find out where “infalliibliity” teaching began in the Catholic Church. The first council I could find was Vatican I. The idea that the church was indefectable is early (though I do not know when it was in an EC).

The closest thing to an indefectable guarentee LDS possess is the beleif that this is the last dispensation and will only end at the return of Christ not in an apostacy. For a long time I viewed this belief as just another claim like those made throughout history. Today, I think it a product of human advancement not the absense of freedom to error among church leaders. I have aluded to this here, but this is a long essay that I find interesting:
mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
Again, not infallibility, but God’s progressive development of the human race.
Charity, TOm

Denying that Joseph Smith spoke infallibly when he claimed he was told all churches were wrong, and agreeing that he was right, is just an opinion or feeling, hardly something I would want to trust my salvation to.

 

[TOmNossor]

My opinion is that for the LDS to teach its members that the Bible is “not perfect or complete”, only opens the door for the introduction of later revelation (Joseph Smith) to somehow “restore” what was once lost.

Lost books (from LDS website)
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Regardless, what the ancient Church assembled as the canon of the Bible through the deliberation at many councils through the inspiration of the HS, is what God intended for us to know about Him and His plan for salvation, period.

I hope this means we are in agreement that the partial acceptance of the scriptural canon by LDS does not mean there is a contradiction as claimed in the OP.

IRegardless, what the ancient Church assembled as the canon of the Bible through the deliberation at many councils through the inspiration of the HS, is what God intended for us to know about Him and His plan for salvation, period.

“Period!” I appreciate your testimony. The very human debates, diliberations, and disagrements associated with the non-infallible (by Catholic definitions, and rejected at other points) councils that originally declared the canon are evidence against at the very least a CERTAINTY that you claim.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Denying that Joseph Smith spoke infallibly when he claimed he was told all churches were wrong, and agreeing that he was right, is just an opinion or feeling, hardly something I would want to trust my salvation to.

It is a position backed up public revelation. It is a position that better explains the restoration than any Catholic theory as to how the restoration happened. And it is a position that aligns with millions of “private revelation.”
I think the evidence deserves consideration, but the private revelation is what C.S. Lewis would call the contents of our own private mailboxes.
Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

It is a position backed up public revelation. It is a position that better explains the restoration than any Catholic theory as to how the restoration happened. And it is a position that aligns with millions of “private revelation.”
I think the evidence deserves consideration, but the private revelation is what C.S. Lewis would call the contents of our own private mailboxes.
Charity, TOm

And what makes your personal “private revelation” or millions of LDS better than any of the other billions of non-LDS who claim the same for their belief system? That the HS convicted them? With wide ranging beliefs, they can’t all be right, the HS doesn’t operate that way. You can’t avoid it TOm, it all comes down to authority, who has it and who doesn’t have it, to proclaim the infallible truth. Is there any inerrant truth in the LDS teachings?

 

[JMM1957]

From FairMormon;

Charles W. Penrose:

Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.[13]

But what if God reveals infallible truth to a man, is that truth still infallible, or does it become infallible truth? If you say it becomes infallible, then why do we accept the Bible as truth?

 

[Melchior_1]

TOmNossor, I would really like it if you (or someone within the LDS faith) could address my previous posts.

 

[JMM1957]

The very human debates, diliberations, and disagrements associated with the non-infallible (by Catholic definitions, and rejected at other points) councils that originally declared the canon are evidence against at the very least a CERTAINTY that you claim.
Charity, TOm

CHAPTER III
SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
   **
   Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind”** (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

 

[Stephen168]

My opinion is that for the LDS to teach its members that the Bible is “not perfect or complete”, only opens the door for the introduction of later revelation (Joseph Smith) to somehow “restore” what was once lost.

Yes, history proves you are correct. The Mormon Church may add or subtract from their “additions” beyond the New Testament, but they clearly accept the Catholic canon of the New Testament.

Lost books

(from LDS website)
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Regardless, what the ancient Church assembled as the canon of the Bible through the deliberation at many councils through the inspiration of the HS, is what God intended for us to know about Him and His plan for salvation, period.

More clearly it proves there were many possible Christian writings which were considered and rejected by the Catholic Church to establish the canon which the Mormon Church accepts. They accept the canon of an “apostate” Church but reject many of its beliefs established before the canon. The Paradox!!

 

[rcwitness]

Lost books (from LDS website)
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Some important things should be recognized regarding this claim.

First, the Jewish nation did not have a Canon of Scripture (until the supposed council of Jamnia, after the destruction of the Temple). So from these references, we do not know that these writing were ever considered “inspired” Scripture. Secondly, I don’t think these books are even available to us anymore, so they obviously were not preserved through God’s sovereignty. Thirdly, we do not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith. So even if there are “lost Scriptures” (which the Church does not Teach) we would not be lacking sufficient knowledge of God’s Teaching in the Canon of Scripture we do have, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching.

What seems incredibly lacking, is any substantial evidence of an “Apostacy” at all! The Son of God came to establish His Church, and there is nothing to support a claim that He would send a prophet to re-establish what He Himself founded!

Criticize abuses of Sacred Teaching and the Faith within the Church all you want! And do so with reason and evidence. But to say:
The Apostasy began when the church organized by Jesus Christ did not function as he had created it to do so and in particular, no longer had authorized servants to advance the work of his church.
And/or
I am not arrogant in having a conviction of the truth of my church. That conviction came from the Holy Ghost.
… does not have any sound evidence or merit.

Matthew 11
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John
Luke 16
The law and the prophets wereuntilJohn

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor, I would really like it if you (or someone within the LDS faith) could address my previous posts.

Hello Melchior I will see what I can do. I went back to your LAST POST IN THIS THREAD and thought it would be interesting to respond. If you had a different post in mind, please specify …
But, how about you respond to what I say in this post in addition to asking for a response from me concerning a different post.
I bolded some questions for you.

Then Paul is certainly not an Apostle, since he didn’t personally witness the Resurrection. Neither did Titus, nor Timothy. Which calls into question their authority. Luke and Mark also were not among the Twelve, meaning we must reject their authority as Gospel writers.

There’s no prohibition of ever replacing the Twelve again in that passage, rather it gives what Peter felt was the criteria. The criteria to be one of the Twelve and the means to elect them could certainly change over time, especially if someone held the office of Cephas and exercised that authority. During those moments, right after the Resurrection, the onus would have been to make sure someone was giving first-hand information As time went on and people held the traditions which they have been taught, whether by word, or epistle, this criteria possibly became less important.

I mean, does any Christian branch still cost lots to determine their leadership? The criteria and mechanism changed, but the office/role remained.

This is a very LDS line of reasoning and I applaud it. You of course are arguing against something a Catholic said, but I will build on your position here.

God has provided revelation to His church leaders throughout periods during the Old Testament and in the New Testament timeframe. There are things that these leaders all have in common like they all wore sandals. There were things these leaders did not have in common. Few of the Old Testament leaders evidence that they knew about the Virgin Birth, but all the New Testament leaders surely did. I agree with you the criteria to choose Matthias was a specific criteria for that time and place. The casting of lots looks peculiar to our 21st century sensibilities, but God works within the culture of His inspired leaders.

I again agree with you that the selection of Paul as an Apostle is another different event. Paul is called an apostle in the Bible, but most important for my position is that he receives Revelation for the guiding of the entire church and he writes scripture.

Now, I think we have some disagreement about Timothy and Titus. I do not believe Timothy and Titus could or did write scripture for the entire church. They were local bishops not general authorities for the entire church. The Greek for Bishop and Apostles is used somewhat interchangeably, but the positions seem very distinct. I believe that Titus and Timothy were entitled to receive revelation, but only for themselves and the local region to which they were selected to be Bishops over. Do you believe Titus and Timothy could write scripture? Do believe they were entitled to receive revelation for the entire church? Do you believe they were entitled to receive revelation for their local area.

Now you say, ”The criteria and mechanism changed, but the office/role remained.” I think we disagree here.

It is clear that Apostles and Bishops existed side by side in the early church. Apostles were inspired, received Public Revelation, and wrote scripture. Bishops did not write scripture. Historical documents suggest that in the first century Apostles were not LOCAL, but traveling (what I would call GENERAL) authorities. Bishops were local authorities. Historical records point to a Jerusalem based church VERY early on where most general authorities resided when not traveling. But, Christians knew Jerusalem would have problems while Christ still lived. There is some evidence that Rome became a Christian center after Jerusalem. But, there is evidence for Antioch and Alexandria and much later Constantinople. This evidence in no way changes the fact that Apostles whether residing in Jerusalem or Rome were not the same as Bishops who were local authorities residing in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, or … The most glaring difference is what I regularly point out, Apostles received REVELATION for the entire church. Local bishops never have and today’s Bishop of Rome cannot. ** Do you see this difference?**

Based on my research it was around 200AD that the Early Church began teaching that Public Revelation had ceased. Tertullian a brilliant ECF claimed that it continued and he celebrated some purported revelations. The response of the Catholic authority was that public revelation had ceased. They (the Catholic authorities) didn’t receive it and Tertullian was wrong to think others did. They might have claimed that Tertullian was wrong because they were the authorities who receive revelation, but that was not true and not what they said. I have found no evidence for the END of REVELATION being the plan until these 200AD or so church leaders declared this is God’s way and we should expect no REVELATION. Do you see an earlier time when revelation was declared ended? Why do you think Tertullian and presumably others expected revelation to continue?

Hopefully you can answer my questions too!

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

And what makes your personal “private revelation” or millions of LDS better than any of the other billions of non-LDS who claim the same for their belief system? That the HS convicted them? With wide ranging beliefs, they can’t all be right, the HS doesn’t operate that way. You can’t avoid it TOm, it all comes down to authority, who has it and who doesn’t have it, to proclaim the infallible truth. Is there any inerrant truth in the LDS teachings?

I am not claiming that you should believe because of my personal revelation.
I think there are is a lot of evidence that should give a rejecter of the CoJCoLDS pause.
I think the evidence that the origins of the BOM and the CoJCoLDS is supernatural is substantial. I think explaining this from a Catholic perspective is problematic. That is one of the reasons I think reason ALONE directs me to be a LDS.
But, I do not think nor argue that you should be a LDS because I have a testimony.
Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

Do you see an earlier time when revelation was declared ended? Charity, TOm

3Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)

Definition of “once for all”:
now and for the last time; finally.
synonyms: conclusively, decisively, finally, positively, definitely, definitively, absolutely, irrevocably; for good, for always, forever, permanently; for keeps
“I’ve made up my mind, once and for all”

 

[JMM1957]

I am not claiming that you should believe because of my personal revelation.
I think there are is a lot of evidence that should give a rejecter of the CoJCoLDS pause.
I think the evidence that the origins of the BOM and the CoJCoLDS is supernatural is substantial. I think explaining this from a Catholic perspective is problematic. That is one of the reasons I think reason ALONE directs me to be a LDS.
But, I do not think nor argue that you should be a LDS because I have a testimony.
Charity, TOm

I’m speaking of who has authority to pronounce unchanging doctrine. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. True doctrine doesn’t change with the times, or with a change in administration.

 

[Stephen168]

I think the evidence that the origins of the BOM and the CoJCoLDS is supernatural is substantial. I think explaining this from a Catholic perspective is problematic.

That is one of the reasons I think reason ALONE directs me to be a LDS.

I think you have violated the second law of rational thought, again.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Ditto. “Because I feel it, it’s true”. Isn’t a great argument.

 

[CourtingTex]

What the church of Jesus Christ became, the key word, is no contradiction.

I understand the loyal Catholics will have their view about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well yes, we have our view of it because it makes a direct counterclaim to the Catholic Church. I mean no disrespect to Mormons, but there’s no historicity to it beyond the 19th century to now. It can’t be the church Jesus Christ founded. Because it didn’t even exist until the 19th century. Just tell me, why should I trust Joseph Smith over all the other restoration groups of that time.? Why shouldn’t I be a campbellite? Or a Jehovah’s Witness? I’m not trying to sound rude or anything, but a bunch of other groups claim the same thing, and I don’t believe them either. Now that being said, I’ve met Mormons that are good kind wonderful sweet charitable people, and I’m very blessed to have met them. But I see Arguments for the LDS church being a restoration of God’s Church to be well, quite honestly I find it ridiculous. And not only that, the whole thing about dark-skinned people being cursed by God, yeah I don’t think my mother is very happy with that one.

 

[CarolNoel]

Exactly. Great point.

 

[De_Santo]

The common answer to the OP would be that God protected His written Word. Plain and simple.

Although, I do know one guy that has decided there are several false books in the NT canon that were put in there by evil men to lead people astray. He doesn’t identify himself with any particular “brand” of Christianity, but I know he rejects any NT book that wasn’t written by one of the 12 Apostles. For instance, he would tell you that Luke is a false teacher.

Not sure if he has added any apocryphal books to his canon. I’ll have to ask him that when I talk to him again.

 

[eddietoo]

those who believe the Church founded by our Lord needed to be restored do not understand that this means that Jesus either did not know how to or did not want to ensure His Gospel was present to each and every human being while they were on earth.

those who believe the Church needed to be restored never answer why Jesus would want His Gospel to go in to hiding (so to speak) for hundreds of years. they do not explain why Jesus, who is almighty and perfect God, would be unable to ensure that His Gospel be available during the lives of every person born after the Lord’s Ascension.