Any Mormons on here read the CES Letter?

[RebeccaJ]

I think if you actually read any of the letters attributed to St. Ignatius, you’d be surprised.

His ecclesiology clearly connects, and views almost as indistinct, God to the Bishops and the Bishops to God. “Where Jesus Christ is so is the Church”…is Ignatian.

Igantius also wrote to his friend Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna. Asking him to call a local council of Bishops together, in order to elect and consecrate his successor. This being the procedure at the time, for appointing a new Bishop. Ignatius never said that a successor would not be chosen. Antioch was without Ignatius as he was taken to Rome. They were in God’s hands for a time, but that was not a permanent state, and Ignatius knew it was not, as do we, as we know a successor was selected.

Ignatius also wrote to Heron (also called Hero or Heros) where he tells him he hands him over to the church at Antioch and has commended him to Polycarp, and hopes one day to have a vision of him on his throne.

Antioch was a center of Christianity for hundreds of years, they were the first to keep a catalog of Bishops. Heron, also called Herodian, was the successor to Ignatius.

(So again, here we have a Mormon misrepresenting Catholic writing.)

 

[Stephen168]

You appear to be conflating individual apostasy where someone leaves a religious organization to which they previously belonged, and the Great Apostasy ….

Yes, it is very common in Mormonism to conflate individual apostasy and the Great Apostasy. Mormons use examples of individual apostasy in an attempt to prove the Great Apostasy. Of course the Great Apostasy is an anti-Catholic invention adopted by Joseph Smith. Also its date and meaning seem to have changed over time, as necessary, to reflect actual history.

 

[Prodigal1984]

The Book of Mormon, when read in the context of an 1800s work from America bleeds of anti Catholicism. The entire book, one of the underlying themes is that a great and abominable church will arise from Satan by the gentiles and such.
It is actually somewhat surprising so many Mormons engage in discussion on here when they believe Catholics are from a Church built by Satan himself. The irony, as a former Mormon; is that Mormonism is built off of Freemasonry which in my eyes makes them this abominable church.
Another thing you should pick up on if you ever engage with Mormon missionaries is when they tell you to open up to a part of the book, more than half the time the versus from the BOM they refer to are just taken straight out of the Bible. 1 Nephi is all of these versus from the New Testament, a people not even understanding who Christ was, even the Disciples didn’t at first, but the ones who left to the Americas were revealed this. 2 Nephi is basically all just taken from Isaiah. Half the time you think you may be reading scripture when in that book is because good chances are you are, just copy pasted into the BOM from actual scripture and that stamped as being another testament of Jesus Christ. Right.

 

[gazelam]

No absolutely not, I have no reason too.

Perhaps because it would disprove your assertion…

All you have done here is taken snippets of what Church fathers wrote, totally ignoring the greater purpose of what they were writing, probably provided at lds.org.

If they aren’t on lds.org, they ought to be. Please provide evidence of the greater purpose to which you refer.

The major flaw with all of the previous evidence for a total apostasy is that at most it shows only that some members of the Church fell away from the Faith… When it comes to the Catholic Church, what Mormons need to show is that there was a total or universal falling away from the Faith in the first century. The evidence does not support this conclusion… But none of these passages claims that the entire Church would fall away or that every bishop would be replaced with a false prophet.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

This verse shows the whole thing would disappear. And why would there need to be a restitution of all things (Acts 3:21) if the church remained in tact?

For example, in 2 Timothy 1:15 Paul laments how the Christians in Asia (not the continent of Asia but a small area called Asia Minor) turned away from him, not Christ.

Christ and Paul are a package deal. You can’t accept Christ and reject Paul. Matthew 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me,

Interestingly, when Mormons cite Galatians 1:6–7 as evidence of the apostasy, they usually neglect to mention Paul’s warning in verse eight: “[E]ven if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!”

I guess you weren’t paying attention in Seminary. (Scroll down to about the 7th paragraph.)

 

[gazelam]

Finally, along with the lack of evidence that a total apostasy took place, there is positive evidence that such an apostasy could never have taken place. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Peter, “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” LDS apologists claim this means that the Church would never go out of existence permanently, but it could still go out of existence and then be restored by someone like Joseph Smith. But this position is implausible, because in Matthew 28:20, Jesus says, “I am with you always until the end of the age,” and Paul writes in Ephesians 3:20–21,

The claim of early Church indestructibility you make based on the New Testament, could be said of the Jews based on the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31:35-37
Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun to light the day, moon and stars to light the night; Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar, whose name is Lord of hosts:

If ever this fixed order gives way before me—oracle of the Lord—Then would the offspring of Israel cease as a people before me forever.

Thus says the Lord: If the heavens on high could be measured, or the foundations below the earth be explored, Then would I reject all the offspring of Israel because of all they have done—oracle of the Lord.

 

[gazelam]

I know. What is this some sort of missionary work these guys try to do on here?
Why would a Mormon come onto a Catholic forum?

Is it just me, or is it odd for someone to specifically start a thread inviting Latter-day Saints to respond to something , and then complain when they do?

Did you not read the CES Letter? In the section on the Book of Mormon further down it alludes to a First Book of Napoleon and how it stole from that as well.

By the way has anyone ever counted how many times the BOM says And it came to pass?
It is so incredibly repetitive. Sometimes every single paragraph starts that way. I assume it has to be over 300 times.

Funny… There’s not a single “And it came to pass” in the entire First Book of Napoleon.

 

[Stephen168]

3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, received us not .

1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock .

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first , and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me ; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

You made my point

 

[Stephen168]

I guess you weren’t paying attention in Seminary . (Scroll down to about the 7th paragraph.)

Yes, and the lesson concludes: Jesus Christ reveals true doctrine to His prophets. Yet as the CES letter questions, and the Jimmy Akins video you linked to early prove: Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

 

[Stephen168]

Christ and Paul are a package deal. You can’t accept Christ and reject Paul. Matthew 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me,

Another example of the conflation of the part to the whole that you brought up, but is mostly used by Mormons. Again you prove my point.

 

[gazelam]

Ignatius also wrote to his friend Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna. Asking him to call a local council of Bishops together, in order to elect and consecrate his successor. This being the procedure at the time, for appointing a new Bishop. Ignatius never said that a successor would not be chosen. Antioch was without Ignatius as he was taken to Rome. They were in God’s hands for a time, but that was not a permanent state, and Ignatius knew it was not, as do we, as we know a successor was selected.

In the Epistle to Polycarp, Ignatius asks Polycarp to:

to assemble a very solemn council, and to elect one whom you greatly love, and know to be a man of activity, who may be designated the messenger of God; and to bestow on him this honour that he may go into Syria, and glorify your ever active love to the praise of Christ.

This is no indication that the “very solemn council” is a council of bishops, just as there is no indication that the honored messenger of God is a replacement bishop. Of course, this begs the question as to why Ignatius didn’t request that a council of bishops be assembled out of Antioch to select a replacement bishop. The epistle uses the term “bishop” six times, but it’s not used as part of this specific request.

Ignatius also wrote to Heron (also called Hero or Heros) where he tells him he hands him over to the church at Antioch and has commended him to Polycarp, and hopes one day to have a vision of him on his throne.

The Epistle to Hero is considered one of the Spurious Epistles of Ignatius. See here, here, and here. Enough said.

(So again, here we have a Mormon misrepresenting Catholic writing.)

(So here we have a Latter-day Saint learning of the Spurious Epistles of Ignatius for the first time.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’re reaching.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Prodigal1984:

Finally, along with the lack of evidence that a total apostasy took place, there is positive evidence that such an apostasy could never have taken place. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Peter, “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” LDS apologists claim this means that the Church would never go out of existence permanently, but it could still go out of existence and then be restored by someone like Joseph Smith. But this position is implausible, because in Matthew 28:20, Jesus says, “I am with you always until the end of the age,” and Paul writes in Ephesians 3:20–21,

The claim of early Church indestructibility you make based on the New Testament, could be said of the Jews based on the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31:35-37
Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun to light the day, moon and stars to light the night; Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar, whose name is Lord of hosts:

If ever this fixed order gives way before me—oracle of the Lord—Then would the offspring of Israel cease as a people before me forever.

Thus says the Lord: If the heavens on high could be measured, or the foundations below the earth be explored, Then would I reject all the offspring of Israel because of all they have done—oracle of the Lord.

Huh?

I think you are inferring God’s promises in the OT are abrogated by Christianity? If so, Catholicism has no such idea or notion.

The New Covenant of which Jeremiah speaks is something which will come with the Messiah, and it will be like a return to the fidelity and intimacy of the early times. Israel will again become the first-born son of God, and Yahweh will be the tenderest of parents (31:9), but the new Israel will grow only out of the “remnant” of the people which has stayed true (3:14).

The Book of Jeremiah | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Prodigal1984]

Yah.
I have no time for arguing about this.
I grew up in that nonsense. Even did a mission until I saw how stupid it was. The entire BOM is just stolen from the Bible. Literally. 2 Nephi is all just Isaiah. 1 Nephi is talking stuff said word for word in the New Testament. Noone was talking about Christ or rising from the dead in 600 B.C. Why do you think the Disciples never understood it. Plus the entire BOM makes it seem like all Jews rejected Christ. Hello, no they didn’t. All of the original followers were Jewish. Also the church in Jerusalem was Jews. Jews didn’t even crucify Christ as implied in that book. The Roman’s did. There’s so many ridiculous nonsense in there. 1 Nephi they are walking east as if they are going to be walking over the Arabian peninsula. So what they sailed over the Pacific?Lemuel and Laban tie him up, the compass stops and then they untie him and he is good, they sail and land. As if it is that simple. There is absolutely no evidence it is true. The mormon church in Independence Missouri doesn’t even require their members to believe the BOM is true anymore since it is so ridiculous with errors and contradictions. The list just goes on. You are sitting here arguing stuff at me that I used to write to people until ten years ago. I can say it is a waste of time and Mormonism is a big fraud.
Just saying you can cite this stuff till the cows come home, I used to use the same propaganda. It is false and that is all there is to it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I haven’t gone through all of this, so I am glad to see someone recommend Jimmy Akin’s video on the subject.

 

[Arandur]

Some of those quotes have been responded to. As I’m currently reading a book that goes into the Arian Heresy in some depth, you should know that your quotations from Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem (and you’ll find many like them) are attacking the Arian Heretics who have arisen. That heresy was specifically condemned at the Council of Nicea, but gained political power in Rome and was very dangerous with violent persecutions of the Orthodox clergy for most of that century.

Yet the Church defeated the Arian Heresy – through preaching and piety and orthodox councils, NOT the violence and state power that were the Arians’ primary mode.

Just like how the Church grappled with the Gnostic heretics, and even the Judaizers, during NT times. Though of course all these heresies crop up, sometimes with new twists, sometimes not, at various points later.

For instance, Mormonism itself borrows liberally from Gnosticism and Arianism, and even a little from the aforementioned Judaizers, and Pelagianism.

The problem is, it can’t point to any of them as the “true church” that was suppressed, because the elements that were existent in those real historical movements are not anything like Mormonism as a whole.

And moreover, even if Mormons may sympathize with the Arians for the Arian assault on the Trinitarian doctrine (not formulated as such by that time), you should note that even THEY acknowledged that their view was an innovation. The chief objection to the Arian view was that it was NOT what the Apostles had taught, and everyone knew it was not. The Orthodox camp had trouble explaining the logic behind the Trinitarian view (had not even coined the term yet), but they stubbornly insisted on what the Apostles had always taught, and their successors and the martyrs had professed since, which was strongly attested to, and stood against the Arian teaching. They stood by this even though they could not necessarily give a clearer explanation than the Arians at the time.

Point being, the Great Heresies are heresies precisely because it was well known that they were innovations, not what the Apostles had taught. And the orthodox teachings ultimately won the day.

You simply cannot find Mormonism in the Early Church. But the Catholic Church is everywhere in that real history.

 

[Arandur]

Indeed, it is very interesting he would go there, considering that the Jews (who remain Jews and not Christians), against all odds, have been preserved as a people, even flourished at times, despite even rejecting His own Son. So yes, God HAS kept those promises to His Chosen People.

Even more so, we find in the history of Israel MANY actual apostasies, deep, severe, and blatant – openly worshipping other gods. AND YET God preserved them! In fact, He even has prophets condemning the Northern Tribes for having broken away, even while the kings of Judah, like Ahaz, go full-on apostate pagan open enemies of Him and kill his prophets and priests.

So even though the nation of Israel and its leadership DO actually apostatize (many times), God preserves them, calls them the authoritative line, brings His own Son out of them, uses them to begin His Church.

And we are supposed to believe that God, after having endured all that with the Jews and still remaining faithful to them, still calling them His own with authoritative priesthood and kingship, suddenly silently (without anyone knowing) abandons the very Kingdom His own Son established – and is Head of! – for 1500-1800 years? (far longer than any Israelite exile) And then digs up and starts another?

In fact, He did this TWICE (the BoM peoples in the Americas of course also failed utterly). So what’s this, third time’s a charm?

This would have me believe that my Jesus totally SUCKS as a king and head over his own Church. I mean, he failed worse than the Israelites did – they still kept it together with a visible line of authority until his day (and are still around as a people…). And after the special gift of the Holy Spirit, too, in far greater capacity than had ever been given to the Israelites…and after the Resurrection…

How can I believe this sort of thing about my Savior?

It makes him out, also, to be a bridegroom who has abandoned his bride – sure, call her the unfaithful one all you want, Jesus never gave unfaithfulness as a means for divorce, and never divorced Israel for their unfaithfulness, but now he kicks his early Church, and then the Nephite one, to the curb and is on wife number 3?
3 sets of foundations, too…that vision in Revelation needs some correcting…

 

[Arandur]

And to some other points, yes, the Church has always had to deal with false teachers. It was never to be overcome by them. For Christ IS the Church – “Saul, Saul, Why are you persecuting ME?” The Church is his Body – yet a total apostasy would be declaring that body dead again.

So many more passages in Scripture attest to the endurance of the Church, the promises of Christ. But the one that strikes me the most is one that Jesus spoke quite directly:

“I will build my Church.”

He places responsibility for the building of the Church at his own feet. He involves us, but he does not say Peter, the Apostles, or anyone else is responsible for it, ultimately. To claim that the Church went into total apostasy is to claim that Jesus didn’t build his Church, or stopped. It is essentially to claim that Jesus himself is responsible for the apostasy – which is blasphemy. His own words make attacks of this nature against his Church to be attacks against himself.

Further blasphemy is found in that claim when you consider Jesus’s many parables of the Kingdom. For the Kingdom “is at hand” – it had come with the King. That it could be conquered or lost is an affront to the King himself. It makes him the butt of his own parables: he becomes the laughingstock king who did not count the cost of building the tower, or assessing the challenging army; he becomes the fool who built his house on shifting sand.

I know the LDS don’t see it that way, may never have considered these things in this light, but when I am asked to believe the things Joseph Smith puts forward for belief, this is what it seems is being asked of me. To believe such terrible things about my Savior.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is no such thing as a restored church. Creating a post just to repeat the phrase over and over, is also, a cult-like behavior.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Prodigal1984:

https://cesletter.org/

Hope this helps.

No mentioned of Ante-Nicene Christianity here…

Just curious, do you believe that the CES Letter is infallible?

Regarding piety in the early church, it was a unique time in history, where many were called by God to literally, suffer and die for their faith. Ignatius, who you quote, was writing in captivity, and headed to his martyrdom. Not so ironically, but rather sad and somewhat horrific, you try to use the letters of such a faithful servant of God, against him and all he died for. (One can only hope you do this in ignorance.)

Regarding infallibility, which is obviously you making a dig against Catholic teaching…something again, Ignatius defended. At any rate, you are exposing a major flaw in Mormon thinking, that of confusing historical fact as disputable merely by what one believes, with an added bonus of diverting from the subject.

The CES letter is a laundry list of facts, explained well, and kept in context. There is no fallible or infallible, regarding facts. It’s like asserting that “the sky is blue” just might possibly, or hopefully, be fallible.

Examples of facts from the CES letter:

• The BoM plagiarizes the KJV in form, content and translation.
• The BoM plagiarizes “View of the Hebrews”, “The Late War” and “The First Book of Napoleon”.
• DNA analysis concludes that Native Americans are descended from Asians, and not from the Middle East.
• Anachronisms in the BoM indicate it is not an ancient text.
• No archaeological evidence that supports the BoM.
• Smith’s doctrine of deity changed over time.
• There are multiple and contradicting first vision accounts,
• Joseph Smith’s translation of the “Book of Abraham” papyri and facsimiles are gibberish and have absolutely nothing to do with the papyri and facsimiles and what they actually say.

Etc.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello, supposedly 600 BC writings “borrowed” from the NT.