Being investigated by mormons

[wilsonpd]

I have been talking with mormon missionaries for 6 months now. I have absolutely no intention of joining the LDS church however, having discussions with these missionaries has actually led me to a deeper understanding of my faith. I really had to learn a lot in order to defend the Catholic Church. I have been stumped by them in our meetings several times but have always been able to find an answer for them by the next time we met. The last time I met with them we discussed apostolic succession and we all know how that conversation goes. Right before they left one of them said " I know that the papacy is corrupt and therefore there is no apostolic succession because Constantine appointed himself pope." I assumed he meant Constantine of Rome but I can not find anything on the internet to back this up or refute it. Does anyone know what he is talking about? Also, if we believe that the Catholic Church is the church that holds the keys of authority then why do we not “re-baptise” people who convert from other faiths? The Mormons do “re-baptise” because they do not consider a baptism performed by any other church to be valid.

 

[FCEGM]

I have been talking with mormon missionaries for 6 months now. I have absolutely no intention of joining the LDS church however, having discussions with these missionaries has actually led me to a deeper understanding of my faith. I really had to learn a lot in order to defend the Catholic Church. I have been stumped by them in our meetings several times but have always been able to find an answer for them by the next time we met. The last time I met with them we discussed apostolic succession and we all know how that conversation goes. Right before they left one of them said " I know that the papacy is corrupt and therefore there is no apostolic succession because Constantine appointed himself pope." I assumed he meant Constantine of Rome but I can not find anything on the internet to back this up or refute it. Does anyone know what he is talking about? Also, if we believe that the Catholic Church is the church that holds the keys of authority then why do we not “re-baptise” people who convert from other faiths? The Mormons do “re-baptise” because they do not consider a baptism performed by any other church to be valid.

Welcome to CAF.

The LDS missionaries use many of the same false arguments against the Church that the most rabid anti-Catholic Fundamentalists employ, Constatine being one such. If you do a search for “Constantine” at the link to This Rock magazine (at the top of the page) you will find many articles which address the usual claims. Here is an example:

Q: How can you deny that Constantine was the first pope and that he personally instituted the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea (where he also invented the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity)? It’s a matter of historical fact.

A: We deny it on the excellent ground that it isn’t true.

Flavius Valerius Constantinus (275-337) reigned as the Roman emperor between 306 and 337. He never was pope–he wasn’t even baptized a Christian until he lay on his deathbed. He attributed to Christ his winning a decisive battle in Rome at the Milvian Bridge.

Legend has it that a large cross appeared in the sky over his troops, and superimposed on the cross were the words In hoc signo vinces, “In this sign you conquer.” As a result of his victory, he promptly lifted the empire-wide ban on Catholicism (Edict of Milan, 313). Although he didn’t make Christianity the state religion, it achieved that status by the end of the century.

In 325 the Emperor convoked the First Council of Nicaea to deal with the Arian heresy. The pope at the time of the Nicaean council was Sylvester I; reigned from January 1, 314 to December 31, 335. He was the thirty-third bishop of Rome (and therefore pope), which means Constantine hardly could have been the first pope.

The charge that Constantine invented the doctrine of the Trinity can be disproved by studying the writings of the Church Fathers. They taught the doctrine and even used the word “Trinity” as early as the year 181. (For citations see “The Fathers Know Best,” This Rock, July 1991, 23-24).

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9207qq.asp

 

[utunumsint]

I have been talking with mormon missionaries for 6 months now. I have absolutely no intention of joining the LDS church however, having discussions with these missionaries has actually led me to a deeper understanding of my faith. I really had to learn a lot in order to defend the Catholic Church. I have been stumped by them in our meetings several times but have always been able to find an answer for them by the next time we met. The last time I met with them we discussed apostolic succession and we all know how that conversation goes. Right before they left one of them said " I know that the papacy is corrupt and therefore there is no apostolic succession because Constantine appointed himself pope." I assumed he meant Constantine of Rome but I can not find anything on the internet to back this up or refute it. Does anyone know what he is talking about? Also, if we believe that the Catholic Church is the church that holds the keys of authority then why do we not “re-baptise” people who convert from other faiths? The Mormons do “re-baptise” because they do not consider a baptism performed by any other church to be valid.

Welcome

On the second question of re-baptism, the church believes that all baptisms perrformed with a trinitarian understanding are valid. This issue came up in the Catholic Church around the beginning of the third century. BTW, the mormon baptism is not valid because they are not trinitarians. They believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate gods.

God bless,
Ut

 

[FCEGM]

I would also suggest that you tell them to read the witness of the earliest post-Apostolic Fathers of the Church (e.g., St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch) whose writings are readily available at a number of websites (Catholic or not), and also available in a great number of books which present the written corpus of these Church Fathers. Tell them that a serious student of Church history (be he a Catholic or not) should have some knowledge of these men (frequently martyrs). It’s quite easy to access their writings if one wants to know the truth of the very Catholic witness of these men (well before Constantine’s supposed creation of the Catholic Church), not just emote from ignorant animus (which forestalls any serious discussion through “poisoning the well”).

Also, you can tell them that if they knew anything about authentic Christian history, they would know that Constantine had little influence, if any, on the doctrines or beliefs of the Catholic Church. All Constantine did was take those pre-existing (universal) beliefs and use them as a “glue” to hold his empire together. So, have them go read the early Church fathers, as I’ve suggested. The full-blown Catholic Faith is already there, and there universally, long before the days of Constantine, and that’s because it comes from the Apostles themselves.

God bless your efforts!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Keep these two threads in mind

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=297007

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=261486

 

[wilsonpd]

Thanks! These threads will help. I actually am well read on the early church fathers I just could not understand what this missionary meant when he said that Constantine was a self-appointed pope. It made no sense to me. I have asked them to read things several times in the past and they are not allowed. One of the rules of their mission is that they are only allowed to read lds approved materials. Which, BTW, I have always found funny because they beseech me constantly to “test the fruits” but their church forbids them to do the same.

 

[FCEGM]

Thanks! These threads will help. I actually am well read on the early church fathers I just could not understand what this missionary meant when he said that Constantine was a self-appointed pope. It made no sense to me. I have asked them to read things several times in the past and they are not allowed. One of the rules of their mission is that they are only allowed to read lds approved materials. Which, BTW, I have always found funny because they beseech me constantly to “test the fruits” but their church forbids them to do the same.

That’s an excellent point, so keep bringing it to their attention. And though they are not allowed to read non-LDS materials (and they are even limited in the LDS materials they CAN read), you will have planted seeds for future reference.

 

[JRKH]

I have been talking with mormon missionaries for 6 months now. I have absolutely no intention of joining the LDS church however, having discussions with these missionaries has actually led me to a deeper understanding of my faith. I really had to learn a lot in order to defend the Catholic Church. I have been stumped by them in our meetings several times but have always been able to find an answer for them by the next time we met.

You go dude:thumbsup:

The last time I met with them we discussed apostolic succession and we all know how that conversation goes. Right before they left one of them said " I know that the papacy is corrupt and therefore there is no apostolic succession because Constantine appointed himself pope."

Quite frankly I would ask them to produce a list of Popes naming Constantine from an official, verifiable catholic source. It must be a Catholic source in order to demonstrate that the Church ACCEPTED Constantine as Pope.

Also, if we believe that the Catholic Church is the church that holds the keys of authority then why do we not “re-baptise” people who convert from other faiths? The Mormons do “re-baptise” because they do not consider a baptism performed by any other church to be valid.

The Church will rebaptize for certain converts. It depends upon the history and doctrines of the other faith system. A convert from LDS would certainly need to be properly baptized.

By the way did they give you a pamphlet called “The Restoration”? I thought there would be some good stumpers in there, but I doubt that my friends will be back.

Peace
James

 

[wilsonpd]

You go dude:thumbsup:

Quite frankly I would ask them to produce a list of Popes naming Constantine from an official, verifiable catholic source. It must be a Catholic source in order to demonstrate that the Church ACCEPTED Constantine as Pope.

The Church will rebaptize for certain converts. It depends upon the history and doctrines of the other faith system. A convert from LDS would certainly need to be properly baptized.

By the way did they give you a pamphlet called “The Restoration”? I thought there would be some good stumpers in there, but I doubt that my friends will be back.

Peace
James

Good idea! I will do that but of course they won’t do it. I actually don’t think that they are allowed to use the internet except to email home once a week. They did not give me that pamphlet. The only thing they have ever given me is the BOM. Did you mean things that would stump me or them? Oh, and they will be back–that is one thing I have to say for them is that they are persistent! I actually enjoy talking to them. It is like having a small bible study with someone with opposing views. Someone once said that, “the growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement.” I have learned more about Catholicism by debating with them than I have in any other aspect of my life. And they are nice people–tragically misguided–but nice nonetheless.

 

[JRKH]

Good idea! I will do that but of course they won’t do it. I actually don’t think that they are allowed to use the internet except to email home once a week.

You may be right about the list, but you can ask them and if they balk, you can ask them (as you mentioned earlier) why you are asked to test the spirit but they are not allowed to. Catholics are perfectly welcome to investigate any other faith’s documents. In addition anyone can investigate the Catholic Church’s documents. Even many of the most rare and treasured old manuscripts are available to non-catholic scholars. Of course not to just anyone for obvious reasons of protecting them.

They did not give me that pamphlet. The only thing they have ever given me is the BOM. Did you mean things that would stump me or them?

No - Things that might stump them.
One example is that the Mormons believe, according to this booklet, that the Priestly authority died out with the apostles. This is because the apostles never called other apostles (they did of course but they are called bishops.)
Anyway there is a picture of JS being anointed obsensibly by Peter, James and John. My question would be why an anointing by an apostle in 1829 ADis valid but anointing by an apostle was not valid in 35 AD.
It seems like every page had something to laugh about.
This pamphlet clearly states on page 8 that the “priesthood authority” was taken from earth after the death of the last apostle. If this is the case, then there was no authoritative Church to assemble the NT canon of the Bible and thus the Mormons cannot claim the Bible - King James version - or any other. In addition, since the canon was assembled by a clearly apostate church (remember this was at or after Constantine “made himself pope”) it is their duty to reject the Bible canon in toto. Anyway this was my tack with them

Oh, and they will be back–that is one thing I have to say for them is that they are persistent! I actually enjoy talking to them. It is like having a small bible study with someone with opposing views. Someone once said that, “the growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement.” I have learned more about Catholicism by debating with them than I have in any other aspect of my life. And they are nice people–tragically misguided–but nice nonetheless.

Agreed. Very nice fellows. I’d have them back any time. Unfortunately my wife’s (ALZ) is an impediment.

Keep us updated.

Peace
James

 

[Lee1440]

Good luck with your talks with the Mormons. I’ve met several and I’ve always been friendly and gracious with them. And I have a dear friend who is Mormon. But all of our talks have gone in circles. The lack of logic and inability (or is it refusal) to go beyond “pat” answers (that have obviously been memorized) can be stunning. And as for getting them to read or seriously consider opposing viewpoints–that’s where I always run into the proverbial brick wall.

As for appealing to the Bible, that’s no good. Mormons don’t actually revere the Bible the way you would think those who call themselves Christians would do. The first thing they tell you is that the Bible was written by men and that is has been translated so many times down through the ages that no one can be sure of anything it says now. According to them, our Scriptures are filled with errors. This is convenient for them in almost any debate: they can just say, “Oh, that was added later, or that was changed at some date, so we don’t go by that.”

In the first real debate I ever got in with a Mormon, we never really got past talking about our basic idea of God. For me, as with most Christians, God is the Creator of everything that exists, seen and unseen. For her, he was a man first, and God later. How in the world he got there first if he was just a man, and then became God, was never explained. As we pursued this circuitous line of thought, I pointed out that the Creator would necessarily be there (so to speak) before His creation, rather than vice versa.

Her reply? “Some things we’re just not meant to understand.”

What to do?

 

[Lee1440]

I forgot to add: You ever notice that you always see those nice looking clean cut Mormon boys on bicycles…in pairs? They’re not allowed to be alone while they’re missionaries. They ride around, visit homes, and go back to their quarters, in pairs.

No time alone, no time to ponder.

And no time to question.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? What is their church afraid of? That they might start thinking and doubting and searching for answers? And finding them?

 

[mercygate]

I was talking with my aged Mormon uncle last night – he converted after 10 years of marriage to the Mormon woman he loved deeply and faithfully for 67 years of marriage. I asked him what pushed him over, and he said it was the Mormon belief that you can be with your loved ones forever: sealed for time and eternity.

Uncle was not a well grounded Christian AT ALL before he converted, and thus, he was low hanging fruit. Logic never entered into it at all. History was a blank wall for him. It was all about love.

We might do well to take a page from that book (without giving up the rest, of course).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I forgot to add: You ever notice that you always see those nice looking clean cut Mormon boys on bicycles…in pairs? They’re not allowed to be alone while they’re missionaries. They ride around, visit homes, and go back to their quarters, in pairs.

No time alone, no time to ponder.

And no time to question.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? What is their church afraid of? That they might start thinking and doubting and searching for answers? And finding them?

That’s for safety. You don’t go out alone.
Plus, two heads are better than one…usually.

 

[Lee1440]

Well, it may result in added safety and it is true that often two heads are better than one.

But, as Catholics, we know how important time alone is. Silence. Listening to the voice of the Lord. Studying, praying, spending time in silence before the Blessed Sacrament.

These young men are not just in pairs when they are out in public. They are in pairs at their quarters too. Their time is scheduled down almost to the minute. No time for privacy, no time for prayer or study out of the sight of your fellow Mormon.

That may be for safety. Safety for the organization that doesn’t want its people to have time or opportunity to do any serious thinking or praying.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Achilles’ Heel of Mormonism is their belief in the Great Apostasy.

Questions for Mormons Concerning the Great Apostasy

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the true, restored Church established by God after all other Christian churches had fallen into total apostasy. In a 1992 article for This Rock magazine, author Patrick Madrid provided a compelling argument that this Mormon claim is the lynchpin of LDS theology:“The late Bruce McConkie, a Mormon apostle and, during his life, perhaps Mormonism’s leading theologian, explained the concept of the Great Apostasy this way:

“This universal apostasy began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves; and it was known to and foretold by them. . . . With the loss of the Gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages. Apostasy was universal. . . . [T]his darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored Gospel.”(Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966 ed.), 43-44.

“Mormonism’s claim to be the “restored” church hangs upon there having been a complete apostasy. The late James E. Talmadge, prolific Mormon writer and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote:‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel, and re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the holy priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of priesthood and power, since the meridian of time [the time of Christ].

‘The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of the great apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims’(James E. Talmadge, The Great Apostasy (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 1968 ed.), iii. For a discussion of apostolic succession see Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom and The Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1985, 1987).) (emphasis added). “TALMADGE is correct in evaluating the consequences, of course: if no apostasy, no restoration, and if no restoration, no Mormonism.”

​

The issue to be examined, therefore, is whether total apostasy of the Christian Church was possible. The following verses suggest that apostasy was not possible, and questions are submitted to our Mormon friends.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church fell into total apostasy, does this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into totally apostasy for nearly 1700 years, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into apostasy, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church fell into total apostasy, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into total apostasy? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Madrid also reported that “in a written exchange (*This Rock, *(July 1991), 18.), Mormon apologist Robert Starling, attempting to prove the divine origin of the Mormon Church, cited the Rabbi Gamaliel’s prediction regarding the New Testament Church: "f this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39). Starling unwittingly undercut his own claim of a great apostasy. Gamaliel was right. The Church Jesus built could not be destroyed.”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well, it may result in added safety and it is true that often two heads are better than one.

But, as Catholics, we know how important time alone is. Silence. Listening to the voice of the Lord. Studying, praying, spending time in silence before the Blessed Sacrament.

These young men are not just in pairs when they are out in public. They are in pairs at their quarters too. Their time is scheduled down almost to the minute. No time for privacy, no time for prayer or study out of the sight of your fellow Mormon.

That may be for safety. Safety for the organization that doesn’t want its people to have time or opportunity to do any serious thinking or praying.

I didn’t know about that other stuff.

 

[JRKH]

Good luck with your talks with the Mormons. I’ve met several and I’ve always been friendly and gracious with them. And I have a dear friend who is Mormon. But all of our talks have gone in circles. The lack of logic and inability (or is it refusal) to go beyond “pat” answers (that have obviously been memorized) can be stunning. And as for getting them to read or seriously consider opposing viewpoints–that’s where I always run into the proverbial brick wall.

Keep planting seeds!!
Honestly I guess if all else fails, you could hit them with the fact that Jesus started a Church in the Old world that failed in a generation. He founded one in the New world that also failed. So based on the track record, the Mormon Church is already Apostate being easily into the third or fourth generation.
Why should I want to follow a “Prophet” who has failed twice already.
Sorry - My SmAs is showing again.

As for appealing to the Bible, that’s no good. Mormons don’t actually revere the Bible the way you would think those who call themselves Christians would do. The first thing they tell you is that the Bible was written by men and that is has been translated so many times down through the ages that no one can be sure of anything it says now. According to them, our Scriptures are filled with errors. This is convenient for them in almost any debate: they can just say, “Oh, that was added later, or that was changed at some date, so we don’t go by that.”

I agree on this one and I will use a different tack if and when I have the next opportunity. I hope to use some of their own liturature for reference the errors are, after all, pretty obvious. Granted it might take a while for the seeds to sprout.
As for the whole “Bible” Thing, my take is this. If the Bible is so full of errors that “No one can be sure of anything it says now”, why do they carry one and quote from it. Sorry can’t have it both ways.
I did kind of corner a couple of missionaries on the “Tell it to the Church” argument. So maybe - just maybe a small seed…

In the first real debate I ever got in with a Mormon, we never really got past talking about our basic idea of God. For me, as with most Christians, God is the Creator of everything that exists, seen and unseen. For her, he was a man first, and God later. How in the world he got there first if he was just a man, and then became God, was never explained. As we pursued this circuitous line of thought, I pointed out that the Creator would necessarily be there (so to speak) before His creation, rather than vice versa.

Her reply? “Some things we’re just not meant to understand.”

What to do?

Keep plantin’ seeds.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Well, it may result in added safety and it is true that often two heads are better than one.

But, as Catholics, we know how important time alone is. Silence. Listening to the voice of the Lord. Studying, praying, spending time in silence before the Blessed Sacrament.

These young men are not just in pairs when they are out in public. They are in pairs at their quarters too. Their time is scheduled down almost to the minute. No time for privacy, no time for prayer or study out of the sight of your fellow Mormon.

That may be for safety. Safety for the organization that doesn’t want its people to have time or opportunity to do any serious thinking or praying.

Certainly we can’t fault their zeal and discipline.
The Church can prevent them “alone” time but they cannot control their minds. Eventually their time as missionaries ends and they return to a normal life and routine. Then they do have “Alone” time. This is when, hopefully, the seeds we plant can begin to grow and mature. Maybe that question about (fill in blank) will begin to gnaw at them. – Just maybe –

Peace
James