CA article: "What's Your Authority?" Discussion

[TOmNossor]

John Henry Newman said anti-catholics like to believe there was once a pure Christianity which then became corrupt. Then they have to draw a line between what is pure and what is corrupt; and then give a date for the corruption. These anti-catholics use the “dictum of Vincent of Lerins” for that purpose. While this dictum “provides a bulwark against Rome,….it opens an assault upon Protestantism.

As John Newman discovered while investigating the development of Christian doctrine for his essay, the Vincentian Canon supports Catholic belief. Unique Catholic beliefs are there, while unique Protestant beliefs are not. We can say the same for Mormonism; their unique beliefs are not there either.

Truth be told St. Vincent is often misused by Catholic and non-Catholic alike. It seems Newman without expounding it with tremendous clarity in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine had a more full view of Vincent than most. That being said, a theory of development is necessitated because contrary to what most Catholics claim, you cannot find “unique Catholic beliefs” “believed everywhere, always, and by everyone.” Newman sights a few examples of things that were “believed” at a time that developed and are heretical now. Transubstantiation is one of the subjects in which he lists many Fathers who held now heretical views. So, I am not sure what you mean when you say, “Unique Catholic beliefs are there, while unique Protestant beliefs are not.” If you mean that the Fathers did not believe that which is now heretical, you are mistaken. I do agree that Newman discovered that he could not draw a line in history where the Faith was what he embraced as an Anglican and not what Catholics embraced.
As I think you know, I think there are good and less good examples from Barry Bickmore where he points to the unique “doctrines” of Mormonism in the ECF. If anyone is interested here is a review by a non-LDS of his book (and a link to his book):
Barry Bickmore’s book Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity
The whole book here:
fairlds.org/authors/bickm…y-christianity
A review written by a non-LDS
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ…2&num=2&id=361

As the CA article said, “Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’.” It seems the idea of a belief being essential or not must be unique to Evangelicals, Mormons, and, Fundamentalists.

Here you have said something more than the article did and you are in error.
The article said that Protestants have no way of knowing what is essential and what is non-essential. I believe this to be true.
The idea that there is “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity” is usually wrongly attributed to Augustine, but it has been used by Catholics including a former Pope.
So, you are at odds with many Catholics including a Pope when you claim, " It seems the idea of a belief being essential or not must be unique to Evangelicals, Mormons, and, Fundamentalists."

I have on this board explored doctrines that I think STRAIN Newman’s thesis where there is “liberty” to embrace different theology in the MODERN Catholic Church (but I think there shouldn’t be such liberty based on “early anticipation” and reasonable IMO preserving of Tradition).
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

Not this again.

 

[Stephen168]

SOME of Joseph Smith’s speculations on what the BOM was contradict with likely fact not to mention with others of Joseph Smith’s speculations on what the BOM was. To me this is evidence that the BOM is not the brain-child of Joseph Smith.
That Joseph Smith didn’t know where the remarkably consistent geography existed, how large or small this geography was, or … is evidence that unlike C.S. Lewis he did not create a geography and overlay a story. The BOM came forth with consistent geography detailing a limited geography and Joseph Smith was quite ignorant of what the geography underlying the book looked like or even if the geography comprised 100’s of miles or 1000’s of miles. The text and science strongly condemns some of Joseph Smith’s speculations on the BOM. This is because he was not the brilliant author of a geographically consistent book but rather the prophet-translator of a book whose author knew more about the geography than Joseph could ever hope to know (at least ever hope to know via natural means and it appears there is no supernatural gift of geography for a LDS prophet).
All that being said, what I meant was that the BOM is a book that burst upon the scene in the 1830’s, claiming to be an ancient document. Unlike other scripture like the Bible, the BOM has not come to us from ancient times via human transmission. So the evidence that the BOM is an ancient text (Lehi’s travels on the Frankenscience trail from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful and other evidences) lend support to the idea that there is something more than mere human hands that lead to its “bursting upon the scene.” For those of us who consider such things this lends support to the idea that Joseph Smith is at the head of a restoration of the original apostolic authority that is no-where else evident in modern Christianity (as I mentioned in my first post).

It doesn’t matter who was the “brain-child” of the Book of Mormon. It matters that it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. Which means Joseph Smith is not who he claimed to be, Therefore there is no Christian authority in Mormonism.

And the fact that the Book of Mormon “bust upon the scene in the 1830’s” is one of the many facts which prove it not to be what Joseph Smith said it was. It is a 19th century document, not an ancient document.

Truth be told St. Vincent is often misused by Catholic and non-Catholic alike. It seems Newman without expounding it with tremendous clarity in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine had a more full view of Vincent than most. That being said, a theory of development is necessitated because contrary to what most Catholics claim, you cannot find “unique Catholic beliefs” “believed everywhere, always, and by everyone.” Newman sights a few examples of things that were “believed” at a time that developed and are heretical now. Transubstantiation is one of the subjects in which he lists many Fathers who held now heretical views. So, I am not sure what you mean when you say, “Unique Catholic beliefs are there, while unique Protestant beliefs are not.” If you mean that the Fathers did not believe that which is now heretical, you are mistaken. I do agree that Newman discovered that he could not draw a line in history where the Faith was what he embraced as an Anglican and not what Catholics embraced.

None of this refutes what I said about Newman.

The dictum of St. Vincent is a rule to be used to identify new heresies in the Church. You are not using it that way. As John Newman said, the way anti-Catholics use it, the way you use it, brings an assault upon Mormonism. Your Church of Jesus Christ (Mormon) standard of God’s Church fails the test.
As John Henry Newman suggested, where do we find the dictum of Vincent in regard to barring blacks from the priesthood, exaltation, polygamy, Melchizedek Priesthood, excommunicating Apostles, blood atonement, or water baptism on behalf of the dead. These unique Mormon doctrines were believed by the early church: nowhere, never, and not by anyone. By using the Vincentian Canon you have opened “an assault upon” Mormonism that practices inventions not restorations.

Here you have said something more than the article did and you are in error.
The article said that Protestants have no way of knowing what is essential and what is non-essential. I believe this to be true.
The idea that there is “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity” is usually wrongly attributed to Augustine, but it has been used by Catholics including a former Pope.
So, you are at odds with many Catholics including a Pope when you claim, " It seems the idea of a belief being essential or not must be unique to Evangelicals, Mormons, and, Fundamentalists.”

No, the article said Evangelicals and Fundamentalists; and because you agree I assume Mormons, believe there are in fact “essentials’ which non-Catholics hold in common. No where in the article does it claim that Catholics believe there are “essential” beliefs. So your claim the Catholics believe there are “essentials” and they can’t agree on them is not true.

I have on this board explored doctrines that I think STRAIN Newman’s thesis where there is “liberty” to embrace different theology in the MODERN Catholic Church (but I think there shouldn’t be such liberty based on “early anticipation” and reasonable IMO preserving of Tradition).

On this board you have shown that you misunderstand Newman, most Catholic beliefs, Christian history, and the scientific proofs against the Book of Mormon. When you are shown how very wrong you are, you stop posting for a few months and then return with the same old stuff again.

 

[Stephen168]

Not this again.

Yes, Tom is back with his old polemics.

 

[Tarquin]

SOME of Joseph Smith’s speculations on what the BOM was contradict with likely fact not to mention with others of Joseph Smith’s speculations on what the BOM was. To me this is evidence that the BOM is not the brain-child of Joseph Smith.
That Joseph Smith didn’t know where the remarkably consistent geography existed, how large or small this geography was, or … is evidence that unlike C.S. Lewis he did not create a geography and overlay a story. The BOM came forth with consistent geography detailing a limited geography and Joseph Smith was quite ignorant of what the geography underlying the book looked like or even if the geography comprised 100’s of miles or 1000’s of miles.

This is quite false. Until relatively recently, the official position of the Mormon Church - whether or not they used the word “official” and whether or not they said it was “doctrine” - that is, the teaching that came from the pulpits, was taught in Sunday School, appeared in the church literature, and appeared in the Book of Mormon itself, was that the Book of Mormon contained the history of “the people” - not ‘some of the people’ - of the Americas, North, South, Middle, and Inuit land. In fact, the teaching went further to include Polynesians and Melanesians. “Limited geography” is a modern innovation, to accomodate the ever accumulating data falsifying the claim that the Book of Mormon is true history. If one were to argue that the earlier Mormons said what they did because they didn’t have enough information, that holds true today, too. In the same way, one could argue that modern Mormons don’t have enough information; when they get enough, they will see that rather than “all the Americas,” rather than “some inhabitants,” the Book of Mormon will in fact be telling the story of “none of the inhabitants” in “no area” of the Americas.

I find it strange that you would say that Joseph Smith contradicting himself about the Book of Mormon is evidence that it was not his creation. Many fiction writers write contradictory statements in their books.

As for the geography being consistent, the less said, the easier it is to be consistent. So little was said, that no location mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be identified today - with one exceptional category. That category is the area between the Great Lakes, the Atlantic, including the region of Lehigh County, towns of Oneida, Alma, Ephraim, and possibly Angola (incorporated after Joseph Smith’s time; I don’t know if it existed unincorporated during his lifetime). There were two Great Lakes in particular that stood in a relation similar to two Seas in the Book of Mormon - Ontario to the North and Erie to the West. In addition, there was a sea to the East - the Atlantic Ocean. If the Atlantic is the East Sea, and Erie is the West Sea, and Ontario the Sea North, and probably the Gulf of Mexico being the Sea South, Joseph could easily have maintained a consistent geography even without having a map at hand. But places without names in 1830s United States have no real existence - no Nahom, no Ammonihah, no Zarahemla, no Lehi-Nephi, no Gadiandi, no Gadiomnah, no Gimgimno, no Jacobugath, no Kishkumen. I am sincerely, sincerely sorry. I wish I could say something more hopeful or supportive. I cannot because the evidence *against *the genuineness of the Book of Mormon is overwhelming.

So the evidence that the BOM is an ancient text (Lehi’s travels on the Frankenscience trail from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful and other evidences) . . . .

. . . have been debunked as evidence of the Book of Mormon as genuine history, no matter how many times you say it, and no matter how confident you are that it is true. I won’t go over that ground again, but it is totally, completely, unequivocally, certifiably, without merit. (But I do love your pun!)

 

[TOmNossor]

It doesn’t matter who was the “brain-child” of the Book of Mormon. It matters that it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. Which means Joseph Smith is not who he claimed to be, Therefore there is no Christian authority in Mormonism.

I think we just disagree here.
Joseph Smith claimed at one point in time that the BOM was a history of ALL of North and South America and their inhabitants. I agree with you that this is an error. I disagree with you that this means Joseph Smith couldn’t be a prophet and the BOM couldn’t be an ancient book.

And the fact that the Book of Mormon “bust upon the scene in the 1830’s” is one of the many facts which prove it not to be what Joseph Smith said it was. It is a 19th century document, not an ancient document.

I personally believe the evidence that it is an ancient document is strong and specifically stronger than the evidence that it is a 19th century document EXCEPT for the one fact that we all agree upon and that is that it was first put on paper for modern readers in the 19th century. I lean toward the view that the evidence in support of ancient origins for the BOM point strongly towards the existence of supernatural forces in the universe, but accepting God as a real being for other reasons, I think the BOM having supernatural origins is supported by the evidence far more than purely naturalistic origins for the BOM.
If I placed 0 value on answers to prayer or any other supernatural conformation of the CoJCoLDS, it is explaining the existence of the BOM that I find most problematic with being a Catholic. I would of necessity adopt, “the devil did it” where I to decide I could not be a LDS. And were I to decide I could not be a LDS, I would be a Catholic who recognized his own limitations concerning “preservation of Tradition,” “Infallibility of Councils,” and … I presently find it intellectually more congruent to recognize my own limitations concerning the production of the Book of Abraham (the biggest problem for an informed LDS IMO) and other LDS issue and not have to embrace the problems with Catholic truth claims. I expect you disagree, of course most of what I hear on this board is that the problems with Catholic truth claims are figments of my imagination (or I do not understand), so that does little to convince me that there are real solutions.

The dictum of St. Vincent is a rule to be used to identify new heresies in the Church. You are not using it that way. As John Newman said, the way anti-Catholics use it, the way you use it, brings an assault upon Mormonism. Your Church of Jesus Christ (Mormon) standard of God’s Church fails the test.

As John Henry Newman suggested, where do we find the dictum of Vincent in regard to barring blacks from the priesthood, exaltation, polygamy, Melchizedek Priesthood, excommunicating Apostles, blood atonement, or water baptism on behalf of the dead. These unique Mormon doctrines were believed by the early church: nowhere, never, and not by anyone. By using the Vincentian Canon you have opened “an assault upon” Mormonism that practices inventions not restorations.
As you know “nowhere, never, and not by anyone” is inaccurate as most of what you list has been traced to ECF documents with varying degrees of appropriateness (I provided a link).
But, a church lead by REVELATION does not follow the “dictum of St. Vincent.” It is the Catholic Church that CANNOT initiate “theological novum” because the Catholic Church believes (unlike the Apostolic Church of the first century) that public revelation has ceased.
I judge the Catholic Church by St. Vincent, and you can judge the CoJCoLDS by it if you wish but I think such is flawed.

No, the article said Evangelicals and Fundamentalists; and because you agree I assume Mormons, believe there are in fact “essentials’ which non-Catholics hold in common. No where in the article does it claim that Catholics believe there are “essential” beliefs. So your claim the Catholics believe there are “essentials” and they can’t agree on them is not true.

You said before:

It seems the idea of a belief being essential or not must be unique to Evangelicals, Mormons, and, Fundamentalists.

I was merely saying that you misspoke or do not understand the Catholic faith as “the idea of a belief being essential or not” is not “unique to …” but is also part of Catholicism. Do you agree with me that “essential” beliefs and “non-essential” beliefs are a part of Catholicism?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Tarquin!

I find it strange that you would say that Joseph Smith contradicting himself about the Book of Mormon is evidence that it was not his creation. Many fiction writers write contradictory statements in their books.

Your statement shows much of what I am saying. It is not the geography of BOM that has “contradictory statements in” the book like “fiction writers” are prone to include. INSTEAD it is the consistent geography in the BOM (no small task) and the ignorance of Joseph Smith concerning even a simple thing like does it cover 100’s of miles or 1000’s of miles. Joseph Smith might have been a geographic genius as he invented the BOM then forgot all he developed while creating such consistency. His later ignorance of the BOM geography was a product of this forgetting. But I find this unlikely.

As for the geography being consistent, the less said, the easier it is to be consistent.

Old World geographic references are about 60 for the journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful, but the fact that Jerusalem has the same name and location today as it did in Lehi’s day makes the reconstruction much easier. These 60 points, including the place name Nahom (NHM in Hebrew inscriptions from Lehi’s time) have resulted in general consensus by LDS scholars.
New World geography included 600+ references (Sorenson) and 300+ (Clark). Both of these well respected scholars (Anthropology/Archeology and Archeology) point to a Mesoamerican location for the BOM and the differences they posit are minor points. But, I would not call 600+ references “less said.”

But places without names in 1830s United States have no real existence - no Nahom, no Ammonihah, no Zarahemla, no Lehi-Nephi, no Gadiandi, no Gadiomnah, no Gimgimno, no Jacobugath, no Kishkumen. I am sincerely, sincerely sorry. I wish I could say something more hopeful or supportive. I cannot because the evidence *against *

the genuineness of the Book of Mormon is overwhelming.
I have read the Great Lakes theories put forth by 19th Century BOM origin adherents and I find them less compelling than the Ancient Mesoamerican theories. It is clear from Joseph Smith’s statements that he did not create a geography in the BOM to match the Great Lake geography of his day. He could have, he just didn’t.
Nahom of course shouldn’t be found in the America’s because in the BOM it is located on Lehi’s Old World journey not in the New World.

. . . have been debunked as evidence of the Book of Mormon as genuine history, no matter how many times you say it, and no matter how confident you are that it is true. I won’t go over that ground again, but it is totally, completely, unequivocally, certifiably, without merit. (But I do love your pun!)

Yes, I know. I am truly and genuinely impressed by the Jerusalem - Nahom - Bountiful Old World connection. I read the “debunking” and I do not cease to be impressed. I have brilliant friends who believe in geocentrism and I am almost as baffled by the lack of credence placed on the Old World BOM journey as I am by the lack of credence these folks assign to relativistic experiments and other anti-geocentristic evidences. I am not sure I expressed that correctly, but hopefully you get my point. I have seen a few folks here comment and dismiss the Old World journey in the BOM and I do not get it. Furthermore, this dismissal has not led me to believe that the Old World journey is any less remarkable than I thought it before.
I do take some solace in the handful of attempts I have seen by critics to explain the Old World journey in the BOM by appealing to natural means Joseph Smith could have KNOWN about the walk along the Frankincense trail. I find these attempts to be inadequate to the task of providing a natural means for the production of the text AND an implicit acknowledgement that this Old World journey is as powerful as I think it to be.
But, I cannot see into the thought process of the detractor (you) any more than you can see into my thought process so I will keep saying that this Old World journey is REMARKABLE and you can keep saying it is DEBUNKED.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The authority of the CoJCoLDS LIKE the authority of the post ascension (of Christ) church is the divinely chosen, revelation guided, men who are called Apostles and who we believe speak for God (ie they are “prophets” or ones who speak for God).

This is my understanding of what Mormons believe to be the authority in the Mormon Church; Apostles. They claim to speak to, and speak for God; except when it turns out they are wrong then is becomes “speculation.”

SOME of Joseph Smith’s speculations on what the BOM was contradict with likely fact not to mention with others of Joseph Smith’s speculations on what the BOM was… The text and science strongly condemns some of Joseph Smith’s speculations on the BOM.

Of course Mormon scripture does not say these are speculations. It says that Joseph Smith’s claims about the Book of Mormon are the direct result of Joseph Smith speaking with an angel from God.
Mormonism is based on Joseph Smith’s claims about his direct communication with God and it turns out that many of his claims have proven to be false; most important is the Book of Mormon .

So, I say all this to suggest that “looking to the Fathers” is not near so clear as the Catholic Answers crowd seems to imply. I have looked to the Fathers and I see DEVELOPMENT or CHANGE (they are related) and I see this occurring via an authority that claims to not receive revelation.

Mormon Doctrine changes so quickly that most of the Mormon Apostles seem to have been wrong in their communications with God according to later Mormon Apostles.
The Mormon Church was 5 years old before there were any Mormon Apostles and the claim that authority comes from Apostles was an invention of Brigham Young; 14 years after the establishment of the Mormon Church.

“[The Rule of Vincent] lays down a simple rule by which to measure the value of every historical fact, as it comes, and thereby it provides a bulwark against Rome, while it opens an assault upon Protestantism.”-John Henry Newman
I think of John Henry Newman when Mormons question the historical authority of the Pope or changing doctrine. When using their standards against the Pope and Catholic Doctrine it “opens an assault upon” Mormonism.

I judge the Catholic Church by St. Vincent, and you can judge the CoJCoLDS by it if you wish but I think such is flawed.

I judge them both by the same standard. You have to use a double standard because the Catholic Church stands with reason while the Mormon Church does not. Holding a double standard is flawed reason.

 

[dronald]

Please, tell us how you think we would interpret it?

Wouldn’t count. That Paul was writing to just those people for that time; he didn’t mean his writings and the writings of all of the Apostles. “Do not go beyond what is written” would essentially be a rejected command.

By a Holy Spirit led Catholic Council conducted in the late 4th century? That’s how we know. Do you use the 73 book canon or the 66?

Ours has 66 in it. I do like the others though.

Not a cop out at all, and we’d probably tell you “Sure, Paul says that.” But then follow it up with “Why should I accept your interpretation?” What makes you the grand pooba of Scripture? That’s what we want to know.

Well, if Paul said it; and he meant what he said, then how do we interpret it any other way than what and how he said it?

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
Thankfully (for me) I only have a little to add to your post as I think the rest has been well enough trodden.

I judge them both by the same standard. You have to use a double standard because the Catholic Church stands with reason while the Mormon Church does not. Holding a double standard is flawed reason.

I don’t think you think this represents my thinking, and to the extent it represents yours, I think you have made an egregious error that results in your conclusions being almost valueless.

I believe a church that claims to be led by revelation and that this revelation can create CHANGES should not be judged by a “preservation of Tradition” standard.
I believe a church that claims to preserve Tradition and receive no Public Revelation should be judged by a “preservation of Tradition” standard.

Now, the Divine Church once restricted the priesthood to the sons of Aaron, but this changed during Christ’s ministry on earth. The Divine Church once had a set of inspired books passed down from before 300BC, but the post Christ’s ascension Apostolic Church wrote other inspired scripture. All of the above we agree upon. None of the above follows the “preservation of Tradition” no new public revelation standard. To be Catholic is to believe that the Divine Church was once lead by men who received public revelation, but is currently lead by men who do not (and as a result a “preservation of Tradition” seems prudent). To be a LDS is to believe that the Divine Church should ALWAYS be led by men who receive revelation (and as a result there is almost no “preservation of Tradition” idea - and there shouldn’t be).

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I personally believe the evidence that it is an ancient document is strong and specifically stronger than the evidence that it is a 19th century document EXCEPT for the one fact that we all agree upon and that is that it was first put on paper for modern readers in the 19th century. I lean toward the view that the evidence in support of ancient origins for the BOM point strongly towards the existence of supernatural forces in the universe, but accepting God as a real being for other reasons, I think the BOM having supernatural origins is supported by the evidence far more than purely naturalistic origins for the BOM.
If I placed 0 value on answers to prayer or any other supernatural conformation of the CoJCoLDS, it is explaining the existence of the BOM that I find most problematic with being a Catholic. I would of necessity adopt, “the devil did it” where I to decide I could not be a LDS.

While there is scientific evidence contrary to your belief, you believe because you believe.

I have seen a few folks here comment and dismiss the Old World journey in the BOM and I do not get it. Furthermore, this dismissal has not led me to believe that the Old World journey is any less remarkable than I thought it before.

Science has shown the story in the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work of fiction. All biological and anthropological evidence tells us it is not true. We have known this for at least 40 years. That is why I dismiss the Book of Mormon as history; as claimed by Joseph Smith.
As you have shown, you only demand history of the Catholic Church and demand nothing of the Mormon Church. This is consistent with Mormon historian Richard Lyman Bushman, “Mormons are in the anomalous position of saying that a spiritual testimony, not empirical proof, undergirds their faith, while all the while furiously working to dig up evidence in support of the Book of Mormon.”

Thankfully (for me) I only have a little to add to your post as I think the rest has been well enough trodden.

Yes, what I said are irrefutable facts which you have always had to ignored; like you did just now.
Mormonism “authority” in a Mormon Apostle does not hold up to the facts of history. When taken in total, I have to conclude that a Mormon’s authority lays in themselves. Regardless of facts or reason, they just believe. While I don’t have a problem with that, it is very hypocritical of them when they try to hold the Catholic Church to a standard which the Mormon Church fails at so miserably. The Mormon Church is a 19th century American invention, started by a 19th century American man, which held 19th century American beliefs. It has little to do with the ancient Christian Church started by the second person of the Divine Trinity. There is no Christian authority in the Mormon Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

While there is scientific evidence contrary to your belief, you believe because you believe.

Science has shown the story in the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work of fiction. All biological and anthropological evidence tells us it is not true. … That is why I dismiss the Book of Mormon as history; as claimed by Joseph Smith.
As you have shown, you only demand history of the Catholic Church and demand nothing of the Mormon Church. This is consistent with Mormon historian Richard Lyman Bushman, “Mormons are in the anomalous position of saying that a spiritual testimony, not empirical proof, undergirds their faith, while all the while furiously working to dig up evidence in support of the Book of Mormon.”…
Mormonism “authority” in a Mormon Apostle does not hold up to the facts of history. …
Stephen,
I do not ignore your facts, I merely question either what you claim to be fact or what you claim to be the only interpretation of facts. I have acknowledged a number of places where you claim fact x means conclusion y that I disagree. Here is one on this very thread:

Stephen168;12780929:

It doesn’t matter who was the “brain-child” of the Book of Mormon. It matters that it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. Which means Joseph Smith is not who he claimed to be, Therefore there is no Christian authority in Mormonism.

I think we just disagree here.
Joseph Smith claimed at one point in time that the BOM was a history of ALL of North and South America and their inhabitants. I agree with you that this is an error. I disagree with you that this means Joseph Smith couldn’t be a prophet and the BOM couldn’t be an ancient book.

This is not ignoring, it is disagreeing. You IMO make wrong inferences from data and I explain that I make different inferences from the same data. There are a few more examples on this thread and numerous ones in our past interactions.
Concerning your claim that science disproves Mormonism, I think such a statement evidences a misunderstanding of what science does and does not do.
Does science disprove the doctrine of Transubstantiation? Many, even many scientists claim it does. But those who do either do not understand the doctrine, or the philosophy associated with what science can and cannot say (probably both).
You IMO are in the same boat when you claim what science PROVES about the truth claims of my faith. As an aside: There are more complex arguments against Transubstantiation and the EOs who do not use that word are IMO on more solid ground than are the Catholics, but that is not something I would be troubled by were I to be a Catholic tomorrow.

From our past conversations, I feel it reasonable to say, “I am sorry that the Mormonism you once embraced included the truths that you feel have been disproven. I have never felt that Mormonism makes ALL of the claims you seem to have embraced. It is not that I have changed my view of Mormonism in response to science or evidence from what you once believed, it is that I have NEVER believed what you claim to have once believed.”

Now, I once believed that the Papacy was a product of Peterine succession in the Church of Rome carried forth through a chain of apostolic men who KNEW they were the Vicar of Christ. Were I to be Catholic tomorrow, I could no longer believe this; but that does not make Catholicism false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Robert Eno and Francis Sullivan are Catholics that do not believe this.

I once believed that “preservation of tradition” was a simplistic exercise in the doctrine of “believed everywhere, always, and by all.” Were I to be Catholic tomorrow, I could no longer believe this; but that does not make Catholicism false beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What I thought Catholicism was it never was and never will be. That does not mean I could not be a Catholic in good standing, only that I would need to revision what Catholicism is before I could. I have attempted to read numerous Catholic scholars so I can shed these false ideas and weigh Catholicism for what it MUST be not for what someone might have taught me it was. In our interactions, you routinely claim that Mormonism is not xyz and is therefore false. I just disagree.

BTW, concerning ignoring, I bolded a question to you where I am quite sure you said something incorrect about Catholicism, did you miss it?
BTW2, concerning ignoring, I have implied that a worthwhile standard to apply consistently to any church that claims to succeed the Moses and Peter is that said church receives public revelation from God like Moses and Peter did. My church does your church knows it does not.
Charity, TOm

 

[SteveVH]

BTW2, concerning ignoring, I have implied that a worthwhile standard to apply consistently to any church that claims to succeed the Moses and Peter is that said church receives public revelation from God like Moses and Peter did. My church does your church knows it does not.
Charity, TOm

That is a false standard to use for the simple reason that anyone can claim “revelation” and no one can prove them wrong. If I tell you that Christ appeared to me last night and told me to start a new Church who are you to say I did not receive this revelation?

The truth is that we did receive “public revelation”, 2000 years ago, the revelation of Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of all revelation. Since then the job of the Church has been to guard and protect this revelation and reveal it to the world without error. We believe Christ is sufficient and there is no new revelation to surpass him.

 

[Stephen168]

From our past conversations, I feel it reasonable to say, “I am sorry that the Mormonism you once embraced included the truths that you feel have been disproven. I have never felt that Mormonism makes ALL of the claims you seem to have embraced. It is not that I have changed my view of Mormonism in response to science or evidence from what you once believed, it is that I have NEVER believed what you claim to have once believed.”

I have never embraced Mormonism. I have always known the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction as proven by science. I have always known the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith to not be what Joseph Smith claimed to be. I have always embarrassed the Catholic Church because it is what it claims be as a historical fact and I can submit to its teachings because they are reasonable. Mormons can’t do either of these things.

BTW2, concerning ignoring, I have implied that a worthwhile standard to apply consistently to any church that claims to succeed the Moses and Peter is that said church receives public revelation from God like Moses and Peter did. My church does your church knows it does not.

There is only one truth and it is Jesus Christ; he is public revelation which is maintained in the Catholic Church. The Mormon Church claims public revelation but it contradicts itself so often and quickly, we know it is not the one truth in Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith and Mormonism make many claims but they are only claims and not true. The falseness of the Book of Mormon in not being what Joseph Smith claimed it to be has always been the evidence for the falseness of the Mormon Church. Of course when I first learned of this, I could say the Book of Mormon is false because it is not what the Mormon Church claimed it to be, but the Mormon Church has been forced to change its claims which is getting close to Joseph Smith being called a false prophet by the Church he founded.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not ignore your facts,…

You ignore the facts which prove that Mormon Apostles were never meant to have authority over the whole Mormon Church. Apostles were never part of the founding of the Mormon Church and they didn’t get any authority until Brigham Young claimed they did to gain control of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph Smith. The crisis that blew the latter-day-saint movement into pieces.

 

[Erich]

I would only comment on the bolded, that the idea of sola scriptura, actually, is the premise that NO ONE is infallible.

What about the authors of the books of the Bible, at least at the time they were writing those books?

I’ve heard it said by some that the Bible is “a fallible collection of infallible books.” As another poster said on another thread, to me this seems very dangerous. If you aren’t sure which books should be included, then how reliable are you that the “Word of God” is the Word of God? If the canon is fallible, then how do you know for certain that ANY of the books in Scripture are infallible? The passage you quote to support a particular belief may not be an infallible book after all. And perhaps, books like the Gospel of Thomas, etc. that the Church rejected may actually be inspired.

We know from Matthew 28:18-20 and John 20:21 that ALL authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus… and that He sent his apostles in the same manner. I can’t imagine anyone claiming that Jesus was not infallible… so wouldn’t anyone he sends “in the same manner” also have to be infallible when “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” – whether this teaching was transmitted orally or committed to writing?

We know that the Apostles did not teach different doctrines to different people. Rather, they all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they were guided into all truth, then they could not help but teach identical doctrines…they could not help but teach the same truths…INFALLIBLY… to all the different peoples they came across.

 

[TOmNossor]

That is a false standard to use for the simple reason that anyone can claim “revelation” and no one can prove them wrong. If I tell you that Christ appeared to me last night and told me to start a new Church who are you to say I did not receive this revelation?

The truth is that we did receive “public revelation”, 2000 years ago, the revelation of Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of all revelation. Since then the job of the Church has been to guard and protect this revelation and reveal it to the world without error. We believe Christ is sufficient and there is no new revelation to surpass him.

That is a false standard to use for the simple reason that anyone can claim “revelation” and no one can prove them wrong. If I tell you that Christ appeared to me last night and told me to start a new Church who are you to say I did not receive this revelation?

The truth is that we did receive “public revelation”, 2000 years ago, the revelation of Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of all revelation. Since then the job of the Church has been to guard and protect this revelation and reveal it to the world without error. We believe Christ is sufficient and there is no new revelation to surpass him.
Hello Steve!
You are of course correct that to “claim revelation” is quite easy. As such if God intended for His church to operate differently in post-Apostolic times than it did during the Old Testament and during the New Testament, it is possible that the Catholic Church without revelation is the Divine Church. This disconnect IMO cannot prove the CoJCoLDS is the only POSSIBLE successor of the Apostles. I do not believe it lacks consideration in this debate and I do believe it weighs in favor of the CoJCoLDS. But, I will acknowledge that to “claim revelation” cannot solve this question by itself.

Why would God have guided His church through the Garden of Eden, post fall pre-flood and/or pre-tower of Babel (whatever that was), Judaism pre-Christ, and Apostolic times (I am sure there are more full lists than this, but this came to mind) via public revelation only to remove this Divine - human partnership after the death of the last Apostle? I know the answer given by the Catholic Church, “Christ as the actual Son of God was the culmination of public revelation, the completion!” I can appreciate this idea, but after Christ’s ascension much scripture was written for many years via inspiration. I also hardly think that the need for public revelation to lead God’s church today is less than it was in these previous times even though Christ came and reveled all He did.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I have never embraced Mormonism. … I have always embarrassed the Catholic Church because it is what it claims be as a historical fact and I can submit to its teachings because they are reasonable.

I was wrong (had you confused with other posters) about you embracing Mormonism.
I still think you misread what one must believe to be a LDS.
I also think you have a typo above.

You ignore the facts which prove that Mormon Apostles were never meant to have authority over the whole Mormon Church. Apostles were never part of the founding of the Mormon Church and they didn’t get any authority until Brigham Young claimed they did to gain control of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph Smith. The crisis that blew the latter-day-saint movement into pieces.

You use the term “prove” here and it is unfounded.
I am of course aware that there were no Apostles in the beginning of the CoJCoLDS. There were no Apostles at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry and there were no Apostles in the Old Testament. Revelation IMO is more important than the title Apostle.

Or maybe you speak of this:
There are evidences for and against the Apostles as the successor to Joseph Smith. One of the more thorough treatments of this is of course D. Michael Quinn’s book. I not only side with the Brighamites, but I believe God’s revelation guided the majority of the early CoJCoLDS to side with the Brighamites. I could allow that reason alone could lead folks to uncertainty in this succession (though again “prove” is a quite an unwarranted assertion), but this is why revelation was part of the solution.
Anyway, while I have considered the thought that the way that I should embrace the BOM is via membership in the RLDS, FLDS, or … I have found it more likely the CoJCoLDS is the Divine Church.
I have often said that my intellect and experience have guided me to be first a theist, second a Christian, and finally a LDS. It would be appropriate for me to also say that intellectually before I make the leap to the CoJCoLDS, I see the BOM as strong evidence that God was involved in the “translation” performed by Joseph Smith. After this, I look to many bits that lead me to be a LDS. Some of Joseph’s statements about the quorum of the 12 and the event during Brigham’s galvanizing of the church point me towards the Brighamites are among the bits (also the RLDS abandoning their succession methods about 10 years ago made it harder to see the RLDS as the true successors of Joseph Smith).
Let me ask you this.
If you were CERTAIN that the BOM sourced from God would you instead by a member of the FLDS or the RLDS or …? I would not.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The authority of the CoJCoLDS LIKE the authority of the post ascension (of Christ) church is the divinely chosen, revelation guided, men who are called Apostles and who we believe speak for God (ie they are “prophets” or ones who speak for God). That the Catholic Church does not believe there are men who can speak for God via “Public Revelation” for the God’s Church, IMO is a large negative in this debate concerning who has God’s authority on Earth. But, like the CoJCoLDS Catholics look to authoritative interpretation by men called of God to resolve theological points of contention.

Mormons believe their Apostles are the authority. They claim to speak to, and speak for God. The title ‘Apostle’ is so important in Mormonism that when the ancient Church decided to not use the title it was a the sign of the Great Apostasy. The title ‘Apostle’ is critical to Mormon authority.

You use the term “prove” here and it is unfounded.
I am of course aware that there were no Apostles in the beginning of the CoJCoLDS. There were no Apostles at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry and there were no Apostles in the Old Testament. Revelation IMO is more important than the title Apostle.

Except when it’s not.

When Mormonism is found to fail at the standard they place on others that standard is no longer important. Mormons believe because they believe; reason does not apply.

 

[JonNC]

=Erich;12783304]What about the authors of the books of the Bible, at least at the time they were writing those books?

I’ve heard it said by some that the Bible is “a fallible collection of infallible books.” As another poster said on another thread, to me this seems very dangerous. If you aren’t sure which books should be included, then how reliable are you that the “Word of God” is the Word of God? If the canon is fallible, then how do you know for certain that ANY of the books in Scripture are infallible? The passage you quote to support a particular belief may not be an infallible book after all. And perhaps, books like the Gospel of Thomas, etc. that the Church rejected may actually be inspired.

I actually agree, Erich. However, the fact is that even the Fathers didn’t agree on the canon, and there has been no agreement regarding it - ever. It would be of great unifying value if all Christians accepted the same books, in the same manner.

We know from Matthew 28:18-20 and John 20:21 that ALL authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus… and that He sent his apostles in the same manner. I can’t imagine anyone claiming that Jesus was not infallible… so wouldn’t anyone he sends “in the same manner” also have to be infallible when “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” – whether this teaching was transmitted orally or committed to writing?

ISTM the closest that Christendom has come to this standard was the seven ecumenical councils, but to think that one man, one Bishop, one patriarch by himself meets that standard doesn’t stand up the history of the early Church, many people think.

We know that the Apostles did not teach different doctrines to different people. Rather, they all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they were guided into all truth, then** they** could not help but teach identical doctrines…they could not help but teach the same truths…INFALLIBLY… to all the different peoples they came across.

I think the key to your comments is the plural nature of the apostles, and I return again to the view that it is in the seven ecumenical councils of the Church that we come as close as this can happen. IOW, unity is critical.

Jon