Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[paul_c]

Bdawg,
I’m glad you went through the effort of defending Joseph Smith point by point. Otherwise, I would have thought that you were simply avoiding the unpleasant truths.

As it is, you are right that Joseph Smith attracted unstable people to his religion. Unfortunately, those are the types usually attracted to new cults. But really, what did Joseph Smith have to offer in terms of validation of the truths of what he taught? It seems to me that he was asking people to accept what he said at face value and that the people he was capable of convincing were the unstable members of society. Did he ever provide any material proof for what he said? Any one can say they were Baptized by John the Baptizer or that they met St. Peter or even Jesus. Many others have done the same. The question is, what did they do to validate it. In Joseph Smith’s case, I don’t even think you could say he led an exemplary life. Your explanations of his exploitation of his followers for sex and money are very uncompelling and to say that if you string all the questionable parts of his life together, of course he looks bad denies the fact that as THE Prophet of God, you would expect a lot better than the average man, not this…

 

[BDawg]

Bdawg,
I’m glad you went through the effort of defending Joseph Smith point by point. Otherwise, I would have thought that you were simply avoiding the unpleasant truths.

Hi Paul,

If you avoid unpleasant truths, you miss opportunities to learn some of the really important lessons.

As it is, you are right that Joseph Smith attracted unstable people to his religion. Unfortunately, those are the types usually attracted to new cults.

Like early Christianity (e.g., Judas, all the people who left Jesus in John 6, and so on.) Hopefully, you are using the word “cult” in its technical meaning as “a religious group” or “system of worship,” and not in its modern, pejorative sense promoted by the fundamentalist bigots who also condemn the RCC.

But really, what did Joseph Smith have to offer in terms of validation of the truths of what he taught? It seems to me that he was asking people to accept what he said at face value and that the people he was capable of convincing were the unstable members of society. Did he ever provide any material proof for what he said? Any one can say they were Baptized by John the Baptizer or that they met St. Peter or even Jesus. Many others have done the same. The question is, what did they do to validate it.

It is indeed the usual case that “prophetic” figures just spout what “God” tells them, with no external validation. This is where Jesus was different. Not only did he make big claims, but he performed miracles. Not only did the Christians claim he was resurrected, but there were a number of witnesses. He didn’t appear to everyone, but at least there were witnesses who were willing to suffer for their testimonies.

In Joseph Smith’s case, he provided the following.

1. He performed miracles. Many testified that he healed them at Nauvoo, and in other situations. He also made many prophecies that came true. (In a few instances, anti-Mormons claim he made false prophecies, but most of these are easy to debunk.)
2. He had at least 11 witnesses who testified that they saw the gold plates of the Book of Mormon. Three of them were shown the plates by an angel. Several of them left the Church for a time, after having fallen out with Joseph Smith. It would have been a perfect time for them to come clean about any sort of fraud, etc., but they all insisted that they had seen what they said. Their lives are extremely well documented, so that I believe there is much more historical support for the proposition that there were real gold plates, than for the proposition that Jesus was resurrected. We just don’t know enough about the exact circumstances under which the Gospels were written–it’s just too far back in time.
3. Some of his revelations were shared experiences with others, like Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery.

In Joseph Smith’s case, I don’t even think you could say he led an exemplary life. Your explanations of his exploitation of his followers for sex and money are very uncompelling and to say that if you string all the questionable parts of his life together, of course he looks bad denies the fact that as THE Prophet of God, you would expect a lot better than the average man, not this…

Well, I don’t think he was trying to exploit anyone for sex or money. Many of these plural marriages in the early LDS Church were “dynastic,” and did not involve cohabitation and sex, for instance. The problem is that accusations were thrown out, and you believe all of them. I don’t believe all of them. I mean, just look at your previous post, where it seems like you were trying to make the fact that JS’s murderers were acquitted for “doing the will of the people” into a point against JS! Do you believe that vigilante murders of unpopular individuals are acceptable, or something? If not, what does it say about the character of the people who hated JS?

If you want to look at evidences for LDS claims, and LDS responses to accusations against our claims, I suggest the following websites.

fairlds.org/

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/

Also, you seem to have a very convenient outlook about these kinds of things. God expects way more from prophets, but has absolutely no expectations for the moral uprightness of Popes. They can murder their way into office, and they’re still the infallible teaching authority of the Church. Good thing you don’t have prophets, because then you might have to try and defend all their behavior!

 

[paul_c]

BDAWG,
You are obviously very devoted to Mormonism.

Despite the literature you forwarded (and I did NOT purchase the book offered) but did read quite a bit of the free internet piece, I remain firmly convinced that your rejection of the Catholic faith in favor of the views of Joseph Smith is completely unsupportable.

While I agree that some of the Roman Catholic Popes led sinful lives, they were not responsible for creating new doctrine, only in protecting the faith passed on to them. Popes also do not make unilateral claims, but work through Church councils to ensure they get it right. You have not shown any examples of Popes distorting doctrine nor have you identified any motivation for them to do so. If you claim that they were just in error, you need to explain how that error wasn’t identified in the church councils.

Joseph Smith however, is another thing. He was the undeniable originator of your religion, with radical changes to the doctrines perserved by the Roman Catholic Church. Without him, there would be no LDS. You would think that if God was going to change the entire direction of his Church on earth, he would have chosen someone who’s personal moral code wasn’t so easily questioned. Why would God allow such distractions Look at Jesus Christ as a comparative example because that is the Catholic comparative point since no one after Jesus changed the direction of Catholic Church doctrine .

And by the way, I do not sanction the actions of vigilante gangs. The only reason I brought it up the tar and feathering incident was because it was Joseph Smith’s own followers reaction to what they thought was his exploitation. While their actions are reprehensible, perhaps they felt they had no other choice given the level of their exploitation. As for the vigilante gang that killed Joseph Smith, that was also wrong by virtually anyone’s moral standards. It’s very curious that the community (not the LDS) would sanction that by acquiting the participants of wrongdoing.

As for the miracles done by Joseph Smith, I’ ve never seen any evidence of these, and certainly not to the level that exists for Lourdes… Likewise, I’ve never seen any evidence of any Joseph
Smith prophesies that couldn’t be explained away.

And the witnesses of the Golden plates, perhaps they saw Golden plates. Those wouldn’t be that hard to produce. A cynic would say that the plates disappeared a little too conveniently before any skeptics could look at them. It is a huge stretch to say that there is more historical data to support the existence of the plates than for the resurrection of Jesus. St. Paul tells us that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus at once. Were any of the Mormon witnesses martyred defending their views?

In fact, the huge unanswered question of Mormonism is why, if Mormon doctrine is correct, why didn’t Jesus just promote that doctrine at the time of the Apostles. He certainly could have mentioned all the lost tribe of Israel stuff back then while Jesus was in Israel.

 

[mfbukowski]

1. He was just a kid. Maybe his father was somewhat unsuccessful as a farmer (many people lost their farms at that time, due to a temporary climate change caused by the Tambora eruption.
2. Most people in the frontier at that time engaged in a little “folk magic.”
3. Some scholars believe that the Urim and Thummim in the Bible were stones by which the High Priest divined the will of God. Just like Mormons believe.
4. Most modern people are a little prudish about that sort of thing. Note how Joseph (son of Jacob) used a cup for divining (Gen. 44:5). Most people don’t notice that sort of weirdness in the Bible, but it’s there.

I recall as a kid in the 1950’s – I grew up in Western NY near Buffalo – probably 150 miles from Palmyra – that my parents actually employed a guy who used divining rods (“Dowsing” rods) to find a spot to dig a well. He was successful. Of course in that area, the water table was probably so shallow you could have dug anywere and gotten a well with water. But even then it was an acceptable and normal way to find water. Everyone knew that if you wanted a well, this was the guy to find the spot.

Amazingly great posts Snow and BDawg! I have been a member 30 years and I am actually learning stuff!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Scripture teaches against any new gospel teachings outside of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church Jesus built upon Peter and the apostles. Not even an angel can bring a new gospel to Joseph Smith according to the following scriptures.

2 John 7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist. 5 9 Anyone who is so “progressive” 7 as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him;
11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.

1 Tim.1: 3 I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines
4 **or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith. 5 The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, **7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, 5 kidnapers, liars, perjurers, **and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. **

1 Timothy 6; 3 **Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching
4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, **5 and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain. 6 Indeed, religion with contentment is a great gain.

Colosians 2; 16 **Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. 8
17 These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.

2 Peter 2: 1 **There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. **

1John 2: 18 Children, it is the last hour; 9 and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.
20 But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, 11 and you all have knowledge.
22 **Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. **23 No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.

1 John 4: 1 **Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. 4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.
Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one **be accursed! 9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! 11 **Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **

Ephesians 4: 11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.
15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ,

I pray God’s word will enlighten your hearts to his true Gospel.**

 

[paul_c]

Gabriel of 12,
Good post.

BDawg, Snow, Bukowski,

How do you answer all those new testament passages expressly warning you that new doctrines such as those proposed by Joseph Smith are not from God?

 

[BDawg]

You have not shown any examples of Popes distorting doctrine nor have you identified any motivation for them to do so. If you claim that they were just in error, you need to explain how that error wasn’t identified in the church councils.

The Popes defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility at Vatican I, which clearly was not believed in the early Church. And they defined it in such a vague way that no one can ever pin them down on it. E.g., when a Pope issued the bull Ad Extirpandum that commanded rulers of cities to torture confessions out of suspected heretics, that wasn’t an infallible pronouncement about morals, because infallible pronouncements can only about vague generalities, not specific situations. If that’s not self-serving, I don’t know what is.

And the Popes defined the Marian doctrines, e.g., the Assumption, which wasn’t even mentioned by anyone for several centuries after the Apostles.

For quite a while, before the Papacy really developed, the Pope usually much of a player in the doctrinal disputes (with some exceptions.) Often the Emperor had more to say about things. Since most of the “doctrinal development” went on in the early centuries, it’s no wonder the Popes haven’t changed much.

Without him, there would be no LDS. You would think that if God was going to change the entire direction of his Church on earth, he would have chosen someone who’s personal moral code wasn’t so easily questioned.

1. We disagree about JS’s moral character. BTW, lots of Jews questioned Jesus’ moral character, too. He did go around hanging out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and so on. He did advocate flouting certain Mosaic laws.
2. We don’t believe God "changed the entire direction of his Church on earth. We believe that God restored his Church to the Earth.

no one after Jesus changed the direction of Catholic Church doctrine .

I consider this to be an extremely historically naive statement. Read John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and then see if you can honestly say the same thing.

It’s very curious that the community (not the LDS) would sanction that by acquiting the participants of wrongdoing.

How do you feel about the community lynchings of Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, and so on?

As for the miracles done by Joseph Smith, I’ ve never seen any evidence of these, and certainly not to the level that exists for Lourdes… Likewise, I’ve never seen any evidence of any Joseph
Smith prophesies that couldn’t be explained away.

These kinds of things can almost always be “explained away.” So the Sun wiggled at Lourdes. Big deal. See how it’s done?

And the witnesses of the Golden plates, perhaps they saw Golden plates. Those wouldn’t be that hard to produce. A cynic would say that the plates disappeared a little too conveniently before any skeptics could look at them. It is a huge stretch to say that there is more historical data to support the existence of the plates than for the resurrection of Jesus. St. Paul tells us that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus at once. Were any of the Mormon witnesses martyred defending their views?

Martin Harris, a prosperous farmer who was one of the three witnesses, said that when he first hefted the plates, he figured they must be gold or lead, and he knew JS couldn’t afford that much lead. Later, he actually saw, handled, and hefted them, and they were apparently gold. Do you have ANY idea how much 50-60 lbs. of gold would be worth? At today’s prices, we’re talking about something like $600,000. (BTW, I actually once lifted a gold bar that was about that large, and let me tell you–someone could tell the difference between gold/lead or some other metal.)

Let’s suppose he just happened to find the gold. Now, if you were some scheming, greedy person, and you happened on that much gold, what would you do with it? Obviously (according to you,) you would make the gold into a book with fake engravings, get several people to believe in it, including a few that you tricked into thinking they had seen an angel, and then hide the gold forever away. Why would you do this? So you could bilk less money than the gold was worth out of a bunch of gullible people. Of course! That makes all kinds of sense!

You see, if you want to discount miracles, all you have to do is not look too closely.

Now you say that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon don’t come up to the level of the evidence for the Resurrection. On what planet? Historians dispute the authenticity of ALL of the NT writings. There is no way to prove who actually even wrote them, even if we can make some reasonable surmises. On the other hand, the witnesses aren’t that far removed from us, historically speaking. They gave DOZENS of interviews to reporters and other inquirers. One of them (Hyrum Smith) voluntarily followed Joseph Smith to Carthage, knowing full well he would probably be killed. Several had fallings out with JS, but remained true to their testimony. Their lives are quite well documented.

In fact, the huge unanswered question of Mormonism is why, if Mormon doctrine is correct, why didn’t Jesus just promote that doctrine at the time of the Apostles. He certainly could have mentioned all the lost tribe of Israel stuff back then while Jesus was in Israel.

Quite a bit of Mormon doctrine was taught in early Christianity. See the following website:

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/

 

[BDawg]

Gabriel of 12,
Good post.

BDawg, Snow, Bukowski,

How do you answer all those new testament passages expressly warning you that new doctrines such as those proposed by Joseph Smith are not from God?

Hi Paul,

Those warnings were against all the new doctrines that were brought into the Catholic and Protestant churches. We just restored the old doctrines back to the Church. Read that website I linked in my last post to see what I mean.

 

[BDawg]

Finally, the concept of the Trinity itself is admittedly mysterious.
I think of it as one god who manifests himself in different ways according to his purpose. I’ve already copied in the official Catechism view in my earlier post and I don’t think you’ve stated anything here that would make me think its incorrect.

Hi Paul,

The way you describe the Trinity sounds like Modalism. You ought to check out Modalism vs. orthodox Trinitarianism to make sure your own church wouldn’t brand you a heretic!

 

[majick275]

I guess your betting that I won’t bother to refute your claims or that I was bluffing. That’s a bad bet; you should know that I don’t make factual assertions I can’t support:

i was unaware that you did anything else.

In a recently published study Alon Goshen Gottstein says: “In all rabbinic literature [covering both the tannaitic (70-200 A.D.) and amoraic (220-500 A.D.) periods, there is not a single statement that categorically denies that God has body or form. In my understanding, the question of whether the rabbis believed in a God who has form is one that needs little discussion… Instead of asking “Does God have a body?” we should inquire, “What kind of body does God have?” Alon Goshen Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Harvard Theological Review 87, (1994): 172

first of all it’s easy to cherry pick who says what you want and then quote mine his works. but let’s look at this specific quote. he never tells us that any of these writings say that God had a body merely that they don’t deny it.

Snow:

Jacob Neusner says that the understanding of God’s “incarnation” thoroughly influenced the basic concepts of formative Judaism. He describes the incarnation as “a commonplace for Judaism from the formation of Scripture forward” Neusner describes the incarnation that was common in Judaism as “the representation of God in the Flesh, as corporeal, consubstantial in emotion and virtue with human beings, and sharing in the modes and means of action carried out by mortals… doing deeds that women and men do in the way in which they do them." Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 4, 6, 12, 17

not a big neusner fan but once again he doesn’t give us a specific example to make your case. he merely sets up the case for the catholic position on Jesus

Jacob Neusner (if you don’t know who) was educated at Harvard University, the Jewish Theological Seminary (where he received rabbinic ordination), the University of Oxford, and Columbia University. Since 1994, he has taught at Bard College. He has also taught at Columbia University, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Brandeis University, Dartmouth College, Brown University, and the University of South Florida. Neusner is a member of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, and a life member of Clare Hall, Cambridge University. He is the only scholar to have served on both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. He also has received scores of academic awards, honorific and otherwise. Neusner’s scholarly activity is vast. Generally speaking his research centers around rabbinic Judaism of the Mishnaic and Talmudic Eras. wiki)

wow he’s as much an academic icon as george bush (educated at yale and harvard) allow me to express my contempt for the so called academia of the present age who shamelessly promote their own agendas for fun and profit. shall we talk about the extensive resumes of the berkley secular humanists? here is a link to those jews who disagree with his “findings”:

jstor.org/pss/1455217
[/QUOTE]

 

[majick275]

continued

Christopher Stead if the Cambridge Divinity School says: “The Hebrews… pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendor of his appearance, in his pow, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures. Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944), 120.

great. they “pictured” him in a way they could understand. this does nothing to show that he actually had a body. just a little more quote mining.

Very early Christianity suffers from a lack of historical record but their belief is a pretty straightforward demonstration. Christians believe that Jesus is God. Jesus is embodied and anthropomorphic. Ergo (this is simple math) God is embodied and anthropomorphic. The Bible, including the NT is full of scriptures that are consistent with an anthropomorphic God. I posted some of them earlier. Moreover, early Christians were Jews; Jews, for the most part, believed that God was embodied as posted above.

so you start by admitting a lack of evidence and then try to “extrapolate” that orthodox trinitarianism proves your assertion? this isn’t math at all. it demonstrates the catholic position on jesus. (once again)

“In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.” Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, “In Defense of Anthropomorphism,” in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels

“The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures.” Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 120.

how he was 'pictured" has no weight on this at all.

As the apostasy took hold, beliefs began to morph, taking cues from Hellenistic philosophy. By the 2nd and 3rd century it was was a mixed bag as to what people believed.

only from a mormon point of view. there was no great apostasy so this cannot be correct.

“For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching.” Origen, “On First Principles,” (Preface, 9) Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:6.

Origin, who did not believe in an embodied God tells us where he got his ideas from: ?The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions." Origen, “Homilies on Genesis,” (3:1) Ante-Nicene Fathers

and yet there was no single voice of judaism on this (or any other subject) at that time. Origen here tells us thaat his studies show quite the opposite of what you assert.

 

[BDawg]

first of all it’s easy to cherry pick who says what you want and then quote mine his works. but let’s look at this specific quote. he never tells us that any of these writings say that God had a body merely that they don’t deny it.

You’re really stretching, Majick. His point was that some specifically said God has a body, while the others never deny it. Before you accuse Snow of “quote mining,” why don’t you go look up the work cited? You end up looking silly if you can’t pull out some of the context that Snow supposedly missed.

And what do you call it when you round up some abstract of an article that is critical of Jacob Neusner, but does not mention the specific issue we are discussing? I call that “quote mining” for sure. So some Jewish scholars think Neusner is too radical. Do they think he’s radical about this particular point?

great. they “pictured” him in a way they could understand. this does nothing to show that he actually had a body. just a little more quote mining.

Read the book, Majick. Snow was not “quote mining.” When Stead said they “pictured” God that way, he was saying that the Hebrews thought of God that way. How is a historian like Stead supposed to address the issue of whether God “actually had a body”? This is silly, once again. All a historian can do is look at how different groups of people have described their concepts of God.

and yet there was no single voice of judaism on this (or any other subject) at that time. Origen here tells us thaat his studies show quite the opposite of what you assert.

Here Origen asserts that the Jews and some Christians believed that God had a body in human form. And yes, he says that his “studies” show quite the opposite. His studies of what? THE PHILOSOPHERS. This completely supports Snow’s point about why the Jewish belief in an anthropomorphic God was rejected in favor of something like the Greek philosophical definitions.

 

[paul_c]

Bdawg,
thanks ever so much for sending that link. It gives me a much better view of your reasoning. Frankly, I’m underwhelmed by the arguments put forward here. It strikes me as a very convoluted effort to prove something that just isn’t true. Let me go through a few of the items to show what I mean.

From your link: fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

" The apostasy was to happen before the second coming of Christ. Paul told the Thessalonians not to worry about Christ coming back anytime soon saying, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [Greek apostasia] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3) This apostasy was already underway. “For already the secret power of wickedness is at work, secret only for the present until the Restrainer disappears from the scene.” (2 Thessalonians 2:7 NEB) Who was the “Restrainer” Paul spoke of? When we remember that Paul told the elders at Ephesus that persecutions would rage and heretics would arise from within the Church after he departed (Acts 20:29-30), it becomes clear that this was a reference to the Apostles themselves."

==> This is what happens when People try to interpret scriptures for themselves without the aid of Tradition. Tradition says (and is quoted in the notes of the NAB) that Paul was responding to a false letter to the Thessalonians saying the second coming had already occured. He was telling them that this wasn’t true and that before any of this happened, the temple in Jerusulem would be desecrated. As for the reference in Acts : look at the whole sequence in Acts 20: 17-32:
17
From Miletus he had the presbyters of the church at Ephesus summoned.
18
When they came to him, he addressed them, "You know how I lived among you the whole time from the day I first came to the province of Asia.
19
I served the Lord with all humility and with the tears and trials that came to me because of the plots of the Jews,
20
and I did not at all shrink from telling you what was for your benefit, or from teaching you in public or in your homes.
21
I earnestly bore witness for both Jews and Greeks to repentance before God and to faith in our Lord Jesus.
22
But now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem. What will happen to me there I do not know,
23
except that in one city after another the holy Spirit has been warning me that imprisonment and hardships await me.
24
Yet I consider life of no importance to me, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to bear witness to the gospel of God’s grace.
25
"But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again.
26
And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you,
27
for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God.
28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
29
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
30
And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.
31
So be vigilant and remember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you with tears.
32
And now I commend you to God and to that gracious word of his that can build you up and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated

==> He’s not claming an apostacy is coming and he’s certianly not fingering the Apostles. He’s telling them to guard against heresies (like those propagated by Joseph Smith). and that he is giving them to God so that they can gain the inheritance promised for the consecrated (i.e those in communion with the Church).

Here’s the following sequence form your reference: "Such references to an apostasy already underway are to be found throughout the New Testament. For instance, Paul rebuked the Galatians for turning to a perverted form of the gospel:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)’

==> I can’t even believe that the Mormons, who base their new gospel on the words of a false angel from heaven, have the nerve to use this quote in their defense. Furthermore, if you read Galatians even casually, you will understand that the “other Gospel” being discussed is the reversion back to the Jewish laws, a position that was condemned at the first church council in Jerusalem in 49 AD (which is discussed in detail in this very same epistle). Clearly this is not the Apostacy that forced the chruch to lose faith because clearly this heresy was thoroughly defeated…
cont…

 

[paul_c]

Here’s the next part of the chapter you sent:

" Paul also warned the Corinthians against “false Apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:13) who preached “another Jesus, whom we have not preached.” (2 Corinthians 11:4) Remember also that Paul told the elders at Ephesus that as soon as he was gone, false teachers would arise out of their ranks and deceive many.

Paul and Peter wrote in the 50’s and 60’s, and evidently they were witness to serious troubles within the Church. However, when we turn to later writings, such as Jude (ca. 80 A. D.) and John (late 90’s), clearly the situation had become critical.

Jude, the brother of Jesus, wrote a general epistle to combat the many false teachers who had crept into the Church:

It was needful for me to . . . exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)"

==> Do you guys ever read the whole paragraph or do you just cherry pick quotes that you can bend to your needs?

First of all, you have deleted out some critical words from Jude 1:3-4:
3
Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once** for all **handed down to the holy ones.
4
For there have been some intruders, who long ago were designated for this condemnation, godless persons, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

==> Hard to reconcile a new doctrine when Jude clearly says that the faith was handed down once FOR ALL… Here’s the end of that epistle Jude 1:14-25:

14 Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them when he said, “Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones
15
to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against him.”
16
These people are complainers, disgruntled ones who live by their desires; their mouths utter bombast as they fawn over people to gain advantage.
17
But you, beloved, remember the words spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,
18
for they told you, “In (the) last time there will be scoffers who will live according to their own godless desires.”
19
These are the ones who cause divisions; they live on the natural plane, devoid of the Spirit.
20
But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the holy Spirit.
21
Keep yourselves in the love of God and wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.
22
On those who waver, have mercy;
23
save others by snatching them out of the fire; on others have mercy with fear, abhorring even the outer garment stained by the flesh.
24
To the one who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished and exultant, in the presence of his glory,
25
to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen.

==> He’s not predicting an Apostacy, Quite the opposite. He’s saying stay diligent in the faith and that God will be able to keep you from stumbling.

I know you have a lot invested in Mormonism but you seem to be very intelligent so you should be able to reason through this. The very documents you try to use to defend the Apostacy, in fact condemn you as heretics. You can twist a few lines in the new Testament in an effort to prove the Mormon doctrines, but the truth is that the New Testament is the testament of Catholicism.

One last thing for you to think about. When Joseph Smith was trying to justify having sex with the wives of his followers, he came up with the excuse: Smith told one prospective wife that her submission would insure the eternal salvation of her father’s household. Furthermore, once sealed for eternity by priesthood authority, Joseph revealed that such couples would continue to procreate in the next life, becoming “enlarged” and, in effect, gods. How do you reconcile that with Matthew 22: 23-30?
23
On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. They put this question to him,
24
saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
25
Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26
The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27
Finally the woman died.
28
Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
29
Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30
At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.

 

[mfbukowski]

Gabriel of 12,
Good post.

BDawg, Snow, Bukowski,

How do you answer all those new testament passages expressly warning you that new doctrines such as those proposed by Joseph Smith are not from God?

Very easy. It says a DIFFERENT gospel.

We preach the SAME gospel.

Done.

 

[paul_c]

Very easy. It says a DIFFERENT gospel.

We preach the SAME gospel.

Done.

How can you possibly claim that? There are many clear doctrinal differences between the Mormons and the Gospel. Several of those are noted in the previous pages.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Scripture teaches against any new gospel teachings outside of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church Jesus built upon Peter and the apostles. Not even an angel can bring a new gospel to Joseph Smith according to the following scriptures.

2 John 7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist. 5 9 Anyone who is so “progressive” 7 as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him;
11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.

1 Tim.1: 3 I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines
4 **or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith. 5 The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, **7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.

1 Timothy 6; 3 **Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching
4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, **5 and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain. 6 Indeed, religion with contentment is a great gain.

2 Peter 2: 1 **There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. **

1 John 4: 1 **Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **

Galatians 1: 6** I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 **But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! ****

BDawg,
Hi Paul,

Those warnings were against all the new doctrines that were brought into the Catholic and Protestant churches. We just restored the old doctrines back to the Church. Read that website I linked in my last post to see what I mean.

Gabriel of 12
BDawg, you know very well your above statement does not hold any water. Please stop insulting the intelligence of these forum readers. I dont know if you really see how incredulous and false you make yourself out to be here or if your actually believing this made up stuff.

Just one thing while your on the topic of doctrines, Remember, the Catholic church doctrines are made manifest or defined only because the apostolic Traditional teachings came under attack. Now reread your sources, and you will Learn what history proves; not the Catholic church inventing new doctrines, but defending the apostolic Traditions and scripture teachings. Use your enlightened lawyering to discipher this, and maybe the True Holy Spirit will reveal the True Jesus and his body on earth to you.

I dont think Jesus planned to build his church upon a made up religion seen through a stone by a man who was killed while breaking out of Jail.

The true Christian doctrines are built upon “Rock” Peter, who the founder died and rose from the dead, and was seen upon the earth for 40 days, and this Rock never changes. But you dont believe Jesus is truly God himself.

Your arguments are vain accusations. Your belief system allows you to believe, because you can argue a fruit is not a fruit, this makes you enlightened by a spirit. Your arguments have nothing to do with Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and no Love. You think your enlightened by your Lawyering (arguing) tactics to a topic, but so far it has only lead more to discredit your unbelief in Jesus and his body. In fact, Can you say here on this forum that "Jesus is Lord, Jesus is God, Jesus is the “IAM”. Because only those who profess such faith are truly Christians. Those who cannot profess Jesus (God) come in the flesh is antichrist.

Now Catholics dont believe as Mormons do, that God came in the flesh and had sex with Mary who gave birth to Jesus. So your enlightened argument, can be exposed if you claim otherwise.

None of your arguments display the Love of God, nor do you try to teach, correct or instruct according to scripture. Most of your speculative proofs come from anti catholic and worldly sources and misinterpreted sources, and you argue in a vague “gray” area of each topic, that has no actual physical or historical proof not to mention scripture support.

Peace

 

[mfbukowski]

How can you possibly claim that? There are many clear doctrinal differences between the Mormons and the Gospel. Several of those are noted in the previous pages.

The gospel as preached by the catholic church? I have seen spurious attempts to assert that, but none that even make sense to a believing member. I have not wanted to waste time posting so I dashed off this note.

There has not been one argument put forth on the Catholic side that is even close to being credible. It’s the same old stuff.

We did a thread exactly like this one about 4 months ago, and it went to 900 posts and resolved nothing

Besides as the OP on this thread, for what THAT is worth, I would like to stick to the subject at hand, which was exhausted hundreds of posts ago.

 

[mfbukowski]

** Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, **

Today, this scripture is fufilled before you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;4436421:

Today, this scripture is fufilled before you.

Amen, and so it has, Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever.