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

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ, here is another one.
I find it fascinating that you all have no problem with the Holy Spirit “guiding evolution” of doctrine, while asserting that there has been no revelation of new doctrine, because all we need was revealed in the bible.

It is just plain contradictory. Either there is Revelation (big R) or there is not. You guys tend to be very inconsistent.

what new doctrine is that?

 

[kevangreen]

what new doctrine is that?

i agree mormoms have a closed mind.

 

[Snow]

what new doctrine is that?

Er, ah, um, how about homoousious? Or the assumption of Mary. Or creation ex nihilo, etc… but let’s just start with homoousious.

 

[kevangreen]

Er, ah, um, how about homoousious? Or the assumption of Mary. Or creation ex nihilo, etc… but let’s just start with homoousious.

that is a common christian custom
the trinity is a must for any CHRISTIAN church
cults and non catholic “churuchs” are different

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Prodigal,
Yes, but we don’t believe the Song of Solomon was inspired, so we don’t completely follow Martin Luther’s judgment on the matter, either.

And this proves the Mormon idea of a “great apostasy” how?

Look, just because we agree with others about various things, that doesn’t mean we consider their judgments authoritative. We agree with Catholics about some things. And Protestants. And Muslims. And Jews. And Hindus. Why is this significant at all, in a discussion like this?

And no Catholic considers your list of religions authoritative either, including Mormonism.

Let’s make a case study here. When Acts describes Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, it says that the people traveling with Paul “stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7). But later in Acts, Paul is quoted as saying that they “saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9).

Mormons and their atheistic arguments.

Now, in my opinion, this is a real mistake in the Bible. The two verses clearly contradict one another. Would you agree? Or do you want to try and defend the Bible as absolutely “inerrant.”

The Bible is inerrant. Luke actually relates the story of Saul’s conversion three times in Acts. If it were related the exact, same way, word for word each time, would that be a good indication, or not?

We also believe the Hindu religion is not totally corrupt. And yet, we amazingly don’t believe they operate under God’s priesthood authority.

Amazingly, we believe Jesus gave the authority to Peter and the other Apostles and that authority has been carefully preserved by the Church that Christ founded.

There is no proof, otherwise. You have a thriving, living, Church with apostolic authority right in front of your eyes.

Mormons seem to work pretty hard at explaining this fact away.

The passage says there will be an apostasy in which the Son of Perdition sits in the temple of God, pretending to be God. In many passages, Paul called the Church the Temple of God. So it seems to me a pretty clear prophecy of authority being usurped in the Church.

Your opinion.

Here’s the thing. What if the Jews or Romans started harping on the Christians for being “apostate”? Why would any Christians, or anyone else, pay any attention to Jews or pagan Romans making charges of apostasy? Who are they to judge? If you were to start telling me that Mormonism was now apostate from its roots, I would laugh at you. What do you know about it?

Yes, and that is exactly what we think about the claims of apostasy today, by Mormons, and others. Utter nonsense.

Like I said, they were all accusing each other of apostasy, and they were all right.

So you have to believe.

We are not talking about a “split.” We are talking about a general apostasy. History does record great changes in Christian doctrine and practice over those centuries. That’s what you would expect if there were an apostasy.

What? This is ludicrous. Doctrines SHOULD NOT CHANGE. If they did, that would be a big flag that something had gone amiss. And what sort of practices do you want to change?

Huh? EVERYONE was challenging Christianity. Christian groups were challenging EACH OTHER. You seem to have no grasp of the history of that era, whatsoever.

And ONE CHURCH has always been correct. That others have been incorrect does not change this fact.

Well, you can’t convince people who are unwilling. I feel like I’ve done my job to highlight for impartial readers the fact that your reasoning is flawed, however. I’ll let you have the last word, and move on.

Yes, I agree, Mormons are quite unwilling to see what is right in front of their eyes.

 

[kevangreen]

And this proves the Mormon idea of a “great apostasy” how?

And no Catholic considers your list of religions authoritative either, including Mormonism.

Mormons and their atheistic arguments.

The Bible is inerrant. Luke actually relates the story of Saul’s conversion three times in Acts. If it were related the exact, same way, word for word each time, would that be a good indication, or not?

Amazingly, we believe Jesus gave the authority to Peter and the other Apostles and that authority has been carefully preserved by the Church that Christ founded.

There is no proof, otherwise. You have a thriving, living, Church with apostolic authority right in front of your eyes.

Mormons seem to work pretty hard at explaining this fact away.

Your opinion.

Yes, and that is exactly what we think about the claims of apostasy today, by Mormons, and others. Utter nonsense.

So you have to believe.

What? This is ludicrous. Doctrines SHOULD NOT CHANGE. If they did, that would be a big flag that something had gone amiss. And what sort of practices do you want to change?

And ONE CHURCH has always been correct. That others have been incorrect does not change this fact.

Yes, I agree, Mormons are quite unwilling to see what is right in front of their eyes.

the jews are the same so we cant blame them really
even though i hate them and there blasphemous practicies
they are still children of god
“took me a long time to be able to say that”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why is this significant at all, in a discussion like this?

Hey BDawg,

I apologize as it seems to have struck a nerve. It was a question of curiousity more than anything and is not important with the caveat we discussed earlier. It’s just the King James Version has potential translation problems itself.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.

Let’s make a case study here. When Acts describes Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, it says that the people traveling with Paul “stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7). But later in Acts, Paul is quoted as saying that they “saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9).

You have knowledge of the Greek translations. Look at the word used for hear. It can mean “hear” or “understand”. Those with Paul could hear the voice, but could not understand it.

ἀκούω
akouō
ak-oo’-o
A primary verb; to hear (in various senses): - give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

We also believe the Hindu religion is not totally corrupt. And yet, we amazingly don’t believe they operate under God’s priesthood authority.

You’re losing me here. I don’t consider the Hindu religion to teach truth as it is not Christian.

The passage says there will be an apostasy in which the Son of Perdition sits in the temple of God, pretending to be God. In many passages, Paul called the Church the Temple of God. So it seems to me a pretty clear prophecy of authority being usurped in the Church.

Took me abit to find what you’re referencing. You stated 2Thess. 3. Chapter 2 speaks of the son of perdition. It’s still interpretational differences, I believe it to be speaking about Nero and the Roman Empire.

Here’s the thing. What if the Jews or Romans started harping on the Christians for being “apostate”? Why would any Christians, or anyone else, pay any attention to Jews or pagan Romans making charges of apostasy? Who are they to judge? If you were to start telling me that Mormonism was now apostate from its roots, I would laugh at you. What do you know about it?

This makes absolutely no sense.

It wouldn’t be for the purposes of harping. It would be for the purposes of gaining power they were losing over people. The Jews lost people to the Christian Church, which did not speak well of Jews who not only rejected, but killed the Messiah. Christ built a Church the Christians believed would last forever. Had the Church suffered a great apostasy, the Jews would have found justification for their actions. The Roman Emperor required the subjects to worship him, but Christians chose death over denying Christ. Christianity was spreading through the Roman Empire. They would not have passed an opportunity to crush Christianity with a tool like a great apostasy from the Church proclaiming truth. Someone somewhere would have documented such an important event.

I’m going to use your words above and certainly don’t mean any offense by it, but you should understand how we feel on these forums.

**If you were to start telling me that Mormonism(replace with Catholicism) was now apostate from its roots, I would laugh at you. What do you know about it?

This makes absolutely no sense.**

Like I said, they were all accusing each other of apostasy, and they were all right.

We are not talking about a “split.” We are talking about a general apostasy. History does record great changes in Christian doctrine and practice over those centuries. That’s what you would expect if there were an apostasy.

Huh? EVERYONE was challenging Christianity. Christian groups were challenging EACH OTHER. You seem to have no grasp of the history of that era, whatsoever.

What you’re talking about is an act of “men” over powering the promises of Christ, in my opinion. This makes me question the Mormon thoughts on the divinity of Christ. Would you care to explain Mormon opinion of the divinity of Christ for me? I don’t want to push any issues at this point, as it appears you might be losing your cool.

Well, you can’t convince people who are unwilling. I feel like I’ve done my job to highlight for impartial readers the fact that your reasoning is flawed, however. I’ll let you have the last word, and move on.

I didn’t know the point of our discussion was to convince anyone. Come on BDawg, you’re on a Catholic forum, how many impartial readers do you think there are? I’m sure you, as I am, are aware of our differences. If you need to hear it, I’m not convertable and assumed you knew that.

This would be a good point to move on or change the subject. As, I said earlier, I was discussing and not trying to win “something” here.

I’m sorry if the discussion frustrated you man, seriously.

Have a good night, Peace…

 

[Snow]

the jews are the same so we cant blame them really
even though i hate them and there blasphemous practicies
they are still children of god
“took me a long time to be able to say that”

Really? You hate the Jews too?

That is just so very surprising.

Do you also hate punctuation and spelling?

 

[kevangreen]

Really? You hate the Jews too?

That is just so very surprising.

Do you also hate punctuation and spelling?

dont hate the player hate the game
makin fun of someone is not very christian but you may not even
be one
so it dosent bother me

 

[Snow]

dont hate the player hate the game
makin fun of someone is not very christian but you may not even
be one
so it dosent bother me

I’ll take punctuation for $500 Alex.

 

[kevangreen]

I’ll take punctuation for $500 Alex.

well i am not use to talking to retards,
but snow i will make an acception for you

 

[mfbukowski]

what new doctrine is that?

Anything a Pope teaches ex cathedra. If it was not new, why would he have to teach it? One does not reapeat the same words as has been taught before and call it “papal infallibility”.

 

[kevangreen]

Anything a Pope teaches ex cathedra. If it was not new, why would he have to teach it? One does not reapeat the same words as has been taught before and call it “papal infallibility”.

new pope… same gospel

 

[BDawg]

And this proves the Mormon idea of a “great apostasy” how?

Hi Rebecca,

Beats me. Prodigal seems to think that the fact that we use the Bible disproves the apostasy. I don’t have a clue why.

And no Catholic considers your list of religions authoritative either, including Mormonism.

Obviously. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Mormons and their atheistic arguments.

I love that. Any recognition that the Bible isn’t an absolutely perfect document is “atheistic”. So I guess that means it’s obvious to you, too, that those two verses contradict, but you don’t want to admit it so you resort to name-calling?

The Bible is inerrant. Luke actually relates the story of Saul’s conversion three times in Acts. If it were related the exact, same way, word for word each time, would that be a good indication, or not?

Do the two renditions I quoted contradict each other, or not?

Amazingly, we believe Jesus gave the authority to Peter and the other Apostles and that authority has been carefully preserved by the Church that Christ founded.

What? This is ludicrous. Doctrines SHOULD NOT CHANGE. If they did, that would be a big flag that something had gone amiss. And what sort of practices do you want to change?

Well, you’re in for a wake-up call, if you bother to do some reading about this. Check out this page for lots of links about doctrinal development. Lots of the things linked are by Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong and John Henry Newman, who was a Cardinal. In fact, the classic work about doctrinal development is the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Newman.

 

[BDawg]

Hey BDawg,

I apologize as it seems to have struck a nerve. It was a question of curiousity more than anything and is not important with the caveat we discussed earlier. It’s just the King James Version has potential translation problems itself.

And Mormons recognize those problems. For us, something doesn’t have to be “perfect” to be useful. I’m always glad to find out that God feels that way about me.

You have knowledge of the Greek translations. Look at the word used for hear. It can mean “hear” or “understand”. Those with Paul could hear the voice, but could not understand it.

ἀκούω
akouō
ak-oo’-o
A primary verb; to hear (in various senses): - give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

So you are saying that in Acts 9, the meaning is that they didn’t see anyone, but they heard the voice, and in Acts 22 the same word is used, but now the meaning is that they saw a light but didn’t “understand” the voice?

On the one hand, it is obvious that the word “hear” is sometimes used to connote understanding–it’s a common English idiom, too. But on the other hand, when “hear” is used to connote understanding, usually it also implies actual hearing of the words. Both of these passages are obviously meant to describe the physical reaction of the people with Paul, so it would seem very odd if they were using “hear” in a metaphorical sense (to understand) juxtaposed with “see” when describing what they physically saw.

Of course, “see” can also mean “understand,” so maybe Paul was saying they didn’t understand the light and didn’t understand the voice?

Check out some good Catholic biblical commentaries. Scholars like Fr. Raymond Brown and others are not this extreme.

You’re losing me here. I don’t consider the Hindu religion to teach truth as it is not Christian.

So you don’t think Hindus teach ANY truth?

Took me abit to find what you’re referencing. You stated 2Thess. 3. Chapter 2 speaks of the son of perdition. It’s still interpretational differences, I believe it to be speaking about Nero and the Roman Empire.

That’s fine. But since Paul often referred to the Church as the Temple of God, I think I have more warrant for my interpretation than you.

Someone somewhere would have documented such an important event.

If you were to start telling me that Mormonism(replace with Catholicism) was now apostate from its roots, I would laugh at you. What do you know about it?

The difference, of course, is that Mormons actually claim to restore apostate Christianity. Jews or pagans wouldn’t have anything to do with such an argument, so why would anyone pay attention to such charges coming from them?
Let me break it down for you.

1. You seem to be demanding some kind of ancient document where someone announces, “All Christianity has now gone apostate in the third year of the reign of Emperor _____.”
2. What if there were such a document? Wouldn’t it’s very existence prove the claim false, since the writer would presumably NOT be apostate?
3. If such a document had been produced, the Catholic response would have been, “We disagree.” So if outsiders like Jews and pagans started waving said document around, trying to use it to disprove Catholicism, the Catholics would have simply blown them off, and probably would have claimed the document was a forgery.
4. How would such a document have survived? Why would Catholic monks bother copying such a thing?

So, my conclusion is that your demands are absolutely silly, and show that you have no experience, whatsoever, dealing with historical evidence. Really. You seem to have no clue what kind of thing to expect.

What you’re talking about is an act of “men” over powering the promises of Christ, in my opinion. This makes me question the Mormon thoughts on the divinity of Christ. Would you care to explain Mormon opinion of the divinity of Christ for me?

I’ve already explained that we don’t interpret those passages the same way you do, so please don’t try to change the subject. There have been plenty of threads on the Mormon view of God and Jesus, if you want to look them up.

Really, Prodigal, this conversation has just become silly. The topic was about how Mormons interpret the “gates of hell” promise. I explained that we interpret it differently than you, because we believe “the gates of hades” means “the gates of hades,” while you claim it is a metaphor for something else.

And yet, you keep asking questions and making charges like this one that imply that Mormons are claiming that Jesus didn’t keep his promises.

An analogous situation would be if I asserted my interpretation of 2 Thess. 3, you replied about your alternative interpretation, and then I went on and on saying things like:

“But if Paul’s prophecy of an apostasy were false, wouldn’t that prove that the whole New Testament is false, and so Catholicism is false?”

But I wouldn’t make an argument like that, because it would be RIDICULOUS.

I am not “losing my cool,” but it is a bit frustrating to talk to someone who doesn’t seem to take into consideration anything I have to say.

 

[kevangreen]

And Mormons recognize those problems. For us, something doesn’t have to be “perfect” to be useful. I’m always glad to find out that God feels that way about me.

So you are saying that in Acts 9, the meaning is that they didn’t see anyone, but they heard the voice, and in Acts 22 the same word is used, but now the meaning is that they saw a light but didn’t “understand” the voice?

On the one hand, it is obvious that the word “hear” is sometimes used to connote understanding–it’s a common English idiom, too. But on the other hand, when “hear” is used to connote understanding, usually it also implies actual hearing of the words. Both of these passages are obviously meant to describe the physical reaction of the people with Paul, so it would seem very odd if they were using “hear” in a metaphorical sense (to understand) juxtaposed with “see” when describing what they physically saw.

Of course, “see” can also mean “understand,” so maybe Paul was saying they didn’t understand the light and didn’t understand the voice?

Check out some good Catholic biblical commentaries. Scholars like Fr. Raymond Brown and others are not this extreme.

So you don’t think Hindus teach ANY truth?

That’s fine. But since Paul often referred to the Church as the Temple of God, I think I have more warrant for my interpretation than you.

The difference, of course, is that Mormons actually claim to restore apostate Christianity. Jews or pagans wouldn’t have anything to do with such an argument, so why would anyone pay attention to such charges coming from them?
Let me break it down for you.

1. You seem to be demanding some kind of ancient document where someone announces, “All Christianity has now gone apostate in the third year of the reign of Emperor _____.”
2. What if there were such a document? Wouldn’t it’s very existence prove the claim false, since the writer would presumably NOT be apostate?
3. If such a document had been produced, the Catholic response would have been, “We disagree.” So if outsiders like Jews and pagans started waving said document around, trying to use it to disprove Catholicism, the Catholics would have simply blown them off, and probably would have claimed the document was a forgery.
4. How would such a document have survived? Why would Catholic monks bother copying such a thing?

So, my conclusion is that your demands are absolutely silly, and show that you have no experience, whatsoever, dealing with historical evidence. Really. You seem to have no clue what kind of thing to expect.

I’ve already explained that we don’t interpret those passages the same way you do, so please don’t try to change the subject. There have been plenty of threads on the Mormon view of God and Jesus, if you want to look them up.

Really, Prodigal, this conversation has just become silly. The topic was about how Mormons interpret the “gates of hell” promise. I explained that we interpret it differently than you, because we believe “the gates of hades” means “the gates of hades,” while you claim it is a metaphor for something else.

And yet, you keep asking questions and making charges like this one that imply that Mormons are claiming that Jesus didn’t keep his promises.

An analogous situation would be if I asserted my interpretation of 2 Thess. 3, you replied about your alternative interpretation, and then I went on and on saying things like:

“But if Paul’s prophecy of an apostasy were false, wouldn’t that prove that the whole New Testament is false, and so Catholicism is false?”

But I wouldn’t make an argument like that, because it would be RIDICULOUS.

I am not “losing my cool,” but it is a bit frustrating to talk to someone who doesn’t seem to take into consideration anything I have to say.

the fact is that we are many ( 1.2 billion)
and mormons are few ( 12million)
god said the meek shall inherit the earth
( meek meaning not knocking on peoples door)
i think we have more say in the matter
the “opinion of the few will never be heard by the pillars of the
many” that was a pope talking about the protestant churches
and they number 100,000,000

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

Beats me. Prodigal seems to think that the fact that we use the Bible disproves the apostasy. I don’t have a clue why.

Because it came out of Catholic Sacred Tradition, which Mormons reject.

I love that. Any recognition that the Bible isn’t an absolutely perfect document is “atheistic”. So I guess that means it’s obvious to you, too, that those two verses contradict, but you don’t want to admit it so you resort to name-calling?

It is a statement of fact. Mormons use the same arguments against the Bible that atheists use.

Do the two renditions I quoted contradict each other, or not?

Not really, no.

Amazingly, we believe Jesus gave the authority to Peter and the other Apostles and that authority has been carefully preserved by the Church that Christ founded.

Glad you are in agreement. Now all you have to do is come to Mass.

Well, you’re in for a wake-up call, if you bother to do some reading about this. Check out this page for lots of links about doctrinal development. Lots of the things linked are by Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong and John Henry Newman, who was a Cardinal. In fact, the classic work about doctrinal development is the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Newman.

Doctrinal development does not equate to new doctrine.

 

[NewSeeker]

Hi NewSeeker,

Here is an entire book about this subject that has been put online for free. Maybe it won’t be enough evidence to convince you, but I suspect you will find we have more evidence than you thought.

Hi BDawg, I’ve seen this book before, but I read through the sections on Theosis, creatio ex nihilo, and pre-existence again. I asked whether there was evidence of proto-Mormon thought for Ignatius, and this is what you sent. I don’t see anything for Ignatius, but I do agree that there is such evidence in early Christianity for other Early Church Fathers. What I see (and I think you do to) is that early Christianity was very diverse in its views of the nature of the Godhead, Christ’s nature, and the destiny of humans. The scholarly consensus also takes this view. But I think that’s all the evidence in Bickmore’s book can say. Bickmore (and Mormons generally I think) take an unwarranted step and take this evidence as proof that Joseph Smith was right. But this view is questionable since, really, those writings are only evidence that Joseph Smith developed doctrines similar to some strains of early Christian thought. Such parallelisms are intriguing, but hardly definitive. We cannot know which of those strains represent the true apostolic teaching by a review of those texts alone. We need an authoritative source to tell us which views were heretical and which were not. The real issue is how we know which source is truly authoritative. Mormons see the Church as that source based on their testimonies. For me, as I’ve said elsewhere, that cannot be Joseph Smith. There were no Nephites or Lamanites (there is no evidence supporting the claim except for for a burning bosom) and the Book of Abraham is obviously a mistranslation and is not inspired scripture. Those two facts for me are completely sufficient to cast doubt on Joseph Smith. That’s why I left the Church after 42 years of membership.

NS

 

[BDawg]

Because it came out of Catholic Sacred Tradition, which Mormons reject.

Yes, we reject your traditions, at least many of them. And we don’t use the same canon as you. So why do you and Prodigal think that bringing up the fact that Catholicism came up with a canon many years ago has any bearing on whether there was an apostasy?

It is a statement of fact. Mormons use the same arguments against the Bible that atheists use.

The fact is that there are some obvious contradictions in the Bible. People who agree about this will necessarily point to many of the same contradictions to prove their point.

So what was your point? Was it that Mormons are really closet atheists? Or did you just bring it up to smear the Mormons with some guilt by association?

I agree with many atheists that the Earth is round, and I use many of the same arguments when I make that point. Gee, I feel so dirty…

Glad you are in agreement. Now all you have to do is come to Mass.

Sorry, I didn’t put the quote markers around it. You actually said that, and I don’t agree.

Doctrinal development does not equate to new doctrine.

Doesn’t doctrinal development mean that people start teaching something that was not taught before? What is “doctrine,” if not what is taught?

 

[BDawg]

Hi BDawg, I’ve seen this book before, but I read through the sections on Theosis, creatio ex nihilo, and pre-existence again. I asked whether there was evidence of proto-Mormon thought for Ignatius, and this is what you sent. I don’t see anything for Ignatius, but I do agree that there is such evidence in early Christianity for other Early Church Fathers. What I see (and I think you do to) is that early Christianity was very diverse in its views of the nature of the Godhead, Christ’s nature, and the destiny of humans. The scholarly consensus also takes this view. But I think that’s all the evidence in Bickmore’s book can say. Bickmore (and Mormons generally I think) take an unwarranted step and take this evidence as proof that Joseph Smith was right. But this view is questionable since, really, those writings are only evidence that Joseph Smith developed doctrines similar to some strains of early Christian thought. Such parallelisms are intriguing, but hardly definitive. We cannot know which of those strains represent the true apostolic teaching by a review of those texts alone. We need an authoritative source to tell us which views were heretical and which were not. The real issue is how we know which source is truly authoritative. Mormons see the Church as that source based on their testimonies. For me, as I’ve said elsewhere, that cannot be Joseph Smith. There were no Nephites or Lamanites (there is no evidence supporting the claim except for for a burning bosom) and the Book of Abraham is obviously a mistranslation and is not inspired scripture. Those two facts for me are completely sufficient to cast doubt on Joseph Smith. That’s why I left the Church after 42 years of membership.

NS

Hi NS,

I am quite certain that Bickmore did not claim what you accuse him of. Here is a relevant quotation from his preface.

Since proof of religious matters is not to be expected, it has been necessary to approach this subject from the point of view of faith, to a certain extent. Given the incomplete nature of the historical record, as well as the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to reveal some doctrines that had never before been revealed, it would be fruitless to search the extant early Christian literature for data to “falsify” LDS claims. Instead, we must for the moment assume these claims are legitimate, and then honestly and carefully explore the extent to which these claims are supported by the available evidence. Readers must decide for themselves how compelling the assembled evidence is. Similarly, I accept as a given that Jesus was and is the Son of God, that the New Testament record is for the most part accurate, and that it was actually written by Jesus’ Apostles and their associates. Those who reject these assumptions will no doubt find the arguments presented here less compelling, but even so I believe these arguments demonstrate conclusively that Mormonism is very similar in many respects to some very early forms of Christianity.

He was quite careful not to claim to much.

As for their being “no evidence” for Lamanites, and such, that’s ridiculous. Maybe there isn’t ENOUGH evidence to satisfy you, but let’s not fall into this business of telling each other that there is NO evidence for opposing beliefs.

I can admit that there is evidence for the legitimacy of the Papacy. I don’t consider it enough, or of high enough quality, to satisfy me, but I don’t go around wishing it into non-existence.