Conversation with a Mormon

[RebeccaJ]

And the issue under current debate is…

…what, precisely?

Now me, I think the issue is this very entertaining charge by Jerusha that I am a Nazi, and that Mien Kampf is a treatise on Mormon Doctrine; that Hitler was a 'jack-Mormon" (does she even know what a “jack-Mormon” IS?) that Catholics were the heroes of WWII and were enemies of Nazism and Hitler from the very beginning so that she has the right to condemn Mormons for obeying German law.

…and that you are defending this absurd attack by her.

C’mon, Rebecca. she screwed up. I don’t care how ‘wroth’ she is with me, she SCREWED UP.

What she wrote was unacceptable, unconscionable, offensive and absolutely personally insulting–and you are defending her in it for one reason and one reason only; not because you think I am a Nazi or that Hitler wrote about Mormonism in Mein Kampf–I have far more respect for your brains than to think that–but for a far less honorable reason.

You are defending her because you don’t like Mormonism and you don’t like me.

That I find to be very dishonorable, Rebecca.

Is that aggressive enough?

If not, that’s too bad, because that’s as aggressive as I get.

Diana, Jerusha and I are two different people. No, I don’t believe you are a Nazi, I have no idea if you have Nazi tendencies. Do you? I never called you a Nazi or inferred that were, in any way.

I understand that with you on your own here that it might feel like you’re ganged upon and that all of us are interchangeable cogs. I might feel sorry, if I didn’t think you kept encouraging us to call you on your anti-Catholicism.

The issue, as I see it, is this:

You said:

Oh, and as a final aside, you do realize that Hitler was raised Catholic, right?

So there you are, putting Hitler at our doorstep. Do you think that a Catholic is not going to defend this?

I replied to THIS, and this alone (post #60)

Mormons have necro-baptized Adolf Hitler and have done his temple work. Performing a marriage sealing to Eva Braun. Several times, just to be sure I guess. I’m thinking y’all can have him.

And perhaps you should study up on what Mormons were saying about Nazi Germany. How it was SO inline with Mormon views of race and how Mormons living in Germany supported the Nazi party, as your god’s party. You know, how mormons always seem to view governments as instituted by your god?

What was meant to let you know that Mormons do not have their hands clean of the Third Reich.

Where, you said

**Care to give us a quote or two?

I’m very, very, VERY tired of the insults being thrown around here without any back up. **

Yes, Hitler was, evidently, given a proxy baptism by a cousin or somebody. Personally, I don’t mind…it’s very much a ‘coals of fire’ sort of thing. However, a proxy baptism (that, quite frankly, cements his condemnation far more than it would ‘save’ him) is hardly on the same level as having been born, baptized and raised Catholic, is it–and never having been excommunicated?

In reality, Hitler was…whatever he thought his audience wanted him to be, whether that was Christian, or pagan, or atheist. You can find quotes from him that support pretty much anything–except, of course, LDS.

However, his mother was a devout Catholic and she raised him that way. That, unfortunately, is historical fact. Again, sorry about that.

Ignoring your continued attacks upon the Catholic church, I suppose by proxy of Adolf Hitler, I gave you the “quote or two” you asked for.

Diana, who’s venturing into Godwin’s law now?

Perhaps I’ll roll out every criminal with a Mormon background. Gary Gilmore? Sorry, raised LDS. Mark Hoffman, sorry, same.

Hitler was about as Catholic as whyme. (not saying whyme is Hitler)

“The Fuhrer’s New Clothes: Helmuth H_bener and the Mormons in the Third Reich” available for download (PDF) at Sunstone Magazine.

Meanwhile, you are diverting away from the issue, and decide instead to make a commentary on me, personally.

Rebecca: you are a prime example of the sort of person that was meant when it was said 'they leave, but they don’t leave us alone."

You don’t see that your own bitterness is flavoring the stew here.

In effect, deflecting, ignoring, whichever tactic it was, from the issue, and focusing on me instead.

YOU MADE the issue an assessment of me. I try, Diana, to be charitable, but sometimes the BS gets too much even for me.

Now, you want to return to the issue. Which I see as you, attacking the Catholic Church. More than one person has asked you to provide evidence for your claims.

Ready to continue on then?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana, one more thing, to Jerusha’s point. The facts are that at this time in history, Mormonism was very much teaching racial purity, which were quite inline with Nazi sentiments. Perhaps they were for differing reasons, but the fact remains. Mormons viewed white skin as white and delightsome. Valiant in the pre-existence. The stuff of GODS.

Dark skin was viewed as lazy, loathsome, lacking in conviction in the pre-existence.

Hard things to accept and hear, I know, But as you say, if you can’t accept your history you don’t know who you are.

This is where Jerusha is focusing. The document I linked to you see that Jerusha pointed out THE WAY MORMONS WERE THINKING. Which is crucial, if not the most relevant thing, to be said when it comes to Mormonism, racism and Mormons living in Germany.

So Diana, while our Pope may have been congratulating Hitler on surviving an assissantion attempt. our DOCTRINE was not cheering him on as something coming from DIVINE REVELATION to PROPHETS.

This is an issue, when comparing Catholicism to Mormonism.

You defend the WAY MORMONS WERE THINKING, which, causes Jerusha to lump you in with Nazis.

Not all people see the world as the white and delightsome mormon does, I think, would be a point to consider.

 

[dianaiad]

My point still remains, that you are pulling these numbers out of thin air, and without any basis in historical research. As long as that is the case, your numbers are nothing more than propaganda.

Actually, no.

I used research on the population of the earth from the beginning…several sites. Although Catholics now comprise 17% of the population of the world (cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm), It actually has been pretty much the same since, oh, 300 AD or so; from 15% in 1100 AD to 17% now. So…I went with 15%. That’s how I got the population of Catholics for the years before now…and now there are about a billion Catholics.

The infant death rate has ranged from 80% to 10%, with 80% lasting longer than most. I averaged it out to 40%. Adding all this up got me around 25 billion Catholics…number somewhat inflated—because it works out better for the Catholics to do it that way.

I went to several sites that estimated body counts. I threw out the over inflated ones, like the 9 million estimate of witches burned that seems so prevalent…and went with the far more likely number of 200,000. I did the same with the numbers for the Inquisition (millions? not even close…) the Crusades that were directly ordered by the Pope or by church officials rather than by secular rulers (though quite frankly, there WERE no secular rulers in Europe most of that time, since every single one of them were beholden to, and told what to do by, the Pope, who could and did grant or withhold their crowns in the first place). I added the death tolls for the 30 Years War, the death tolls of the conquest of the Americas (figuring that at least three quarters of those were the result of conquest rather than religion…I wanted to underestimate the death tolls as much as I could). The probable death tolls (cut in half because, well…just because) of all the other heretic hunts…

I then divided the total deaths by years, and by the numbers of Catholics who lived to adulthood.

For the Mormons, I looked at the record and added up those incidents that actually happened, and threw in a few that were rumored but probably did NOT happen. I did the opposite of what I did for the Catholics; I overinflated the death count. Then I simply used the current population of Mormons. (which underestimates the number of Mormons who have ever existed on the planet).

If I were to get more exact, (and I suppose I could) I’m afraid that the numbers would actually be more damning–for the Catholics.

Did I do this to make the Mormons ‘better’ than the Catholics?
No, actually, I didn’t. I understand that there were many other influences going on with those death tolls, both cultural and political. However, the Church didn’t STOP them, did it? It could have…and it didn’t.

I did this to point out that a Catholic accusing Mormonism of being directly and indirectly responsible for more human misery than Catholicism was is being particularly obnoxious, insulting, inflammatory and, well…wrong. I would never have done this had she not made that statement.

Just as I would never have pointed out the Vatican’s relationship with Hitler and the Third Reich had she not called me a Nazi and said what she did about Mein Kampf. I am heartily tired of having my beliefs, and me personally, being the target of that sort of despicable language. I am just as tired of being criticized for being insulting when I react negatively to having my beliefs called murderous and Nazi-like.

Especially from someone whose own belief system has a history of persecuting others, and of pandering to Nazism…

Do I blame YOU for any of that? No. Do I think that Catholicism is evil incarnate because they attempted to keep the peace with Hitler for a decade? No. Everybody else did, too…nobody understood Hitler’s agenda until after the war was over, not really. Do I think that it is evil because it was so very political with its rule over the millenia? Not really, no. I think everybody did the best they could with the circumstances and beliefs they found themselves with at the time.

Mostly.

But I do not believe I have to sweetly sit here and have someone from a background far more violent than mine, far more politically accommodating than mine, and let them accuse MY beliefs of being violent and politically accommodating. You want to say we are incorrect in our beliefs? Fine. You want to say that JS was a fraud? Fine. Most of the people in the world think the same thing–if they think of us at all.

But the sort of thing Jerusha pulled?

No. I will not put up with that without responding with some very uncomfortable home truths in return.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaid, again you miss the point, the Dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are perfect, without error, protected. The people are not. The Mormon teachings are errant, and have seen COMPLETE reversals. There’s no way around this.

I see you have been deeply, deeply programmed from day one, as you admitted you don’t have a problem w polygamy etc.

Really. Wow.

You’re in so deep, you HAVE to make this mormonism thing work.

You just keep thinkin’ the sure sign of the nail and secret handshakes etc will get you to goddess hood and your own planet.

And hopefully, your husband will pull you through the veil after you die, he doesn’t have to ya know–yikes.

Thank God for the freedom of the blood of Christ…

Ah. so you support Jerusha calling me a Nazi and saying that the Mormon church is directly and indirectly responsible for more human misery than the Catholics because, well…our DOCTRINES are different?

Y’know, you don’t get to do this. If the Catholic church is not responsible for any of the actions performed by the Catholics who belong to it, even though the Catholic in question is the Pope, then the CoJCoLDS is not responsible for the actions of any member, either–whether the doctrines change or not.

You don’t get to have this both ways.

 

[Stephen168]

I guess everyone has noticed that the Mormons have taken off their plastic smiles and are showing their true selves. It doesn’t take much, does it?

I went to Boy Scouts with Mormons for 4 years. in that time I learned they were no nicer than anyone else. And much more gossipy. The only two vandals I knew in school were Mormon. And my Mormon friends Dad suddenly left town with another Mormon man’s wife. I never felt them being anti-Catholic at Boy Scout meetings but in the mornings after there classes it would come out.

 

[Stephen168]

I’ve found that the best thing to do with Mormons is to just keep them posting. The more they post the more deluded and foolish they seem, the less logic they evince, and the more hateful and un-Christian they become.

This is what I’ve learned of Mormons here. Di is a good teacher

 

[dianaiad]

No, it isn’t the same thing. You are splitting hairs. Which is a tactic many of us have seen before, and are quite frankly tired of.

You don’t know that she doesn’t know what Nazi tendencies are, therefore you don’t know that she necessarily meant it as an insult.

Oh, talk about splitting hairs!!! OF COURSE she meant it as an insult! Nor is she denying it.

No, it was an observation. It looked very much as if some of the responses were elided. The form of the post was indicative of that. That’s not “Passive aggressive.” That’s being observant.

but if I am wrong about that, I apologise. I notice that the opening poster did not SAY I was wrong about that, though.

…and to you this is equivalent to being called a murderous Nazi?

Wow, what world do you live in?

I’m finding it very informative. I mean, looky here; when you call a Mormon a murderous Nazi, she actually gets MAD!

Wow, how uncharitable of her.

 

[Jash]

I’ve found that the best thing to do with Mormons is to just keep them posting. The more they post the more deluded and foolish they seem, the less logic they evince, and the more hateful and un-Christian they become.

The lurkers are watching - and learning.

Us? hateful?

 

[twopekinguys]

Oh, talk about splitting hairs!!! OF COURSE she meant it as an insult! Nor is she denying it.

No, it was an observation. It looked very much as if some of the responses were elided. The form of the post was indicative of that. That’s not “Passive aggressive.” That’s being observant.

but if I am wrong about that, I apologise. I notice that the opening poster did not SAY I was wrong about that, though.

…and to you this is equivalent to being called a murderous Nazi?

Wow, what world do you live in?

I’m finding it very informative. I mean, looky here; when you call a Mormon a murderous Nazi, she actually gets MAD!

Wow, how uncharitable of her.

In case you haven’t noticed, the horse is dead, quit beating it.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, Jerusha and I are two different people. No, I don’t believe you are a Nazi, I have no idea if you have Nazi tendencies. Do you? I never called you a Nazi or inferred that were, in any way.

I understand that with you on your own here that it might feel like you’re ganged upon and that all of us are interchangeable cogs. I might feel sorry, if I didn’t think you kept encouraging us to call you on your anti-Catholicism.

I know you are not Jerusha. That’s why I said “she,” not “you.” YOU are excusing her actions and her words. YOU seem to figure that I have no right to be angry or insulted by her words or her hatred.

The issue, as I see it, is this:

You said:

(my remark to Jerusha that Hitler was raised a Catholic)

So there you are, putting Hitler at our doorstep. Do you think that a Catholic is not going to defend this?

Yes. I said that…AFTER she called me a Nazi and AFTER she said that Mein Kampf was all about Mormon beliefs and that Hitler was a “jack-Mormon.” The fact is, whether you like it or NOT, Hitler was raised a Catholic. His mother was a devout Catholic. Now you guys are saying that it doesn’t matter how many people Catholics have murdered over the centuries, Cathlolicism isn’t responsible because the doctrines are pure and those who commit such deeds are not good, or ‘true’ Catholics. Thus Catholicism is utterly innocent of any atrocity.

Well, if this is true, then what does it matter if Hitler was a Catholic? (he was…) He wasn’t a GOOD Catholic (he certainly was not.) I absolutely do NOT blame the Catholics for Hitler.

Well, not for him as a person. There WAS this thing about being responsible for making him the dictator of Germany…but hey, that was politics. Who knew what that action would result in? The church has been responsible for many, many kings, emperors and dictators being put in, and taken out of, power. Nobody has ever been quite as prolifically and intensely evil as Hitler.

At least, I don’t think so. Perhaps there have been but they just didn’t have the technology to be as efficient at the killing.

I replied to THIS, and this alone (post #60)

What was meant to let you know that Mormons do not have their hands clean of the Third Reich.

Rebecca, where in all this have I EVER said that Mormons ‘have their hands clean’ of the Third Reich?

where, in all this, have I once denied that Mormons obeyed the laws of Germany? Where have I defended the actions of LDS individuals or groups that actually supported the system?

Hmmmnnn?

In fact, I rather clearly stated that only one religion out there DOES have its ‘hands clean.’…and it wasn’t us, and it sure as shootin wasn’t the Catholics.

It was the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Remember my writing that?

What I do say is that it is highly hypocritical of ANY Catholic to criticize the Mormons for anything to do with Hitler and the Third Reich. What I do say is that nobody at that time, Catholic, Mormon or anybody but the Jehovah’s Witnesses, had a clue how evil the man was. Everybody was simply trying to do the best they could under the circumstances in which they found themselves. That includes the Catholic bishops and Cardinals who were attempting to protect their people by using diplomacy with Hitler–and thus playing right into his hands.

And the Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t see the evil either; they just weren’t going to put up with any government at all.

Where, you said

Ignoring your continued attacks upon the Catholic church, I suppose by proxy of Adolf Hitler, I gave you the “quote or two” you asked for.

Meanwhile, you are diverting away from the issue, and decide instead to make a commentary on me, personally.

In effect, deflecting, ignoring, whichever tactic it was, from the issue, and focusing on me instead.

YOU MADE the issue an assessment of me. I try, Diana, to be charitable, but sometimes the BS gets too much even for me.

Now, you want to return to the issue. Which I see as you, attacking the Catholic Church. More than one person has asked you to provide evidence for your claims.

Ready to continue on then?

“Evidence for my claims?”

You mean…like the concordat of 1933, which I quoted?
Like the Enabling act, which is a matter of public record and history?

Oh, never mind.

 

[twopekinguys]

Oh, talk about splitting hairs!!! OF COURSE she meant it as an insult! Nor is she denying it.

No, it was an observation. It looked very much as if some of the responses were elided. The form of the post was indicative of that. That’s not “Passive aggressive.” That’s being observant.

but if I am wrong about that, I apologise. I notice that the opening poster did not SAY I was wrong about that, though.

…and to you this is equivalent to being called a murderous Nazi?

Wow, what world do you live in?

I’m finding it very informative. I mean, looky here; when you call a Mormon a murderous Nazi, she actually gets MAD!

Wow, how uncharitable of her.

Well, we’ve gone from “Nazi tendencies” to “murderous Nazi”…That’s a stretch. Even for a taffy puller.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana,

Mormon doctrine of the time supported Hitler’s ideas. The document I linked to, shows just how true this was. Hitler’s ideas supported the way that Mormons thought about race, and a divine order of humans, based on race.

Your doctrine has changed, and you are incensed, rightly I’d say, at what your church taught, what Mormon believed, and how that effected their political views in Nazi Germany.

Be glad that your doctrines change and you don’t have to believe this nonsense anymore.

In the meantime, I’d recommend not defending it. Not in any context.

 

[sweetnay]

Please don’t put words in my mouth, I never said or inferred nazi or mormons causing more misery etc.

Your straw man argument doesn’t work here.

You’re lumping us all together, I suppose another debate tactic?

So we’ve established there will always be good/bad people of all religions.

What next? We MUST look at the doctrine.

Stop assuming you have the truth, it’s not hard to find after that.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Us? hateful?

Well I have read alot of hateful stuff over on MAAD board over time. And here I’ve read posts from Fuller and Diane I would equate to the stuff I’ve read on CARM, (also known as the board not to be named).

 

[Jerusha]

And, I never said that the main content Mein Kampf is about Native Americans, the BOM, and Mormonism. It is obvious that he took many of his beliefs from the Protocols. But the other is in there-- briefly, but it is in there.

My apologies for responding to anger with anger. I rarely do that. Has the ignore function been disabled?

 

[why_me]

Well I have read alot of hateful stuff over on MAAD board over time. And here I’ve read posts from Fuller and Diane I would equate to the stuff I’ve read on CARM, (also known as the board not to be named).

Hardly. I don’t think that you ever read a lot of hateful stuff on the mormonapologetics site. It is quite heavily controlled by the moderators. I have never read anything similiar to the comments shown about the mormon church here. Sorry, but it was a nice try.

Here is the latest discussion between mormons and catholics on that site. As you will see, there is not the rudeness that some catholics show the lds on this site. And no flame throwing.

mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=42110&st=0

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yep that was the one where someone said we were doing the above for “thousands(s)” of years also where one stated they had no intention of supporting their claim. I didn’t notice any moderation on that thread, although Z was the nicest I’ve ever seen about Catholicism on that one.

There is a great deal of Anti-Catholicism on that board, often preceded by bits of make nice. I am not surprised you don’t see it since your posts show you see mostly the bad in Catholics while extolling the virtues of LDS. Even going as far as encouraging Catholics to disregard the teachings of their faith.

There are some who are genuinely respectful of Catholicism on MAAD but you have to spend sometime reading, often it starts out nice but then turns. Backhanded compliment?

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

No you didn’t, Jerusha. If anyone had, they would have headed it off. As for 'allowing it to happen…" We believe in a loving God Who gave us free agency. He allowed it…and warned us that it would happen.

“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God, “when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.” This text speaks of an apostasy in ancient Israel, not after the death of the last apostle in the New Testament. But even this apostasy was not total; it does not qualify as the apostasy Mormons claim. In chapter 9, Amos makes this very clear.“Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the surface of the ground; except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,” says the Lord. “For lo, I will command, and shake the house of Israel among all the nations as one shakes with a sieve, but no pebble shall fall to the ground. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, who say, ‘Evil shall not overtake or meet us.’” (Amos 9:8-10) Old Testament salvation history records many times when priests and prophets were corrupt (cf. Lam. 4:13, Ez. 22:22-26, Zeph. 1:4, Mic. 3:5), when prophets had no vision from the Lord or prophesied falsely (cf. Lam. 2:14, Jer. 23:26-31), or when there were no prophets at all (cf. Ps. 74:9). Apostasies were frequent in the Old Testament, but never total. There was always a faithful remnant. When we examine the entire Old Testament, we can see that in the midst of good times and bad—times of faithlessness and faithfulness—there was one constant: the existence of the high priesthood and a God-ordained hierarchy as detailed in Exodus 28 and Deuteronomy 17. God himself established and gave authority to this hierarchy in order to guide the children of Israel. The high priest, or those to whom he delegated authority, had the power to deliver the oracle of God to his people. Deuteronomy 17:8-12 is an example of this historical fact:
If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case . . . which is too difficult for you, then you shall . . . go up to . . . the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare . . . you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you . . . The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge . . . shall die.According to Exodus 28:30, the high priest had what was called the “Urim and the Thummim” on the breastplate of his vestments, whereby he would bear the sins of the people of Israel when he went before the Lord in the temple. Through this gift of God the high priest would also hear the word of God and proclaim divine oracles from God. Even during such a corrupt time as we find in the book of Judges, we see this gift in operation in Israel. This was a time characterized by these words from Judges 17:6: " . . . every man did what was right in his own eyes." **It was a time of rebellion and disobedience; yet, even then the ministry of the high priest and the gift of “the Urim and the Thummim” was alive and functioning. **In fact, Christ himself acknowledged the existence of this hierarchy and its authority during his earthly sojourn. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus commanded his apostles: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” Even the apostles had to obey the scribes and Pharisees, who spoke in an official capacity as God’s authority in Israel. Moreover, St. John acknowledged the authority of the high priest to be valid and effective even if the person occupying the office at the time was personally corrupt (see John 11:47-52). 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3:
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition.
Paul used the Greek word apostasia in verse three—translated as “the rebellion”—to describe it. He declared this apostasy must first come before Jesus would come again. And after all, did not the Jews themselves reject the Messiah and apostatize? Does this not demonstrate that such an apostasy is at least possible?
Continued on next post

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Continued from previous post
First of all, not all of Israel apostatized. The apostles, Mary, and the earliest disciples were mostly Jews, so obviously not all in Israel fell away from God. And 2 Thessalonians never says, nor is there one shred of biblical evidence elsewhere to say, that a total apostasy would ever happen.** Apostasy, yes, but total apostasy**, no. But even more importantly, a total apostasy as taught by the LDS is not only never mentioned in Scripture, but it is impossible according to Scripture for at least three reasons.1. Old Testament prophecies concerning the New Covenant and the then-future coming of the kingdom of God, the Church, describe it as perpetual and indefectible. For example, Daniel 7:13-14: “. . . behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man (Jesus), and he and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (see also Is. 9:6-7 and Dan. 2:44). 2. The New Testament describes the Church as indefectible as well.And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me . . . and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20)… . . and of his kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:33).And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).The LDS claim these texts merely speak of the ultimate triumph of the Church but that they do not mean there could not be a total apostasy in the centuries between the time of the apostles and that final triumph through the LDS. This contention leads us to our third and perhaps most definitive reason to say a total apostasy is impossible:3. Paul uses explicit terms that eliminate the possibility of a total apostasy in his letter to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:23, he describes the Church as “[Christ’s] body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” This Church, he goes on, is “built upon the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Indeed, Paul describes the Church as being the instrument God has chosen so that “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10). Paul then reminds us, as we have already seen, this Church must have apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers (cf. Eph. 4:11). And why? “For the equipment of the saints . . . for building up the body of Christ . . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine . . .” (Eph. 4:12-14).According to St. Paul, God gave us the Church so that we may know with certainty the truths of the faith. This is by no means the only reason for the existence of the Church, but it is a central reason. But most importantly, consider Ephesians 3:20-21: “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”**This Church that Paul is describing in Ephesians will be here to all generations (pasas tas geneas, “all the generations”) forever and ever. This biblical text eliminates the possibility of a total apostasy for even one generation, much less 1,800 years.**Mormons and Catholics agree that Christ was directing the faithful to obey the Church that he established and that we can be confident about doing so because the true Church to which Jesus was leading us would never steer us away from God. The question is: To what Church is he referring? Mormons say it is the LDS “church.” Catholics say it is the Catholic Church. How do we know which is true?One way to know is to ask another simple question: What if you were living in, let’s say, 1785, and you were to read this very passage from Matthew. You know that Jesus would never lead you to a “church” with no one who could speak for him. In obedience to Jesus, where would you go? The LDS did not exist yet. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He would never lead us astray or command us to follow error. If the true church did not exist on this earth for 1,800 years, then Jesus misguided millions into obeying error-filled churches with no apostolic authority. That would be unthinkable.
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0801btb.asp

 

[ParkerD]

Lamb of God Girly,
You said:
"In Ephesians 1:23, he describes the Church as “[Christ’s] body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” This Church, he goes on, is “built upon the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Indeed, Paul describes the Church as being the instrument God has chosen so that “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10). Paul then reminds us, as we have already seen, this Church must have apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers (cf. Eph. 4:11). And why? “For the equipment of the saints . . . for building up the body of Christ . . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine . . .” (Eph. 4:12-14).According to St. Paul, God gave us the Church so that we may know with certainty the truths of the faith. This is by no means the only reason for the existence of the Church, but it is a central reason.
“Christ was directing the faithful to obey the Church that he established and that we can be confident about doing so because the true Church to which Jesus was leading us would never steer us away from God. The question is: To what Church is he referring? Mormons say it is the LDS “church.” Catholics say it is the Catholic Church. How do we know which is true?One way to know is to ask another simple question: What if you were living in, let’s say, 1785, and you were to read this very passage from Matthew. You know that Jesus would never lead you to a “church” with no one who could speak for him. In obedience to Jesus, where would you go? The LDS did not exist yet. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He would never lead us astray or command us to follow error. If the true church did not exist on this earth for 1,800 years, then Jesus misguided millions into obeying error-filled churches with no apostolic authority. That would be unthinkable.”

What about the apostles and prophets that needed to be an acting presence in the church “till we all come in the unity of the faith,… to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”? (It hasn’t yet happened.)

What about Ephesians 1 verses as follows:
15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,"

In answer to your question, I would have read the Bible, trusted that I needed to ask in prayer for the “spirit of wisdom and revelation”, and do that very thing. Joseph Smith did that. I have done that. Millions have done that. The answer comes by the “spirit of wisdom and revelation” to those who ask “in faith, nothing wavering.” (James 1:6)