A
Andrew_Larkoski
Guest
Katholikos:
Couldn’t agree with you more. Keep speaking the Truth.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Keep speaking the Truth.
- Status
M
Mfaustina1
Guest
TOmNossor-
Hello! I have always wondered about what I’m about to ask you but want you to know in advance that I ask only in the spirit of charity. My question is how can you or anyone be comfortable with a religion that claims the Church that Christ instituted fell into apostasy shortly after his death in light of Matthew 16:18? It seems to me that the gates of hell would have prevailed until 1830 when Joseph Smith founded the CoJCoLDS? (Hope you don’t mind if I use the same abbreviation…) Why do you accept only parts of the KJV which is actually a faulty translation of the Bible? How do you know which is interpreted correctly and which is not out of this book? How do you reconcile God saying that there shall be no other Gods and the Mormon doctrine of “exaltation”? How can you be comfortable with changing doctrine as opposed to developing doctrine which only builds on what was already established without changing it? How do you reconcile this with "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever? I’m sorry to lambast you with so many questions, but I sure would appreciate your patience and time in answering them. Thanks and God bless! - Mfaustina1
Hello! I have always wondered about what I’m about to ask you but want you to know in advance that I ask only in the spirit of charity. My question is how can you or anyone be comfortable with a religion that claims the Church that Christ instituted fell into apostasy shortly after his death in light of Matthew 16:18? It seems to me that the gates of hell would have prevailed until 1830 when Joseph Smith founded the CoJCoLDS? (Hope you don’t mind if I use the same abbreviation…) Why do you accept only parts of the KJV which is actually a faulty translation of the Bible? How do you know which is interpreted correctly and which is not out of this book? How do you reconcile God saying that there shall be no other Gods and the Mormon doctrine of “exaltation”? How can you be comfortable with changing doctrine as opposed to developing doctrine which only builds on what was already established without changing it? How do you reconcile this with "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever? I’m sorry to lambast you with so many questions, but I sure would appreciate your patience and time in answering them. Thanks and God bless! - Mfaustina1
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I thought the title of this thread was “Discourse with Mormons.” Discourse means “discussion” or “conversation.” The discussion isn’t restricted to certain topics – but if you want to restrict it, you may, of course. I’d be happy to post anywhere you feel is appropriate, if any issues I have introduced on this thread offend you. But “discourse with Mormons” is a general topic. It means discourse about anything Mormon, as far as I understand the term. Perhaps you have a different interpretation.
TOm:
In retrospect, I will have to agree that the thread is titled with a very broad brush. It was just a hope of mine that bite size chunks might be addressed. It was also a hope that I might spend more time exploring Catholicism, and towards this end I suggested that one could recognize that anti-Catholicism and anti-Mormonism have more similarities than differences. In another thread you participated on I even suggested that you could do as I did when I explored Catholicism which was read Catholic apologetics so I understood the positions myself. Anyway, I will attempt to respond to the things you have pointed too.
And since we are still here and 5 years before his joining the CoJCoLDS former Father Vajda supported my equating of anti-Catholic with anti-Mormon, let me share some words of his with you.
“The underlying motive for this thesis,” Father Vajda states in the new introduction that he has written for FARMS, “was my . . . perception that one connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label ‘Christian’ to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDS Church as to its ‘non-Christian’ status were equally flawed.”
More to follow.
Charity, TOm
M
Mom_of_5
Guest
This is a very interesting discussion. I married a man who had been LDS all his life, (53 years) I am Catholic. He refused to go to his church and went with me for 10 years, every Sunday. He would only say that he had been hurt by his religion.Through all those 10 years, the home teachers called on us every month and stopped in to visit in between the monthly visits. One evening one of the gentlemen gave his testimony. “I believe in Joseph Smith-------”. My husband became angry. “Don’t you know that you are in my wifes home as well as mine, she is Catholic, she has her own testimony, you should be ashamed.” The nice man looked at me for a moment then said," You have a very strong faith. In all these years of our visit you have never wavered, you are always kind to us, but never give in. I admire that."
This year at Easter time, Holy Saturday, my husband was baptised, confirmed and our marriage was blessed. We went through the annullment process for our previous marriages. At 65 we have “started over”. Through all of this I studied Mormonism, but studied my own faith as well. As a cradle Catholic, I took my faith for granted. My husband tells me how happy he is to have found me, he also found Jesus Christ.
God bless to all who are struggling to make the all important decision to leave Mormonism, it is not easy.
Prayers,
Mom of 5
This year at Easter time, Holy Saturday, my husband was baptised, confirmed and our marriage was blessed. We went through the annullment process for our previous marriages. At 65 we have “started over”. Through all of this I studied Mormonism, but studied my own faith as well. As a cradle Catholic, I took my faith for granted. My husband tells me how happy he is to have found me, he also found Jesus Christ.
God bless to all who are struggling to make the all important decision to leave Mormonism, it is not easy.
Prayers,
Mom of 5
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Have I given any incorrect facts? If so, please correct me. I have a very direct writing style. I do not intentionally offend anyone, and I do not engage in name calling or insults.
TOm:
Well, first you started by linking the polygamous practices in Colorado City to the church most commonly associated with the term Mormons. The CoJCoLDS is a large organization that no longer participates in a polygamous lifestyle. You were in error here. It is not impossible that to you a Fundamentalist Mormon is equal to a LDS, but this would be a gross misunderstanding on your part. SSPX and Sedevacantist and Liberal American Catholics are far closer to faithful Roman Catholics organizationally than are Fundamentalist Mormons to LDS. Would you be interested in simultaneously responding to that spectrum of beliefs and behaviors?
Next, in response to the statement that Jordan Vajda became a LDS you responded with the following:
The poor soul must have taken leave of his senses. Let’s pray that he, like Isaiah Bennett, realizes his error and returns to the Church Christ founded. He must have been bamboozled by Mormon propaganda, which can be daunting for the unprepared.
TOm:
Now for one who does not intend to offend this seems like a rather unwise method of expressing oneself. I get that to become a LDS one must “take leave of their sense.” And the CoJCoLDS “bamboozles with Mormon propaganda.” These are not at the top of my list of effective ways to make friends and influence people.
I usually take the shortest distance between two points. But my only intention is to tell it like it is, as I understand it. If I have erred in any statements I have made, you have every right to correct me and complain.
TOm:
In interacting with others sometimes the shortest distance involves some amount of respect that is not evidenced by some of your comments. I am really pretty thick skinned, but I had hoped to cultivate a greater spirit of charity in my interactions here. I understand the passion. I actually feel it too in many ways.
More to follow,
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
No, I’m not Protestant – but I was. I was also an agnositc and an atheist before “Christ shined his ever-lovin’ light on me” and led me into the Church He founded.
TOm:
My point about you not being a Protestant was that you can engage in a positive apologetic (such as Mfaustina’s Matthew 16:18). This combined with a more sensitive use of negative apologetics is far more effective than is comments about how LDS converts take leave of their senses. Surly you have been to an anti-Catholic board where you experience nothing but the more negative aspects of the Catholic Church highlighted time and time again. I personally am not a big fan of polygamy nor racism (even though I believe God had some hand in what we see witnessed in LDS history). It seems to me that you have picked polygamy and racism as your foundational negative apologetic. Do I really need to list common negative anti-Catholic apologetics so that you might know what it is like to engage someone who goes straight to these places. Now, I am not saying that these things do not have a place in the discussion of the CoJCoLDS. But I am saying that you ignore me when I point out that you err when you link Fundamental Mormons to LDS. Then you jump to this line of attack. This type of non-dialogue seems problematic to me.
I think I will try to respond to the Matthew 16:18 comment. I can provide more around these couple of sentences I am about to present, or you may discuss Monotheism vs. Polytheism. That would be more enjoyable for me actually.
Polygamy:
The CoJCoLDS believe that God instituted the practice of polygamy and then removed this practice. The why’s are not doctrinally documented, but it does seem that the Bible witnesses to non-condemned polygamy at times. Martin Luther who certainly studied his Bible was of the opinion that polygamy was never condemned in the Bible. The BOM seems to suggest that there is a time for polygamy and a time for the recognition of polygamy as an abomination.
The Priesthood Ban:
You stated that it was Joseph Smith who instituted this ban. There is reason to think that this is not true. Some LDS apologist seem to have gone so far as to say that this ban was a cultural artifact, but I am not quite willing to do this. Instead, I suggest that God has restricted his priesthood in the past. God has had a chosen race of people in the past. What God’s reasons were for these practices I do not know. I actually find this concept less explainable than I do polygamy.
If you wish for me to flesh out the above then I can.
Or you can comment on what I am about to say, “I am a monotheist.” The CoJCoLDS properly understood is monotheistic. Our binding doctrine is contained solely in the Bible, BOM, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. From these 4 “standard words” one gets a monotheistic religion.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Hello! I have always wondered about what I’m about to ask you but want you to know in advance that I ask only in the spirit of charity. My question is how can you or anyone be comfortable with a religion that claims the Church that Christ instituted fell into apostasy shortly after his death in light of Matthew 16:18? It seems to me that the gates of hell would have prevailed until 1830 when Joseph Smith founded the CoJCoLDS? (Hope you don’t mind if I use the same abbreviation…)
TOm:
First, thank you for you kind comments on another thread. I have been meaning to say that on that thread, but have just failed so far, sorry.
I think there are two things of note concerning Matthew 16:18. First let me quote the end of the passage:
“…and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 Young’s Literal Translation.
Let me start with what it means to prevail. One who prevails may loose many battles, but wins the war. This is really quite a solid way of understanding this passage.
Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18
“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”
In this light I would suggest that Matthew 16:18 is a promise that the apostasy would merely be a set back, but the restoration would shine through ultimately.
The above comes largely from Barry Bickmore. In addition to these comments he suggests that the Church is not just an earthly organization and that Hades is actually “the world of the dead.” Barry suggests that an additional way of looking at this passage is as a promise not solely to the earthly church, but to the church as a whole.
I hope to have much more to share relative to this idea when the book Vox
Dei, Vox Populi is published if this ever happens.
Oh, and the abbreviation is wonderful!
LDS like Catholic do not believe that the Bible for the entire church is individually interpreted. Our General Authorities support doctrinal truths with the Bible and this is authoritative interpretation. Individual interpretation is ok of the individual, but we are to acknowledge and follow the General Authorities.
Concerning the selection of the KJV, I have long felt that this was done because of its sufficiency and familiarity not due to it being superior. Joseph Smith read what protestants (and LDS) call the apocrypha and said that with the proper spirit it could be read and understood and beneficial, but that it was not necessary. So I agree that it was the Protestants who removed the apocryphal books, but as a LDS who does not embrace sola scriptura nor an inerrant Bible I am not too concerned.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
How do you reconcile God saying that there shall be no other Gods and the Mormon doctrine of “exaltation”?
I do not believe that “exaltation” nor “eternal increase” can be viewed as creating other Gods besides the Holy Trinity. That some LDS are polytheistic I will not deny, but I believe that LDS scripture points solidly to monotheism. So I view exaltation as a result of unification with God, not a hyper-pelagian achievement. Those statements in the Bible that you believe preclude polytheism are part of what constitutes LDS doctrine. Since I believe the word preclude polytheism a am a monotheist. LDS do not have a history of theologians and perhaps more importantly LDS do not define creedally as do non-LDS Christians. This results in a large spectrum of beliefs. Oneness and unity are maintain through the support of the Prophet, but doctrinal variation certainly exist among members. That being said, I would suggest that the monotheistic LDS is more informed than his polytheistic brother. Just as the RCIA instructor who can navigate between tri-theism and modalism is more informed than the older man in the front pew who has always conceived of the Trinity in modalistic terms.
How can you be comfortable with changing doctrine as opposed to developing doctrine which only builds on what was already established without changing it? How do you reconcile this with "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever?
The rejection of continued [supernatural] revelation is part of the Catholic Church and was adopted (like so many other things) by the protestant churches. The Bible witnesses to God revealed change. None of this means that God changes, but the path of his children from one age to the next is not wholly identical. Peter the first head of the church receive a vision and an interpretation of a vision and extended the gospel to the gentiles. Israel was called to the mountain with Moses, but they could not bear it and thus received the lesser law of Moses. These things seemed like changes in the path to both Peter and Moses, but God knew the direction he would lead his church.
And concerning Catholic beliefs I embrace what I call “natural” revelation. I utilize this to understand what to me appears to be real change through time. I recognize that radical about faces are not present, but I think the path of the church is more analogous to a flower that grew from a seed than an adult that grew from a teenager.
I hope I have answered adequately. I can try to elaborate where necessary.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Mom of 5:
I will say the same thing to you that I said to the lady and her husband from down the street. They have 5 children, he was LDS, he became Catholic this past Easter, and I got to contact him to find out he no longer wanted home teachers (am unaware if his home teachers offended him, but perhaps this happened too).
I felt like a hypocrite as I professed (past, present, and future) to my fellow LDS how wonderful the Catholic Church truly is, but still was somehow sad that this is the path that this man chose. I have had basically no theological discussion with him or his wife, but I am convinced he is a real Catholic (in that he will attend, participate and believe). He we do well and his family will be blessed.
Anyway, what I said to them was and what I say to you is, “Congratulations!”
One day, more Catholics may understand that they are even less certain of my status as a LDS relative to being “Outside the Catholic Church,” than they are with respect to our Lutheran brothers. As a LDS, I am well aware that in accordance with our theology it is quite possible that faithful Catholics will enjoy all the blessing God has in store for any of his children.
Anyway, may God bless you and your husband.
Charity, TOm
Wow! Are you really from Washington and really 65+ years old.
I will say the same thing to you that I said to the lady and her husband from down the street. They have 5 children, he was LDS, he became Catholic this past Easter, and I got to contact him to find out he no longer wanted home teachers (am unaware if his home teachers offended him, but perhaps this happened too).
I felt like a hypocrite as I professed (past, present, and future) to my fellow LDS how wonderful the Catholic Church truly is, but still was somehow sad that this is the path that this man chose. I have had basically no theological discussion with him or his wife, but I am convinced he is a real Catholic (in that he will attend, participate and believe). He we do well and his family will be blessed.
Anyway, what I said to them was and what I say to you is, “Congratulations!”
One day, more Catholics may understand that they are even less certain of my status as a LDS relative to being “Outside the Catholic Church,” than they are with respect to our Lutheran brothers. As a LDS, I am well aware that in accordance with our theology it is quite possible that faithful Catholics will enjoy all the blessing God has in store for any of his children.
Anyway, may God bless you and your husband.
Charity, TOm
M
Mom_of_5
Guest
Mom of 5:
A
AugustineH354
Guest
Good morning Tom,
It is so good to see a knowledgeable Mormon participating on this new message board. I have been a serious student of Christianity since the late 70’s and started studying Mormonism in 1987. Interestingly enough, it was through my studies of Mormonism that I began to see that the claims of the Catholic Church made sense. How could any of the Protestant sects be correct if the Church that Christ founded had fallen into a horrible state of apostasy? The issue of authority became crystal clear to me: if the Catholic Church had lost the authority that Christ gave to the Church none of the Protestant sects had a leg to stand on. For years I had failed to understand the real issue between Catholics and Protestants.
Now, with that said, the issue between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church is that of apostasy: did the Church that founded in the first century fall into a state of apostasy such that She lost the “keys” of authority? This very issue has been debated by two competent representatives of each side; and the debate is available online at:
[geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html)
And/or here:
[transporter.com/apologia/lds_rcc/index.html](http://www.transporter.com/apologia/lds_rcc/index.html)
Enjoy!
Aug
It is so good to see a knowledgeable Mormon participating on this new message board. I have been a serious student of Christianity since the late 70’s and started studying Mormonism in 1987. Interestingly enough, it was through my studies of Mormonism that I began to see that the claims of the Catholic Church made sense. How could any of the Protestant sects be correct if the Church that Christ founded had fallen into a horrible state of apostasy? The issue of authority became crystal clear to me: if the Catholic Church had lost the authority that Christ gave to the Church none of the Protestant sects had a leg to stand on. For years I had failed to understand the real issue between Catholics and Protestants.
Now, with that said, the issue between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church is that of apostasy: did the Church that founded in the first century fall into a state of apostasy such that She lost the “keys” of authority? This very issue has been debated by two competent representatives of each side; and the debate is available online at:
[geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html)
And/or here:
[transporter.com/apologia/lds_rcc/index.html](http://www.transporter.com/apologia/lds_rcc/index.html)
Enjoy!
Aug
T
TOmNossor
Guest
AugustineH354,
It has been about 1 year since I read through Bickmore’s and Clifford’s excellent discussion. They did a great job of presenting facts and being kind while doing so. I wish Bickmore would let Geology students at BYU fen for themselves and return to message boards and authorship.
If those on this board (and/or you and I) are interested we can explore this issue further with Bickmore and Clifford as a springboard.
I of course agree with you that the apostasy is a fundamental issue for the CoJCoLDS vs. Catholic Church decision, and unlike many LDS (but like Bickmore) I have tried to develop an apostasy paradigm looking at the historical time of the apostasy. Many LDS rely solely on the miracles they see in the restoration, and still other rely almost totally on Spiritual witness. I think all three must be integrated.
Charity, TOm
It has been about 1 year since I read through Bickmore’s and Clifford’s excellent discussion. They did a great job of presenting facts and being kind while doing so. I wish Bickmore would let Geology students at BYU fen for themselves and return to message boards and authorship.
If those on this board (and/or you and I) are interested we can explore this issue further with Bickmore and Clifford as a springboard.
I of course agree with you that the apostasy is a fundamental issue for the CoJCoLDS vs. Catholic Church decision, and unlike many LDS (but like Bickmore) I have tried to develop an apostasy paradigm looking at the historical time of the apostasy. Many LDS rely solely on the miracles they see in the restoration, and still other rely almost totally on Spiritual witness. I think all three must be integrated.
Charity, TOm
A
Andrew_Larkoski
Guest
TOm,
I love you as a brother in Christ and I pray that you may find the Truth in His Church. That said, I have a proposition for you.
I am a searcher of the Truth, and I believe that the Catholic Church is that Truth. Two hundred fourty some-odd popes since St. Peter, the largest single denomination of any religion in the world, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit have easily shown me that I am right. However, as you refer to your church, CoJCoLDS believe that an apostasy occurred soon after Jesus’ death and ressurection utterly destroying what Christ had set up. After this apostasy, it was necessary for God to restore His church through Joseph Smith, which makes sense if there was an apostasy. So, I ask the question of you: if you can undeniably prove that there was such an apostasy after Christ died and was ressurected, I will cease to be Catholic and immediately convert to CoJCoLDS.
You have nothing to lose. Heck, you might even find that the Church that Christ set up has survived and is very much alive and intact in the Catholic faith. If not, then your current faith will be strengthened and you will know with no uncertainty that you know the Truth.
Please, TOm, take up this challenge.
I love you as a brother in Christ and I pray that you may find the Truth in His Church. That said, I have a proposition for you.
I am a searcher of the Truth, and I believe that the Catholic Church is that Truth. Two hundred fourty some-odd popes since St. Peter, the largest single denomination of any religion in the world, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit have easily shown me that I am right. However, as you refer to your church, CoJCoLDS believe that an apostasy occurred soon after Jesus’ death and ressurection utterly destroying what Christ had set up. After this apostasy, it was necessary for God to restore His church through Joseph Smith, which makes sense if there was an apostasy. So, I ask the question of you: if you can undeniably prove that there was such an apostasy after Christ died and was ressurected, I will cease to be Catholic and immediately convert to CoJCoLDS.
You have nothing to lose. Heck, you might even find that the Church that Christ set up has survived and is very much alive and intact in the Catholic faith. If not, then your current faith will be strengthened and you will know with no uncertainty that you know the Truth.
Please, TOm, take up this challenge.
A
AmandaPS
Guest
I’m wondering myself about the Apostacy. The missionaries that stopped by here describe it as such:
The Book of Revelations was given to John while he was on the island of Patmos. If Peter had a legitmate successor, why was Revelations not given to either Linus or Clemens? Why was it given to the last surviving or the original Apostles?
Following that line of thought, they said that the power to lay hands was taken away, and there were no more real successor following the original.
When I asked about Jesus’ promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail,” they answered that the promise was kept because the church was taken to safety off the earth before apostacy set in.
I’m looking for more views on this, but I’m also having a very hard time grasping the LDS concept.
The Book of Revelations was given to John while he was on the island of Patmos. If Peter had a legitmate successor, why was Revelations not given to either Linus or Clemens? Why was it given to the last surviving or the original Apostles?
Following that line of thought, they said that the power to lay hands was taken away, and there were no more real successor following the original.
When I asked about Jesus’ promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail,” they answered that the promise was kept because the church was taken to safety off the earth before apostacy set in.
I’m looking for more views on this, but I’m also having a very hard time grasping the LDS concept.
K
Katholikos
Guest
“When I asked about Jesus’ promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail,” they answered that the promise was kept because the church was taken to safety off the earth before apostacy set in.”
Sure it was. Just like the golden plates from which Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon were “taken off this earth by an angel” before they could be examined. And the magic spectacles which enabled the “translation” from “ancient Egyptian” disappeared with them. And God threatened anyone with sure and certain destruction (according to one J. Smith) if they so much as peeked at them.
If the “powers of death” (RSV), or "the gates of hell’ (KJV) prevailed against the Church that Christ founded, Christianity is a sham. That would mean that (1) Jesus is not God, and therefore He is incapable of preserving the Church He established for the salvation of the world; or, (2) Jesus was God, but he was only kidding when He said that, and the joke’s on us.
Christianity stands or falls on the words of Jesus. If Mormon doctrine is true, it falls – so we’re wasting our time here.
You’ll notice there’s no evidence for this “great apostasy,” for the Book of Mormon (most of it was copied from the KJV while J. Smith sat on one side of a blanket strung between two poles, and his “secretary” sat on the other, writing as Joe “translated” from those golden plates that later had to be taken to heaven because they were so valuable), or for any other Mormon claim.
I’ve opened a new thread about the gods (plural!) of Mormonism.
Peace be to all who post on these forums.
Sure it was. Just like the golden plates from which Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon were “taken off this earth by an angel” before they could be examined. And the magic spectacles which enabled the “translation” from “ancient Egyptian” disappeared with them. And God threatened anyone with sure and certain destruction (according to one J. Smith) if they so much as peeked at them.
If the “powers of death” (RSV), or "the gates of hell’ (KJV) prevailed against the Church that Christ founded, Christianity is a sham. That would mean that (1) Jesus is not God, and therefore He is incapable of preserving the Church He established for the salvation of the world; or, (2) Jesus was God, but he was only kidding when He said that, and the joke’s on us.
Christianity stands or falls on the words of Jesus. If Mormon doctrine is true, it falls – so we’re wasting our time here.
You’ll notice there’s no evidence for this “great apostasy,” for the Book of Mormon (most of it was copied from the KJV while J. Smith sat on one side of a blanket strung between two poles, and his “secretary” sat on the other, writing as Joe “translated” from those golden plates that later had to be taken to heaven because they were so valuable), or for any other Mormon claim.
I’ve opened a new thread about the gods (plural!) of Mormonism.
Peace be to all who post on these forums.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Andrew,
Thank you for you challenge and your sincere concern for my salvation.
There was a time when I was less sure of my faith. During this time it became obvious to me that if I were not a LDS I would be a Catholic. I no longer consider myself one who investigates that Catholic Church with the intention of conversion. AugustineH354 pointed out that through the exploration of the CoJCoLDS he was able to clearly see the solid foundation of the RCC. I have discovered through my exploration of the RCC many powerful ways of looking at my religion that I might not have discovered with out 2000 years of help (my concept of what the apostasy was does not preclude the sharing of doctrinal understanding were appropriate). I still study and learn about Catholicism.
I do not know what you wish from me toward accepting your challenge. I have no need to win. I also do not think that you should move unless you feel called to seek greater/other light. I do not encourage my LDS friends in anti-Mormon material unless they somehow think they must. Many Catholics and many LDS walk with God and are completely unaware of things taught by Brigham Young or some Popes. I think this is fine, but this seems to not be who I am.
I will let you define how our challenge should go. If you post material critical of the CoJCoLDS time permitting I will respond with information that I think mitigates or eliminates these concerns (which may include glass house arguments). If you send material critical of the CoJCoLDS to me personally and ask me to consider it and not respond, I am ok with this too (the difference being the public ness). If you post pro-Catholic apologetics, I will be glad to read only or read and comment.
I do not demand that you consider the CoJCoLDS as an alternative to the Catholic Church, and unless you feel compelled to do this I am ok with a one-sided challenge. The reason I say this is that I feel that I will not and even should not attempt convert anyone by force of reason alone. LDS place great emphasis upon the witness of the Spirit. If you feel compelled to investigate the CoJCoLDS I think that is great (and I think it dangerous to ignore), but if you do not feel compelled I am of the opinion that God can still work in your life to bring you to Him. For this reason I only feel you need to grow and follow the promptings of God in your life.
I agree with AugustineH354 that the apostasy is one of the main issues. Your comment on 200+ Popes seems to point to this as an apologetic that is important to you (as well it should be). Again, I can read what you say and respond or not, but my ideas on this will prolly be difficult to explore without my responses.
I hope all of the above makes sense and I will wait for you to define what your challenge means and how we should go about it. Thank you for your concern and I will try to be nice. I want so much to walk were God wants me to walk. I have said before that if the Catholic Church is the path for me, I am invincibly ignorant. I believe this to be true or at least true if I die now.
Also, I am not trying to lead you down a path. I have read a few Catholic books, many Catholic apologetics, and prayed a great deal. It may take a burning bush to move me from the CoJCoLDS as I stand today. I am of the opinion that honest well meaning people can see things differently. I once thought that surely all with an open mind would end up as I have, but I have abandoned this belief (at least with respect to this life). If you are encouraged by my willingness to engage in things challenging to my faith, and think that this can mean nothing but my “seeing the light,” I am not as open minded as I once was, and I do not want you to have false hopes.
So my acceptance of you challenge does not mean that I think that if you convert I win (and really we both win) or if I convert you win (and really we both win) or if neither of us converts it is a draw. I want to learn and never shirk from a place were God may plant a burning bush.
Charity, TOm
Thank you for you challenge and your sincere concern for my salvation.
There was a time when I was less sure of my faith. During this time it became obvious to me that if I were not a LDS I would be a Catholic. I no longer consider myself one who investigates that Catholic Church with the intention of conversion. AugustineH354 pointed out that through the exploration of the CoJCoLDS he was able to clearly see the solid foundation of the RCC. I have discovered through my exploration of the RCC many powerful ways of looking at my religion that I might not have discovered with out 2000 years of help (my concept of what the apostasy was does not preclude the sharing of doctrinal understanding were appropriate). I still study and learn about Catholicism.
I do not know what you wish from me toward accepting your challenge. I have no need to win. I also do not think that you should move unless you feel called to seek greater/other light. I do not encourage my LDS friends in anti-Mormon material unless they somehow think they must. Many Catholics and many LDS walk with God and are completely unaware of things taught by Brigham Young or some Popes. I think this is fine, but this seems to not be who I am.
I will let you define how our challenge should go. If you post material critical of the CoJCoLDS time permitting I will respond with information that I think mitigates or eliminates these concerns (which may include glass house arguments). If you send material critical of the CoJCoLDS to me personally and ask me to consider it and not respond, I am ok with this too (the difference being the public ness). If you post pro-Catholic apologetics, I will be glad to read only or read and comment.
I do not demand that you consider the CoJCoLDS as an alternative to the Catholic Church, and unless you feel compelled to do this I am ok with a one-sided challenge. The reason I say this is that I feel that I will not and even should not attempt convert anyone by force of reason alone. LDS place great emphasis upon the witness of the Spirit. If you feel compelled to investigate the CoJCoLDS I think that is great (and I think it dangerous to ignore), but if you do not feel compelled I am of the opinion that God can still work in your life to bring you to Him. For this reason I only feel you need to grow and follow the promptings of God in your life.
I agree with AugustineH354 that the apostasy is one of the main issues. Your comment on 200+ Popes seems to point to this as an apologetic that is important to you (as well it should be). Again, I can read what you say and respond or not, but my ideas on this will prolly be difficult to explore without my responses.
I hope all of the above makes sense and I will wait for you to define what your challenge means and how we should go about it. Thank you for your concern and I will try to be nice. I want so much to walk were God wants me to walk. I have said before that if the Catholic Church is the path for me, I am invincibly ignorant. I believe this to be true or at least true if I die now.
Also, I am not trying to lead you down a path. I have read a few Catholic books, many Catholic apologetics, and prayed a great deal. It may take a burning bush to move me from the CoJCoLDS as I stand today. I am of the opinion that honest well meaning people can see things differently. I once thought that surely all with an open mind would end up as I have, but I have abandoned this belief (at least with respect to this life). If you are encouraged by my willingness to engage in things challenging to my faith, and think that this can mean nothing but my “seeing the light,” I am not as open minded as I once was, and I do not want you to have false hopes.
So my acceptance of you challenge does not mean that I think that if you convert I win (and really we both win) or if I convert you win (and really we both win) or if neither of us converts it is a draw. I want to learn and never shirk from a place were God may plant a burning bush.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Amanda,
I posted this in a couple of spots on this board. Here it is.
I think there are two things of note concerning Matthew 16:18. First let me quote the end of the passage:
“…and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 Young’s Literal Translation.
Let me start with what it means to prevail. One who prevails may loose many battles, but wins the war. This is really quite a solid way of understanding this passage.
Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18
“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”
In this light I would suggest that Matthew 16:18 is a promise that the apostasy would merely be a set back, but the restoration would shine through ultimately.
The above comes largely from Barry Bickmore. In addition to these comments he suggests that the Church is not just an earthly organization and that Hades is actually “the world of the dead.” Barry suggests that an additional way of looking at this passage is as a promise not solely to the earthly church, but to the church as a whole.
I hope to have much more to share relative to this idea when the book Vox
Dei, Vox Populi is published if this ever happens.
Charity, TOm
I posted this in a couple of spots on this board. Here it is.
I think there are two things of note concerning Matthew 16:18. First let me quote the end of the passage:
“…and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 Young’s Literal Translation.
Let me start with what it means to prevail. One who prevails may loose many battles, but wins the war. This is really quite a solid way of understanding this passage.
Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18
“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”
In this light I would suggest that Matthew 16:18 is a promise that the apostasy would merely be a set back, but the restoration would shine through ultimately.
The above comes largely from Barry Bickmore. In addition to these comments he suggests that the Church is not just an earthly organization and that Hades is actually “the world of the dead.” Barry suggests that an additional way of looking at this passage is as a promise not solely to the earthly church, but to the church as a whole.
I hope to have much more to share relative to this idea when the book Vox
Dei, Vox Populi is published if this ever happens.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Katholikos said:
Katholikos,
In addition to the fact that I truly am convinced that within Christianity the only other possible consistent read of the Bible and History is the Catholic Church, I generally like to interact with Catholic because they know what it is like to be engaged with sarcasm and outright dismissal. They know what it is like for folks to suggest that one who does not see the truth has “taken leave of his sense.” They know what it is like for someone to declare that if their read on the Bible is somehow flawed, “we’re wasting our time here.” Statements like there is “no evidence for …” are also common on anti-Catholic boards.
There has never been any witness that reported Joseph Smith coping from the KJV of the Bible or any other form. Much of the “translation” took place in the absence of the dividing sheet, but you are correct that this was occasionally employed. 3 and 8 witnesses attest to the gold plates, in addition to some statements by others.
I will now proceed to make some comments on you polytheism thread, but I find your opening statement that I must somehow redefine monotheism to be unproductive and in keeping with much of what you have to say.
It is truly not too hard to question my religion without sarcasm. I am of the opinion that your methods speak poorly of you. I invite you to ask questions as Mfaustina1 has, but it is up to you. I hope that others are not blinded by the false confidence you display as you dismiss the religion I have studied intently for a number of years. I think few will be. I do not consider your methods to be direct and to the point. I consider them to be at best mildly offensive. I invite you to think and/or pray about the words you choose and the finality with which dismiss those who disagree with you. I think if you do this, you can still be effective at explaining your point of view.
Charity, TOm
A
Andrew_Larkoski
Guest
TOm,
Forgive me for purely attacking you, but Mormonism is the new kid on the block.
I read your post on Matthew 16:18. What you said is true, that Death shall not win the war over Christ’s Church, but may win many battles (e.g., early Church heretics, Eastern Church schismatics, the Reformation, Mormonism, the Rapture doctrine, the acceptance of contraception, the legalization of abortion, and numorous other works of Satan). The ONLY constant throughout the last two millenia after Christ’s death and resurrection has been His Church, the Catholic Church. Is there no relationship between this consistency and the fact that Catholicism is the single largest religious denomination in the world?
Also, you say how after the apostasy, the church was swept away to the safety of heaven. Very interesting. How, then, do the souls on Earth receive the grace and salvation of Jesus Christ if not through His Church? Was there no True Church for hundreds of years until Joseph Smith “discovered” the Book of Mormon in 1830?
Next, Christ says that he will be with us “until the end of time.” But He forgot to mention that He wouldn’t be with us for hundreds of years after the apostasy? I think not. God keeps his promises.
As a final thought, consider the Bible passage Gal 1:8. It reads: “Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Can you say, with absolute certainty, that LDS teachings are 100% in accord with the Gospel? Katholikos clearly showed that one cannot.
Thank you. No reply is necessary, but would greatly help the discussion.
Forgive me for purely attacking you, but Mormonism is the new kid on the block.
I read your post on Matthew 16:18. What you said is true, that Death shall not win the war over Christ’s Church, but may win many battles (e.g., early Church heretics, Eastern Church schismatics, the Reformation, Mormonism, the Rapture doctrine, the acceptance of contraception, the legalization of abortion, and numorous other works of Satan). The ONLY constant throughout the last two millenia after Christ’s death and resurrection has been His Church, the Catholic Church. Is there no relationship between this consistency and the fact that Catholicism is the single largest religious denomination in the world?
Also, you say how after the apostasy, the church was swept away to the safety of heaven. Very interesting. How, then, do the souls on Earth receive the grace and salvation of Jesus Christ if not through His Church? Was there no True Church for hundreds of years until Joseph Smith “discovered” the Book of Mormon in 1830?
Next, Christ says that he will be with us “until the end of time.” But He forgot to mention that He wouldn’t be with us for hundreds of years after the apostasy? I think not. God keeps his promises.
As a final thought, consider the Bible passage Gal 1:8. It reads: “Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Can you say, with absolute certainty, that LDS teachings are 100% in accord with the Gospel? Katholikos clearly showed that one cannot.
Thank you. No reply is necessary, but would greatly help the discussion.
T
Tyler_Smedley
Guest
Andrew,
Well said. You Rock!
Tom,
Here is the problem with your great Apostacsy. It uses backward logic. Let me walk you through this. There are three ways to prove the Apostacy, the bible, morman litature, and history. The proof for the great Apostasy using Mormon Litature that was written after the apostasy was suposed to take place, hundreds of years after the suposed apostasy, so those can’t be counted. The bible makes no reference to any such apostasy and that was put together after the said apostasy was suposed to take place. That leaves you only history with which to prove that an apostacsy took place, and there is nothing historical about this great apostacsy that was suposed to take place.
Therefore you have no proof that any such apostacsy ever took place, and it never did. You have no evidence, while the Catholic Chruch has an unbroken line of Popes leading right back to St. Peter. I would ask you to prove this apostacsy to me, if you can. Peace!
Well said. You Rock!
Tom,
Here is the problem with your great Apostacsy. It uses backward logic. Let me walk you through this. There are three ways to prove the Apostacy, the bible, morman litature, and history. The proof for the great Apostasy using Mormon Litature that was written after the apostasy was suposed to take place, hundreds of years after the suposed apostasy, so those can’t be counted. The bible makes no reference to any such apostasy and that was put together after the said apostasy was suposed to take place. That leaves you only history with which to prove that an apostacsy took place, and there is nothing historical about this great apostacsy that was suposed to take place.
Therefore you have no proof that any such apostacsy ever took place, and it never did. You have no evidence, while the Catholic Chruch has an unbroken line of Popes leading right back to St. Peter. I would ask you to prove this apostacsy to me, if you can. Peace!
- Status