Discourse with Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_Larkoski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew Larkoski:
Forgive me for purely attacking you, but Mormonism is the new kid on the block.

TOm:

Surely you realize that Caiphas would say the same thing about Jesus Christ and Christianity. This does not mean that you and I do not both agree that the authority of the Jewish high priest was replaced by the authority of the priesthood delivered to the Apostles and Bishops of the Church of Christ. Being new cannot be the metric!
Andrew Larkoski:
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?

TOm:

Again Judaism could apply this same comment to the Catholic Church.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that “the only constant throughout the last two millennia…” It is either true that the authority of the Vicar of Christ was past to the Pope, and that the Bishops possessed a world authority when gathered in a council; or it is not true. This would be the somewhat INVISIBLE consistency of which you may speak. However, the Catholic Church is a dynamic living organism. If consistency is important to you might look into the the Easter Orthodox Church. They walked with the Catholic Church for 7 councils, but then they dug their feet in and said, “constant, consistent, tradition, no new doctrine.” The result is the great schism. Cardinal Newman traces doctrinal development through the ages and provides 7 powerful factors that distinguish between true and heretical developments. This is quite an apologetic, but “constant” is not quite as accurate as “dynamic” or at least “growing, developing.”
Andrew Larkoski:
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?

TOm:

LDS do not believe that there ever was a man born that did not have access to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Like Catholics we believe that the light of Christ shines into the hearts of all men. We believe this to be true before Christ’s birth and after. I do not believe that the authority to lead the world organization of Christ’s church was possessed by any man after the departure of the last Apostle. I believe that valid Bishops existed and received supernatural revelation to watch over their individual churches. All I believe is that this happened before 1830. I can explain why I think the authority was not passed from the Apostles. I can explain how I think the authority of the Bishops eroded till it was gone.

None of the above is intended to suggest that the Holy Spirit and the light of Christ were not active in the lives of all men through these times. I refuse to suggest that St. Thomas Aquinas was not regularly touched by God.

More to follow.

Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
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.

TOm:

And I do not think he was not with us for hundreds of years. The AUTHORITY to lead the world church was absent from the end of the apostles. The AUTHORITY to lead individual churches was absent by 1830. This does not mean that God did not strive with his people. But as the Jews received a lesser law because they could not bear it, so Christendom did as well.
Andrew Larkoski:
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.

TOm:

Katholikos has shown no such thing. Typically he assigns beliefs to me that I reject.

Neither you nor I believe in sola scriptura, but the gospel preached to the apostles is in the Bible. LDS interpretation is as solid as Catholic interpretation (the question is, who possesses the authority the Magisterium or the General Authorities). Some aspects of LDS understanding are more difficult to defend from the “gospel preached to the apostles” AS WITNESSED BY THE BIBLE. Some aspects of Catholic understanding are more difficult to defend from the “gospel preached to the apostles” AS WITNESSED BY THE BIBLE.

And of course it was heavenly manifestations that lead Peter to extend the gospel to the gentiles (which was not something done before this). It was Jesus Christ who appeared to Paul and told him to accept the new Christian religion and quite striving with the apostate Jewish groups who were persecuting the Christians. We must know which spirit communicates with us. This will be an individual decision, but the fact that angels, spirits, and God points us towards religion and beliefs is not disqualifying.

I hope my response has been reasonable.

Charity, TOm
 
Tyler Smedley:
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!
Click to expand...
Tyler Smedley:
Let me walk you through this. There are three ways to prove the Apostacy, the bible, morman litature, and history.

TOm:

Well said. These are the three ways that I see too.

Warning. To explore this I will get pretty Apologetic. I will not attack that Catholic Church necessarily, but I will explain why I see an Apostasy.
  • The Bible speaks of apostasy. It speaks of going from sea to sea unable to hear the word of God. It speaks of grievous wolves. There are quite a number of others. If the CoJCoLDS has God’s authority to interpret the Bible, then the Bible tells of the apostasy quite clearly. If the Catholic Church has God’s authority to interpret the Bible then there was no apostasy. An appeal to authoritative interpretation of the Bible will not get either of us anywhere.
  • Mormon Literature. I call this, “Apostasy witnessed by the miracles of the Restoration.” I find compelling evidence (but no proof) that Joseph Smith and indeed no men or group of men could produce the Restoration. I can list a few of these for you if you would like. Things like discussions of “uniquely” LDS beliefs in the ECF. Things like old world geographical “hits.” Things like Hebrew poetic structures in the BOM. Something is afoot in my opinion. (BTW, there are many problems with the Restoration too. I just believe LDS have explained the problems, and the evidences have not been explained away. I scarcely see room for assigning the problems the cause of “false gospel” when this leaves me no explanation for the evidences. But I find room to explain the evidences with “The Gospel of Jesus Christ,” and the problems with various solutions some wonderful and some fair).
  • History. For discussion with Catholics I think this is probably the most appropriate area to explore. I guess what you and Andrew (perhaps with help from AugustineH354 should do is decimate my ideas here. I again find compelling evidence (but no proof).
Concerning #3. I say:

The Papacy is not evidence before 200AD, and Tertullian claims it is a usurpation.

The Papacy developed into an authority different than the authority possessed by Peter.

The Paster of Hermas wrote of visions that foretell the Apostasy and the “lesser organization.”

The Ignatius and Polycarp sought death rather than the rejection of the truth (perhaps they were some of the folks Hermas was told knew of his vision before him).

Charity, TOm
 
Hello Tom,

I have been sitting back, enjoying the thread for the most part as an interested “lurker” (aside from a couple of posts). I would, however, like to make a few comments about your last post (#62).

Number (1) Concerning the Bible and apostasy. Certainly the Bible speaks of apostasy. In fact, apostasy starts with the first human couple, and runs throughout the entire Bible. When it comes to the issue of apostasy and the NT Church, I like to use the OT Church as an example of what one might expect. We know from scripture and history that the OT Church underwent deep, gross periods of apostasy. But, we also know that Israel’s religious authority (i.e. priesthood) remained intact until they rejected the divine Messiah. Now, when we look at apostasy during the NT times, and post-NT times, I personally see nothing that comes close to some of the darker periods of the OT Church. This fact, and the strongly implied promises in the NT that the Church will not fail, sure seem to indicate that the type of apostasy needed for the CoJCoLDS to the restored Church is found wanting.

Number (2) That a certain amount of evidence for the claims of the CoJCoLDS exists, I will concede. However, I would certainly argue that at least as much evidence exists for Islam and the Bahai Faith. The fact that there are other solid contenders if one embraces the apostasy paradigm certainly ‘muddies the water’ IMO. This, coupled with solid Catholic evidences for continuity, places the Mormon paradigm on less than solid ground.

Number (3) Well, I think you know what I believe about history: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

Newman’s (and Mohler’s) theory of development sure seems to make sense out of history for me. I would be interested if you personally see any ‘holes’ in the theory.

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
TOm,

On your comment of the passage from Gallatians, how did the LDS receive authority to interpret scripture? Christ cleary gave the apostles (i.e., the Early Church) this authority in the Bible. Do not say to me that this authority (to the LDS) came from the book of Mormon, for it is NOT a historical text. Isn’t it a bit ironic that these “golden tablets” had to be swept off Earth to the safety of Heaven? There has been a plethora of (secular) evidence that the accounts of historical events from both the Old and New Testament actually occurred. This cannot be said about the Book of Mormon. There was no “great battle” in the Americas, for if it did only happen ~1000 years ago, there would be plenty of evidence. Events that happened 3000+ years ago (the pyramids of Egypt, Mesopotamian ruins, Stonehenge, Chinese ruins, and events out of the OT) are still very well preserved and very much so observable, yet something that happened a mere 1000 years ago vanished off the face of the Earth. Eastern animals (elephants, and others) that “appear” in the BOM in the ancient days, did not exist in the Americas until the 1500’s when Spanish conquistadors brought them. Seesh, did Joseph Smith have any history teaching?

Okay, on to the LDS “official” beliefs. I am quoting from the mormon.org website.

-“We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.”

I, as a Catholic, agree that Christ’s Church needs apostles (modern day bishops), pastors (modern day priests), teachers, evangelists, and so forth. However, any Catholic (heck, any Christian for that matter) would STRONGLY disagree that there have been any prophets or prophecy since Jesus Christ. We can both agree that Christ taught the ENTIRE Gospel, and any prophecy to the contrary is heresy. Prophecy is direct revelation from God, introducing MORE teachings in additon to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If, then, there is a need of prophets in the days after Christ, then Christ DID NOT teach the entire Gospel, and therefore was fallible and WAS NOT divine; Jesus WAS NOT GOD if modern prophets do exist. If this is the case, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that LDS can even begin to call themselves “Christian.”

-"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. "

Simply put, as I argued earlier, Christianity is a revealed religion. Christ taught the entire Gospel; He told us everything we need to know about God and Life. Saying, or believing, anything to the contrary is heresy.

-“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

How can the Bible be translated correctly if not by Christ’s Church that He began and to Her gave this authority alone? How can the Book of Mormon be the Word of God if it contains blatant historical errors?

Finally, I have a feeling that you will say this, so I will cover my bases. You might say that the Catholic Church believes in visions or revalation from God. Not so. The Catholic Church believes that visions (such as Our Lady of Fatima, Lourdes, or Guadalupe) can assist in our understanding of the Scrioture, but IN NO WAY replaces what Jesus taught. Catholics ARE NOT OBLIGED to believe in visions; however, it is difficult to not believe that the Vision at Fatima did not exist, or at Guadalupe, or at Lourdes, or to St. Catherine, or to St. Jeanne D’Arc, etc… Still, Catholics are called to be very skeptical and wary when it comes to visions. By no means does believing a vision did not occur put you on the wrong side with God.
 
40.png
AugustineH354:
Number (1) Concerning the Bible and apostasy. Certainly the Bible speaks of apostasy. In fact, apostasy starts with the first human couple, and runs throughout the entire Bible. When it comes to the issue of apostasy and the NT Church, I like to use the OT Church as an example of what one might expect. We know from scripture and history that the OT Church underwent deep, gross periods of apostasy. But, we also know that Israel’s religious authority (i.e. priesthood) remained intact until they rejected the divine Messiah. Now, when we look at apostasy during the NT times, and post-NT times, I personally see nothing that comes close to some of the darker periods of the OT Church. This fact, and the strongly implied promises in the NT that the Church will not fail, sure seem to indicate that the type of apostasy needed for the CoJCoLDS to the restored Church is found wanting.

TOm:

I was hoping for some time in the refiner’s fire! Comment away.

LDS do see starts and stops of authority in the Old Testament. The most clear example is the lesser priesthood going to the tribe of Aaron after the rebellion. I have a section on Exodus 18-33 that I can reproduce here that explains some of my thoughts on authority being removed from the Old Testament.

I also think that the presence and continuation of Caiphas and the Jewish priest in the presence of the true priesthood reestablished by Jesus Christ is analogous to the current situation with the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS. That being said, LDS recognize the opportunity to partake of sacramental requirements after death so my view is that the might change of heart is what must be accomplished while living. Many persons without authority aid in the mighty change of heart.

I do not embrace a gross sin cause of the apostasy. Instead I look to a combination of God’s plan and inevitable result of the time.
  1. From Scott P (not me). Christ was born, died, and rose. The Bride of Christ is born, died (apostasy) and rose again (restoration).
  2. God came when His people would kill Him. God came when Pax Romana allowed for the spread and survival of his witness. These components of the meridian time were unique in all of history. An additional component (or a side-effect provided you do not believe in #1) was that the the fullness of the gospel (especially esoteric gnosis) was virtually unprotectable without radical intervention by God. As a result the apostasy occurred. In congruence with this perfect time idea, the Reformation though fundamentally flawed was necessary to set the stage for the Restoration.
Also, the New Testament church is different than the old in that the gospel was extended to the world rather than reserved for a chosen people. To hold together components (at times and the fullness at other times) of the gospel among a smaller group of folks was significantly easier than holding together the fullness among the entire world.
40.png
AugustineH354:
Number (2) That a certain amount of evidence for the claims of the CoJCoLDS exists, I will concede. This, coupled with solid Catholic evidences for continuity, places the Mormon paradigm on less than solid ground.

I have truly not studied “evidence” for the Bahai and Islam. I have studied Bahai a little, but largely neglected evidences. I have studied Islam even less, but again neglecting evidences.

I recognize the solid evidences for continuity in the Catholic Church. This is why I do not believe that the EOs or the Protestants have any leg to stand on even in light of some of the less defendable (but not undefendable) developments.

More to follow.
Charity, TOm
 
I have actually been thinking about the Bahai / Islam apologetic and it for the first time it has made more sense to me.

Would you say the Bahai (and perhaps Islam) have evidences for their authenticity similar to the things that LDS point to and say that these could not have occurred without God. Hebrew Poetry in the BOM, Nahom and the 81 evidences, Patristic “bullseyes,” and a number of others. Do you know of a Bahai evidences page you could link me to?

I will need to think on this apologetic more. 900 million Hindu’s do cause me a little problem as I think about this in my own unique way.
40.png
AugustineH354:
Number (3) Well, I think you know what I believe about history: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

TOm:

Oh and I agree of course!
40.png
AugustineH354:
Newman’s (and Mohler’s) theory of development sure seems to make sense out of history for me. I would be interested if you personally see any ‘holes’ in the theory.

TOm:

When I read Newman the thing that jumped out at me was that one if his foundational assumptions were that the church could not leave the earth. I was familiar with Michael M. Winter’s quote and Barry Bickmore’s apologetics on the end of the church and the “lesser organization” replacing the church. Newman developed his ideas thoroughly from this foundation, but I thought it was undefended.

In addition to this, I believe Newman speaks of what I have labeled “natural revelation.” Using the same apologetic that you use WRT to suggesting a total apostasy shouldn’t occur, I suggest that the Old Testament had supernatural revelation. The New Testament had supernatural revelation. But the Newman Testament postulates a change to “natural revelation.” Not only does this create faulty parallelism, but nowhere is the concept of “natural revelation” documented (to my knowledge) in the ECF. Surely Pope St. Steven or someone would have appealed to God to solve controversy and then documented revelation. I do not suggest that St. Thomas Aquinas did not receive supernatural revelation (or at least confirmation), but I do suggest that the Catholic Church denies the reliance upon supernatural revelation to guide the church (at least it sure seemed to during Vatican I).

I have not read Mohler. Do you think I should?

I am interested in evidences for the Bahai faith and how you think they compare to LDS evidences. I recognize that LDS evidences must stand next to a lot of unsatisfactory counter-evidences, so perhaps it is that these balance out in your mind. But if not, I would be interested in Bahai evidences. As I think about it, the only Bahai evidence I know of involves Joseph Smith as a pre (not quite actual) prophet.

Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
On your comment of the passage from Gallatians, how did the LDS receive authority to interpret scripture? Christ cleary gave the apostles (i.e., the Early Church) this authority in the Bible. Do not say to me that this authority (to the LDS) came from the book of Mormon, for it is NOT a historical text.

Hello Andrew.

The authority was passed from Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith. This occurred in a restoration miracle. Similar appearances were witnessed on the mount of transfiguration in the Bible.
Andrew Larkoski:
Isn’t it a bit ironic that these “golden tablets” had to be swept off Earth to the safety of Heaven? There has been a plethora of (secular) evidence that the accounts of historical events from both the Old and New Testament actually occurred. This cannot be said about the Book of Mormon. There was no “great battle” in the Americas, for if it did only happen ~1000 years ago, there would be plenty of evidence. Events that happened 3000+ years ago (the pyramids of Egypt, Mesopotamian ruins, Stonehenge, Chinese ruins, and events out of the OT) are still very well preserved and very much so observable, yet something that happened a mere 1000 years ago vanished off the face of the Earth. Eastern animals (elephants, and others) that “appear” in the BOM in the ancient days, did not exist in the Americas until the 1500’s when Spanish conquistadors brought them. Seesh, did Joseph Smith have any history teaching?

Answer me this question. If an old Mesoamerican document was translated containing a list of sons that translated clearly into: Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni (perhaps their fathers name Mosiah is also included), would you believe in historicity of the Book of Mormon?

And while the new world geography evidence is a pretty week point for the BOM. The old world geography is pretty amazing evidence IMO (and no Joseph didn’t have much history).

Sorry to be so long winded. More to follow.

Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
I, as a Catholic, agree that Christ’s Church needs apostles (modern day bishops), pastors (modern day priests), teachers, evangelists, and so forth. However, any Catholic (heck, any Christian for that matter) would STRONGLY disagree that there have been any prophets or prophecy since Jesus Christ. We can both agree that Christ taught the ENTIRE Gospel, and any prophecy to the contrary is heresy. Prophecy is direct revelation from God, introducing MORE teachings in additon to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If, then, there is a need of prophets in the days after Christ, then Christ DID NOT teach the entire Gospel, and therefore was fallible and WAS NOT divine; Jesus WAS NOT GOD if modern prophets do exist. If this is the case, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that LDS can even begin to call themselves “Christian.”

TOm:

If modern revelation existed perhaps there would not be such disagreement about immaculate conception or other things. Where I Catholic, I would hold to a belief in “natural revelation.” I could not believe in supernatural revelation because of many statements including some I could site from Vatican I. I could not believe in no revelation because history does not present enough information to steer through heresies to RC doctrine (or Protestant or EO for that matter).

So for me the question is why did direct supernatural revelation give way to the defining of tradition through what I call natural revelation? For me the ability to lead the church through direct supernatural revelation is the witness of the Bible. Jesus Christ was gone when Peter extended the gospel to the gentiles.
Andrew Larkoski:
Finally, I have a feeling that you will say this, so I will cover my bases. You might say that the Catholic Church believes in visions or revalation from God. Not so. The Catholic Church believes that visions (such as Our Lady of Fatima, Lourdes, or Guadalupe) can assist in our understanding of the Scrioture, but IN NO WAY replaces what Jesus taught. Catholics ARE NOT OBLIGED to believe in visions; however, it is difficult to not believe that the Vision at Fatima did not exist, or at Guadalupe, or at Lourdes, or to St. Catherine, or to St. Jeanne D’Arc, etc… Still, Catholics are called to be very skeptical and wary when it comes to visions. By no means does believing a vision did not occur put you on the wrong side with God.

TOm:

Actually, I see the visions of the Catholic Church as you do. St. Thomas Aquinas in my mind comes close to receiving supernatural revelation to guide the church, but I side with the Catholic who would (as you have) that this is not the case.

When I ask why did the supernatural revelation cease? You would say because the fullness of the gospel was delivered by Jesus Christ and nothing more is necessary. I would reply with the fact that Peter received visions to guide the church after Jesus Christ left. If the Pope is the successor to Peter why does he not receive these? Surely the decision to extend the gospel to the gentiles was not more monumental than some of the conflicts throughout the ages.

Charity, TOm
 
About 12 years ago 2 Morman girls in their early 20’s came to my home and to be cordial I let them in.
A few years before that 2 Morman gentlemen came, anyway those men said they didn’t want me to change to their religion when I asked them, what was the point of coming to Ireland when we had already heard about Jesus ?
Anyway the girls left me 2 books and I read a little bit in them because they said the would call back, so I decided to arm myself with some of what was in the books.
Well I asked them when they came back how I could believe in what they were saying, the said we shall pray to the Holy Spirit.
They said prayers but I didn’t know their prayers, but anyway I said when the people were arguing about what religion was right was their any catholics there, because the book mentioned other religions but not Catholics.
So Joseph Smith supposidly found tablets of stone out in the woods, anyway I said I couldn’t accept new doctrine unless it was sent to Rome, and scrutinized by them.
I told them the the Church of Jesus was already established, and they said yes but that all died with the Apostles, I said who told you that ?
They had no answer, so I said Jesus has already established his Church because he said to Peter, “Upon this rock, I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
And there was no more discussion, I asked them to come back and see me,but they never did.
Anyway the above words of Jesus are enough for me.

olrl.org/apologetics/one_church.shtml

catholicism.org/pages/aubrey.htm
 
TOm:

“Answer me this question. If an old Mesoamerican document was translated containing a list of sons that translated clearly into: Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni (perhaps their fathers name Mosiah is also included), would you believe in historicity of the Book of Mormon?”

Where do you find theses names? The fact is, they DO NOT EXIST.

TOm, the ball’s in your court. Give me a very reputable SECULAR (unaffiliated with any religion) source to prove that the apostasy occurred.

This has turned into nothing more than a situation where I present the FACTS, the TRUTH, and you twist them, and use false teachings to prove that Mormonism is Christ’s ONE TRUE CHURCH. I have defended the Catholic Church. Give me something to respond to.
 
Hello all:

I hope I don’t sound condescending to anyone here, but I’m somewhat honestly perturbed by what I see as “triumphalism”. I’m reading things like the Catholic Church is right and your wrong, so just wake up and admit it! I thought this was a thread for discussion? I agree with Tom when he asked if we liked being treated as “false” teachers and “liars” by Protestants? I don’t think so! While I am also Catholic and have no plans or interest in converting to the LDS Church, I sure DO want to learn what Tom has to say about it, or will he be chased off by our snide remarks and superior minded attitudes? Charity is supposed to be above all else otherwise it negates the very sacred Truth that we hold and treasure so dearly! Besides, no one was ever converted by slamming a Bible over another’s head so to speak, neither will they be if we slam all the Papal documents, early Church Father’s writings, etc. in the same manner. Once again, I apologize if I sound condescending or trying to tell anyone what to do because that is not where my heart is, but some of the comments or rather the “tone” of some of these posts to Tom are just not nice! :mad: -Mfaustina1
 
Mfaustina1,

I am sorry if you feel that some of the tones on this thread is bad, but you need to realize where a lot of these people are coming form…Momonism is so far away from the Truth, that they can’t be considered christians, and that is why people are getting heated. It also might have something to do with the mulitude of mormon missonaries that all of us have gotten on out doorsteps off the years. This might be a little stress let off, because of that. But I ask you if you believe that the Catholic Church holds the Fullness of Truth?
 
Andrew Larkoski:
“Answer me this question. If an old Mesoamerican document was translated containing a list of sons that translated clearly into: Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni (perhaps their fathers name Mosiah is also included), would you believe in historicity of the Book of Mormon?”

Where do you find theses names? The fact is, they DO NOT EXIST.

TOm:

This was a hypothetical question. From an honest answer I was hoping to develop a point. You are correct this document does not exist.

More next post.
Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
TOm, the ball’s in your court. Give me a very reputable SECULAR (unaffiliated with any religion) source to prove that the apostasy occurred.

TOm:

It took me about 10min to find an Atheist scholar (regional level director in various educational organizations disseminating atheist ideas and points of view), who analyzed aspects of Catholicism and found internal conflicts and issues. He is secular, he is a scholar, and his reputation among atheist (and it seems likely among intellectuals in general) is quite high (and he is clearly a source of information too). Conflicts and inconsistency within Christianity has been producing atheists or providing atheists with fodder for a very long time. (Sadly anti-Mormons and even anti-Catholics produce more atheists than these folks who highlight the negative and declare foul might realize).

Of course “prove” is the word you used and you may or may not recognize that this word in these discussions is approximately useless. You cannot “prove” Peter passed his authority to anyone. Late (read assigned to a author long dead when they appear to have been written) documents point to Peter passing his authority to Clement of Rome, but most Catholics reject this passing of the baton in favor of more reliable lists of Bishops of Rome. Ultimately (long after the fact) putting Peter at the head of such lists and declaring that this is the path of papal authority. The PROOF of papal authority transmission is entirely lacking. Because of this Cardinal Newman has effectively explained that papal authority developed. The PROOF of this position is also non-existent; it is however an excellent argument.
Andrew Larkoski:
This has turned into nothing more than a situation where I present the FACTS, the TRUTH, and you twist them, and use false teachings to prove that Mormonism is Christ’s ONETRUECHURCH. I have defended the Catholic Church. Give me something to respond to.

TOm:

You are under no obligation to respond to anything I have presented, but when you say that I have given you nothing to respond to you must not be on the same thread I am.

Post #60 my response to your apologetics concerning, “New Kid,” “Consistency,” “Apostasy as God abandons us.”

Post #61 more of “Apostasy as God abandons us.” And some, “Angel from heaven must be false.”

Post #62 Outline of my position on determining if an Apostasy occurred. Included 4 points of history that I say point to an apostasy.

Post #65 Response to points by AugustineH354. I put forth additional information about Old Testament parallels and possible reasons why apostasy was necessary.

Post #67 Answer to your authority question. Hypothetical towards answering your lack of evidences for restoration query (this was evaded rather than answered). And mentioned that Old World evidences for BOM are “pretty amazing.”

Post #68 Response to your calling Bishops, Apostles I suggest that differences in God’s interactions betray this position.

Feel free not to respond. I agreed that I wanted you to give me the best arguments for the Catholic Church you could, and you would not need to hear (but you requested that I provide) or engage my responses. But please do not suggest that I have not given you “something to respond to.” That is ridiculous!

Charity, TOm
 
Hello Tom,

In post #66 you wrote:
I am interested in evidences for the Bahai faith and how you think they compare to LDS evidences. I recognize that LDS evidences must stand next to a lot of unsatisfactory counter-evidences, so perhaps it is that these balance out in your mind. But if not, I would be interested in Bahai evidences. As I think about it, the only Bahai evidence I know of involves Joseph Smith as a pre (not quite actual) prophet.>>
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I have been so busy this weekend, that I have not be able to cogently address the above. Further, I am baby-sitting a friend’s 4 year old Monday, so, needless to say, I will have little time for posting.

Lord willing, I will prepare a post Tuesday. (Thanks in advance for your patience.)

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
Tyler-

You asked me if I believe that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth? My response is: “Absolutely!”

But I don’t let that FACT to allow myself to be condescending or rude to anyone for any reason. My point is that we do not like it when our seperated brethren, (Protestants and those who claim the title of “Christian” are rude to us or belittle our faith and beliefs, nor should we do so to others. There are many of you who are very skilled at apologetics but whose impact gets reduced by what comes across as hostility. This is only my opinion so take it for what its worth. Peace, ok? - Mfaustina1
 
TOm,

In an earlier post (I am not sure where it is exactly) you cited John Henry Cardinal Newman as saying something to the effect of without the Catholic Church, He [Jesus] would be Arian. I would doubt if you fully understood what the Cardinal was saying here. He was not saying that without the Catholic Church he (Newman) would be some white supremacist (Aryan) nor does it mean Jesus was. Arian is a heresy proclaiming that Jesus was a creature, and thus not Divine, which is what LDS teaches. The Catholic Church is very specific when it says (in the Nicene Creed) "We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, begotten, not made, One in being with the Father . . . " (emphasis added). Jesus came forth from the Father, and WAS NOT a creature of God, but is God. The Cardinal said that without the infallible teaching of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostalic Church, Jesus would be “one of us”. Nothing special, but a guy who had some good ideas. Instead, with the authority of the Catholic Church, Jesus’ Word is taught truthfully and accurately, that Jesus IS LORD and ever shall be.

"TOm:

Actually, I see the visions of the Catholic Church as you do. St. Thomas Aquinas in my mind comes close to receiving supernatural revelation to guide the church, but I side with the Catholic who would (as you have) that this is not the case. When I ask why did the supernatural revelation cease? You would say because the fullness of the gospel was delivered by Jesus Christ and nothing more is necessary. I would reply with the fact that Peter received visions to guide the church after Jesus Christ left. If the Pope is the successor to Peter why does he not receive these? Surely the decision to extend the gospel to the gentiles was not more monumental than some of the conflicts throughout the ages."

Hold on, TOm. I did not say that guidance from Heaven ceased after Christ left Earth in body. I said that the ENTIRE Gospel had been preached by Our Savior, Jesus Christ, so any person that came after Him who proclaims to teach any Gospel CONTRARY to Christ is a heretic. I will completely agree with you that the Church’s first Pope, St. Peter received guidance from Heaven in the form of visions perhaps. Every pope throughout the history of the Church has received guidance from the Holy Spirit to teach Christ’s Word infallibly. This guidance DOES NOT introduce “new” or “changed” or inconsistent" teachings from what came forth from Christ. In fact, when the pope speaks, ex cathedra, from the throne of St. Peter, and declares that he will speak on matters of the Faith, he is protected by the Holy Spirit in that he can not err in his teaching. No doctrinal proclaimation that a pope has made ex cathedra in the entire history of the Church has ever contradicted another, nor ever changed. The Catholic Church’s beliefs (doctrinal matters of faith and morals) today are the same as they were in Cardinal Newman’s time, in St. Francis of Assissi’s time, St. Augustine’s time, and yes, even in Jesus’ time. LDS CANNOT say that by any means.

“The authority was passed from Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith. This occurred in a restoration miracle. Similar appearances were witnessed on the mount of transfiguration in the Bible.”

Who says? The Catholic Church has had (and will have until Jesus comes in Glory) a continuous and unbroken line of popes since St. Peter. Okay, the word pope wasn’t used until a little after St. Peter, but that does not demean St. Peter’s staus as the Head of the Church on Earth. Heck, the Book of Mormon didn’t exist until Joeseph Smith “discovered” it. Interesting to note, the original Bible documents (the Septuagint, New Testament writings) weren’t swept off to Heaven, and weren’t in Biblical form until the fifth century, yet the Book of Mormon came to Joe Smith “pre-packaged” and only to him.

“The Papacy is not evidence before 200AD, and Tertullian claims it is a usurpation.”

One must be careful when citing Tertullian, for in his later years (when he said this) he taught heresy, and broke away from the Church. Therefore, I must disregard this statement.

More to come . . .
 
TOm,

In continuation . . .

"And I do not think he was not with us for hundreds of years. The AUTHORITY to lead the world church was absent from the end of the apostles. The AUTHORITY to lead individual churches was absent by 1830. This does not mean that God did not strive with his people. But as the Jews received a lesser law because they could not bear it, so Christendom did as well.

Hmm, let’s see here. Since the beginning of time, there has been an authority chosen by God on Earth to teach and spread His Word. In the Old Testament, God connected with individuals (most notably, Abraham) and then led His Chosen People (the Jews). In the New Testament, when Jesus Christ was on Earth, He chose His Apostles as the SOLE AUTHORITY to teach in His Name and to spread His Church to all corners of the world. With an apostasy, all that God had created to connect with humans would have been utterly lost. Who would have guided the people? Who would have taught the people? One is not just born with a knowledge of Jesus, Our Lord and Savior, nor of the immense love that God bestows on us. We are God’s flock and must be led by an authority appointed by Christ. Since His resurrection, that authority has been the office of the papacy. Christ said “I will be with you until the end of Time”. He didn’t say that His authority on Earth would leave for a while then return in direct contradiction of the Gospel He taught. Christ stays constant, and His love is eternal.

“Neither you nor I believe in sola scriptura, but the gospel preached to the apostles is in the Bible. LDS interpretation is as solid as Catholic interpretation (the question is, who possesses the authority the Magisterium or the General Authorities). Some aspects of LDS understanding are more difficult to defend from the –gospel preached to the apostles” AS WITNESSED BY THE BIBLE. Some aspects of Catholic understanding are more difficult to defend from the –gospel preached to the apostles” AS WITNESSED BY THE BIBLE.”

If I have said it once, I have said it a million times. There was no Bible until the fifth century when the Catholic Church called and ecumenical council to Hippo in Egypt. The apostay was said to occur within (give or take fifty years) one hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. By the time of the apostasy that supposedly occured, the Old Testament (then known as the Septuagint) and the letters of the New Testament were not compiled in an authoritative text, but were completed. Then an apostasy occurs, and the Church Christ set up is utterly destroyed, leaving His flock in tatters. THREE CENTURIES LATER, after the apostasy, the Catholic Church, with the power bequethed to Her by Her Everlasting Bridegroom, Christ, authoritatively compiled the Bible (as Catholics know it today) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This council of bishops from around the Church definitively decided which books belong in the Bible and which books don’t for they ALONE were given the authority to teach Christ’s Word. If an apostasy had occured, who, then is the Catholic Church to say what goes into the Bible or not? If there was no authority on Earth to teach Christ’s Word, then why do Mormons believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Could the Catholic Church have erred in what She put in the Bible? No, for the Holy Spirit guided them. Did the Catholic Church have the authority to compile a Bible? Yes, because She ALONE was given the authority to teach Christ’s Gospel.

TOm, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a martyr of Christ’s Church, wrote this about the same time an apostasy was said to occur. He wrote “Wherever Jesus is, there too is the Catholic Church.” And He hasn’t left it. Ever.
 
Andrew Larkoski:
TOm,
Click to expand...
In an earlier post (I am not sure where it is exactly) you cited John Henry Cardinal Newman as saying something to the effect of without the Catholic Church, He [Jesus] would be Arian. I would doubt if you fully understood what the Cardinal was saying here. He was not saying that without the Catholic Church he (Newman) would be some white supremacist (Aryan) nor does it mean Jesus was. Arian is a heresy proclaiming that Jesus was a creature, and thus not Divine, which is what LDS teaches. The Catholic Church is very specific when it says (in the Nicene Creed) "We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, begotten, not made, One in being with the Father . . . " (emphasis added). Jesus came forth from the Father, and WAS NOT a creature of God, but is God. The Cardinal said that without the infallible teaching of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostalic Church, Jesus would be “one of us”. Nothing special, but a guy who had some good ideas. Instead, with the authority of the Catholic Church, Jesus’ Word is taught truthfully and accurately, that Jesus IS LORD and ever shall be.

. .

TOm:

Had I capitalized “HE” it would appear that I was referring to Jesus (even though it would still be a misplaced pronoun). I am 99% sure that I did not capitalize “HE” and thus I was referring to Newman not Jesus Christ. I do not believe that Jesus Christ would be an Arian (as portrayed by Catholic histories) or an Aryan (why you even mention this I do not know. My best guess is you are trying to make me look silly). I said what I mean which is that the witness of the Bible and the ante-Nicea fathers presents a strong position for Arianism and Cardinal Newman has acknowledge this.

As I have explained in other threads, when the Early Church introduced (largely in a response to Gnosticism) the radical creator/creature dichotomy they set themselves up for the Arian heresy. LDS sidestep this whole issue by sticking with what I believe to be what the Apostles believed which is that we are not only to be the adopted sons and daughters of Jesus Christ, but we are the literal spirit offspring of God the Father. And though Jesus Christ is eternally divine in ways that we are not, he is nonetheless our elder brother.

I can show a number of things, to back up the above, but the simplest would be to show that St. Justin Martyr like LDS believed that God created with eternal matter (if Clement of Rome can be said to have had a position on this question it would also be against creation ex nihilo).

If it is interesting to you I can develop the position that the later development of the creator/creature dichotomy first lead to the Sabellian heresy, then the Arian Heresy. After Nicea semi-Arianism reigned supreme and according to Newman, if it were not for the lay members of the church it seems unlikely that this heresy would have been overcome. After the 2nd EC at Constantinople orthodoxy began to take solid shape and today I call the Catholic orthodoxy, the Augustinian Trinity.

Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top