Help with debating a Mormon

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The lds church is a restorationist church. The Luthern church is a reformist church. For a restorationist church it is important to stress the apostacy and the need for a restoration. For a reformist church it is necessary to tell why luthern needed to reform the catholic faith and when that failed begin his own reformist church.

When one looks into catholic history we can see the need for reform and the need for a restoration. Many things were happening after the apostles died. The question is: did the church become corrupt and lose its direction as time moved on?

And why do you see a need for reform and restoration in Catholic history? The great thing about the Catholic Church is that we admit that we are all human members, right up to the Pope. We are all sinners. However, doctrine will NEVER be corrupted. The connection between reformationist and restorationist churches is a denial of authority.

And what about the Orthodox Church, which the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid priesthood, sacraments, and apostolic succession? What happened with them?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The LDS Church claims public revelation. It claims an open canon of scripture.Bully!
zerinius:

The OP’s question centered on that claim by the LDS Church.

No. It did not. The OP stated the following:

I’m having a friendly debate with some Mormon friends and the argument they kind of have me stumped on is their concept of continuing revelation. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe that everything we need for salvation has been revealed by the Deposit of Faith and that we don’t need ongoing revelation.

I mention the fact that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the church and they say that means the Holy Spirit would continue to provide revelation to the church and the fact that the Catholic church relies on councils to determine things proves that we don’t have the spirit revealing the truth to us.

My response was to suggest that the Catholic Church does not reject the notion of ongoing revelations (like Fatima, Guadalupe, Divine Mercy, etc.) but that it rejects the notion that public revelation on matters that would be considered binding doctrine is ongoing. From that point, it can be shown that the Catholic claim to authority to teach Truth from the entire Deposit of Faith comes not from a claim of ongoing public “revelation” but from a claim of guidance by the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ to guide the Pope and those specific “holy councils” that the OP’s LDS “friend” suggests to be “just men” without “revelation.” It’s interesting to note that what the LDS would call “revelation” of truth, a Catholic would call authoritative teaching from the Deposit of Faith - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
zerinius:

Your argument that there is also such a thing as a private revelation does not address the OP’s question.

Yes it does. It’s the starting point to distinguishing public (i.e. binding) revelation on the one hand from guidance of the Holy Spirit when teaching with authority from the Deposit of Faith.
zerinius:

How does your argument that there is a private revelation as well as a public revelation address the OP’s concern that he felt “stumped” by the LDS claim to public revelation?

See above.
zerinius:

Does the fact that there is also a private revelation prove that the LDS claim to public revelation cannot be true?

No. I’m not addressing that claim. I’m suggesting that the Catholic position shows (1) revelation has not stopped in a private sense - the sense that most LDS would claim they possess; and (2) that the cessation of public revelation does not support the LDS claim that the authority of the Catholi Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit.
zerinius:

Where is the logic in that argument?

You’re right. When you mangle someone else’s position enough, it tends to lose cohesion. I suggest that you be more careful in your attempt to understand the points others are trying to make. And if my presentation has been unclear on the subject, then I beg your pardon and will try to do a better job of expressing my point in the future.
zerinius:

Your original claim was that the revelation of the Bible is complete, because in it God has “revealed Himself to man,” which (according to you) is the purpose of scripture, therefore no additional scripture or revelation was necessary.

Again, you’re misconstruing my point. I said that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. That’s not the same thing as saying the revelation of the bible is complete. My other point was that the Incarnation completed everything that God intended to reveal about His nature, and that the scriptures were, generally speaking, the anticipation (OT) and a recordation (NT) of that fulfillment. My overall point was that the Catholic Church sees the consummation of God’s Revelation in Jesus Christ Himself, and so there is no further public revelation beyond what He left to His Apostles - and which was passed on to us as the Deposit of Faith.
zerinius:

I was trying to show you why that argument is false. The purpose of scripture is not just for God to tell us: “look at me, here I am; this is my beautiful self”.

This is simply trivializing the point I was making.
zerinius:

God has spoken to man in every age of the world because their needs and their requirements were different. Each required the word of God for their own times and their own needs. Just as the word of God to Moses was not sufficient for the people who lived in the days of David and Solomon; and the word of God to the people of their time were not sufficient for the people who lived in the days Hezekiah and Jeremiah; and the words of God to them was not sufficient for the people who lived in the days of Jesus and His Apostles; similarly the words of God to all of them combined (through highly valuable) is not sufficient for the people of our time. We are as much in need of prophets, Apostles, revelation, scripture, and divine guidance as they did in those days—notwithstanding the great value we all attach to the records of ancient scripture that we already possess.

You say the word of God (Bible?) is not sufficient for the people of our time, but it is valuable. Do you not see the inconsistency here. By your logic, what was the point in compiling the bible if most of what’s contained in it was written for people long gone and not for the “people of today?” You’re missing the forest for the trees. What God said to Abraham, and Moses, and David, and all the prophets reveals to US who and what our God is. This revelation was gradual and deliberate, unfolding up to the point of the Incarnation. It then culminated with Jesus and the Apostles.

There were no prophets after John the Baptist. (until J. Smith if you’re a Mormon) If public revelation was ongoing, why did God no raise up a successor to John the Baptist? Because the One He foretold had already come by.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

…The question is: did the church become corrupt and lose its direction as time moved on?

No. The Church did not. People within the church became corrupt, but that’s not the same thing. There were abuses of authority - but this does not negate the existence of authority. The good thing is that - as Jesus Christ promised - the Church’s teachings were protected from evil people (both inside and out). And the silver lining of the reformation is that it did usher in genuine reformation of the abuses that motivated Luther’s revolt.

As for a complete apostacy theory; I see no historical evidence of it. There were apostates, and heresies, and there were abuses. But through it all the Church has continued.

Peace,
Robert

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholics who call Mormons pro-choice realize that the Mormon church allows abortion in certain situations, after counseling and revelation, that are not life-threatening.

And you should really read these websites before commenting ignorantly on what the Catholic Church allows and doesn’t allow:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

There is quite a bit of difference between direct abortion (which the LDS church allows in certain, rare cases after counseling and personal revelation), and indirect abortion.

The only difference between ‘direct abortion’ and ‘indirect abortion’ is honesty, from what I can see.

…because frankly, I don’t see a difference between the removal of an ectopic pregnancy as soon as it is discovered and waiting until the mother’s life truly IS in immediate danger before the situation is addressed, except a willingness to torture the mother and, in effect, punish her for having the gall to let the fetus implant in the wrong place.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The only difference between ‘direct abortion’ and ‘indirect abortion’ is honesty, from what I can see.

…because frankly, I don’t see a difference between the removal of an ectopic pregnancy as soon as it is discovered and waiting until the mother’s life truly IS in immediate danger before the situation is addressed, except a willingness to torture the mother and, in effect, punish her for having the gall to let the fetus implant in the wrong place.

So that’s what you think the Catholic position is, and the difference between direct and indirect abortion.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The only difference between ‘direct abortion’ and ‘indirect abortion’ is honesty, from what I can see.

…because frankly, I don’t see a difference between the removal of an ectopic pregnancy as soon as it is discovered and waiting until the mother’s life truly IS in immediate danger before the situation is addressed, except a willingness to torture the mother and, in effect, punish her for having the gall to let the fetus implant in the wrong place.

It isn’t when it’s how, from ehealtmd:

How Is Ectopic Pregnancy Treated?

It is important to realize that an ectopic pregnancy can never grow into a normal baby. Furthermore, it cannot be transplanted into the womb and survive. If the ectopic pregnancy is not very far along, it may be able to be removed with an injection of a drug called methotrexate. Methotrexate dissolves the fertilized egg and allows your body to reabsorb it. This nonsurgical treatment technique preserves the fallopian tube.

This treatment would be unacceptable because it is directed solely at the fetus

An ectopic pregnancy that is larger and further along requires surgery. The extent of the surgery depends on how far along your pregnancy is and whether or not the fallopian tube has been damaged or ruptured.

* When the tube is ruptured and seriously damaged, the entire fallopian tube is removed along with the pregnancy.

This is acceptable.

• When the fallopian tube is whole and not severely damaged, the pregnancy tissue may be removed while the tube is left in place to heal.

This is unacceptable again because it is directed solely at the fetus, in the above situation the fallopian tube would have to be removed in order for it to be acceptable.

• When future fertility is not desired, removal of the tube and pregnancy is preferable.

I find this rather ironic.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Paul was not called as an apostle during the time being discussed in Acts 9. He had his vision on the road to Damascus as described in Acts 9, but that did not make him an apostle, nor was he referred to as such.

placido:

Okay, now tell me: when did he become an apostle?

Parker, I am still waiting for your reply. In the meantime, consider this: “But the Lord said, ‘Go and do what I say. For Saul is my chosen instrument to take my message to the Gentiles and to kings, as well as to the people of Israel. And I will show him how much he must suffer for me.’" (Acts 9:15-16)
It seems in Acts 9 Paul was chosen already to be an apostle.

placido

 

[Arandur]

The only difference between ‘direct abortion’ and ‘indirect abortion’ is honesty, from what I can see.

…because frankly, I don’t see a difference between the removal of an ectopic pregnancy as soon as it is discovered and waiting until the mother’s life truly IS in immediate danger before the situation is addressed, except a willingness to torture the mother and, in effect, punish her for having the gall to let the fetus implant in the wrong place.

You’ve still focused on a very narrow set of circumstances–ectopic pregnancy–and you have not addressed what prolifephysicians had to say about the subject.

Your meager defense related to ectopic pregnancies doesn’t even begin to address all the other conditions by which the LDS church sanctions murdering the baby.

The difference between direct and indirect abortion is, again, the difference between murder and accident. It is the difference between trying to separate and preserve the lives of siamese twins, and just killing off one of them so that the other can survive. It is the difference between allowing someone to die because they have declined extreme measures of medical care, and helping them to die by assisting in their suicide.

 

[PaulDupre]

(addendum)

Actually, that would be Official declarations 1 and 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants, stephen.

No, those sections merely claim that a revelation was received. They do not report the actual text of the revelations. In light of the rest of the D&C, I find that very odd.

It’s almost as if there haven’t been any real prophets since Joseph Smith (not in the Brighamite sect of Mormonism).

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

No, those sections merely claim that a revelation was received. They do not report the actual text of the revelations. In light of the rest of the D&C, I find that very odd.

It’s almost as if there haven’t been any real prophets since Joseph Smith (not in the Brighamite sect of Mormonism).

Is Declaration #1 a letter that was sent to the government? So I’ve heard, not sure.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

This is all so silly.

When debating a mormon, you simply tell them that you will pray that someday mormons will become Christian.

Then you offer the white shirt bike-riders a beer. And when they say “oh, gosh no!”, you let them know Joe Smith had a BAR inside his own home.

Then 15 seconds in to the abyssmal convo, you simply send the mormon folks here:

www.ex-mormon.org.

Very simple. Just send them truth. mormons are a member of a cult; they are not Christian in the slightest.

Truth.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

It’s almost as if there haven’t been any real prophets since Joseph Smith (not in the Brighamite sect of Mormonism).

Joe Smith and any of his zany followers were never “prophets”; they were “FAKE” prophets; exactly what God warned us of.

Joe Smith was just a con man and a fraud.

Can we deal with facts, ladies and gentlefriends?

Please.

 

[why_me]

This is all so silly.

When debating a mormon, you simply tell them that you will pray that someday mormons will become Christian.

Then you offer the white shirt bike-riders a beer. And when they say “oh, gosh no!”, you let them know Joe Smith had a BAR inside his own home.

Then 15 seconds in to the abyssmal convo, you simply send the mormon folks here:

www.ex-mormon.org.

Very simple. Just send them truth. mormons are a member of a cult; they are not Christian in the slightest.

Truth.

You see, you are not catholic because a catholic would never write such an offensive post. Are you christian? If so, you give christianity a bad name. If more catholics were like you, it would be better not to be catholic.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

You see, you are not catholic because a catholic would never write such an offensive post. Are you christian? If so, you give christianity a bad name. If more catholics were like you, it would be better not to be catholic.

LOL! The Truth hurts.

Maybe you’ll grow into it.

This is a Catholic site. Jesus founded the Catholic Church. It is the One True Christian Church. Please research this fact if it is new to you.

mormons are not Christian; they are a cult. Same with JeehovaH’s.

Facts is Facts.

The truth on mormons is here. If you need the truth on jeehovaH’s, I’ll get that for you, too.

Break free of the bubble.

Thanks.

 

[jtwilleager]

Having seen and used the site “exmormon.org”, I can honestly recommend that most people seeking truth about the mormon faith visit mormonthink.com instead.

Anyone truly interested in addressing a lot of the problems they see brought up in this thread and the many that I have read over the last couple of days like it, would appreciate that “mormonthink” at least tries to present both sides of the issues.

 

[zerinus]

Bully!

Are you serious?

No. It did not. The OP stated the following:

I’m having a friendly debate with some Mormon friends and the argument they kind of have me stumped on is their concept of continuing revelation. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe that everything we need for salvation has been revealed by the Deposit of Faith and that we don’t need ongoing revelation.

I mention the fact that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the church and they say that means the Holy Spirit would continue to provide revelation to the church and the fact that the Catholic church relies on councils to determine things proves that we don’t have the spirit revealing the truth to us.

My response was to suggest that the Catholic Church does not reject the notion of ongoing revelations (like Fatima, Guadalupe, Divine Mercy, etc.) …

I don’t know about you; but from my reading of the OP’s quote, he doesn’t reject that kind of revelation either. On the contrary, he responds to his Mormon friend precisely on the basis of that kind of revelation. The advice you gave him is what he already knows and applies in his discussion with his Mormon friend. What he is “stumped” by is the Mormon claim to public revelation—i.e. an open canon of scripture. So the advice you gave him it seems was a useless one, no?

Yes it does. It’s the starting point to distinguishing public (i.e. binding) revelation on the one hand from guidance of the Holy Spirit when teaching with authority from the Deposit of Faith.

No it doesn’t. See above.

No. I’m not addressing that claim. I’m suggesting that the Catholic position shows (1) revelation has not stopped in a private sense - the sense that most LDS would claim they possess; …

Which is what he says he already knows about—meaning that you wasted your time telling him that.

… and (2) that the cessation of public revelation does not support the LDS claim that the authority of the Catholi Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

There was no “cessation of public” revelation, and you never proved that there was one. Of course there was a “cessation” after the Apostasy, because there was no authorized representative from God on earth to receive such revelation; but that does not mean that after the Restoration there should not be any.

You’re right. When you mangle someone else’s position enough, it tends to lose cohesion. I suggest that you be more careful in your attempt to understand the points others are trying to make. And if my presentation has been unclear on the subject, then I beg your pardon and will try to do a better job of expressing my point in the future.

Unfortunately the OP has disappeared, so he cannot tell us who has understood his question better, me or you.

Again, you’re misconstruing my point. I said that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. That’s not the same thing as saying the revelation of the bible is complete. My other point was that the Incarnation completed everything that God intended to reveal about His nature, and that the scriptures were, generally speaking, the anticipation (OT) and a recordation (NT) of that fulfillment. My overall point was that the Catholic Church sees the consummation of God’s Revelation in Jesus Christ Himself, and so there is no further public revelation beyond what He left to His Apostles - and which was passed on to us as the Deposit of Faith.

Which is an entirely false argument, and I already explained why, and need not explain again.

You say the word of God (Bible?) is not sufficient for the people of our time, but it is valuable. Do you not see the inconsistency here.

No! I see a lot of inconsistency in your argument though.

By your logic, what was the point in compiling the bible if most of what’s contained in it was written for people long gone and not for the “people of today?” You’re missing the forest for the trees.

That is not what I said, and you should know it. That is the kind of argument that the Jews could have brought against Jesus for His “public” revelations—and in fact they did! See John 9:29. But their argument was fallacious, just as much as yours is.

What God said to Abraham, and Moses, and David, and all the prophets reveals to US who and what our God is. This revelation was gradual and deliberate, unfolding up to the point of the Incarnation. It then culminated with Jesus and the Apostles.

That was NOT the sole purpose of the scriptures. To timothy Paul said, “from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15); and Jesus tells us how the scriptures make us “wise unto salvation”: “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Matthew 19:17–18). The purpose of the scriptures, apart from revealing the existence and nature of God, is to tell us what we need to do to obtain eternal life. They also contain specific instructions to the people at the various time in history in which they lived. Jeremiah for example lived at a time when God was angry with the Jews because of their sins, and commanded them (through Jeremiah) to repent or their city would be destroyed and they would go into captivity. They did not repent, and so that is what happened to them. Jonah lived in a time when God was angry with the people of Nineveh because of their sins, and commanded then (through Jonah) to repent or thy would be destroyed. They were wise enough to repent, and so they were not destroyed. Who are you to say that the world does not need such divine messengers to give it such warnings, when this has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind since createion?

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

There were no prophets after John the Baptist. …

Are you sure? Jesus was a prophet (Luke 13:33). The Apostles were all prophets. The office of an Apostle is greater than that of a prophet. The office of a prophet is embedded in the office of Apostle. And there were plenty of prophet and prophecyings going on in the early church. See Acts 2:17; Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 11:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 13:9; 1 Corinthians 14:1-6; 1 Corinthians 14:22; 1 Corinthians 14:24; 1 Corinthians 14:31; 1 Corinthians 14:39; 1 Thessalonians 5:20; 1 Timothy 4:14

 

[AMDGtoo]

There was no “cessation of public” revelation, and you never proved that there was one. Of course there was a “cessation” after the Apostasy, because there was no authorized representative from God on earth to receive such revelation; but that does not mean that after the Restoration there should not be any.
/

IMO, this has become a little like Abbot and Costello’s skit “Who’s On First Base”. It’s a merry-go-round. We say that public revelation stopped, because that is what is taught. That is what we know. That makes sense. Binding public revelation was necessary to identify He who is coming (God). God came in the person of Jesus. So binding public revelation is no longer necessary. We think we have finally “ironed out” what we disagree about (Christians say that public revelation stopped (not that not binding private revelation stopped) and the LDS say that revelation–notice that they do not “fine tune” revelation to see the difference between public and private) continues. The LDS then come up with that spiel about “no authorized representatative from God on earth to receive such revelation.” In effect they are saying “Because our church says so.” And we are back to first base.

IMO, we are back to first base because the LDS say (without any evidence) that there was a Great Apostasy and that is why their church has to be. Of course, history knows different. And the only thing we can learn is that it is futile to debate with Mormons until we take care of the erroneous belief of theirs about the Total Apostasy

Oh, BTW, the New Testament speaks of prophets and prophecy as a gift of grace in 1 Corinthians. In Confirmation we are spoken of as “priests, prophets, and kings”. (This is not to be confused with the minesterial priesthood.) It’s in the Mass too. Private revelation has not stopped–we have Guadalupe, Loudes, Fatima, Betania, etc. It’s just non-binding since it isn’t about Jesus. And every mother that has “that little feeling” that she either ignores or accepts. It’s non-binding since it isn’t public revelation.

So if talking about revelation, be clear. What revelation? Public? Private? Which?

 

[Kdesiel]

IMO, this has become a little like Abbot and Costello’s skit “Who’s On First Base”. It’s a merry-go-round. We say that public revelation stopped, because that is what is taught. That is what we know. That makes sense. Binding public revelation was necessary to identify He who is coming (God). God came in the person of Jesus. So binding public revelation is no longer necessary. We think we have finally “ironed out” what we disagree about (Christians say that public revelation stopped (not that not binding private revelation stopped) and the LDS say that revelation–notice that they do not “fine tune” revelation to see the difference between public and private) continues. The LDS then come up with that spiel about “no authorized representatative from God on earth to receive such revelation.” In effect they are saying “Because our church says so.” And we are back to first base.

IMO, we are back to first base because the LDS say (without any evidence) that there was a Great Apostasy and that is why their church has to be. Of course, history knows different. And the only thing we can learn is that it is futile to debate with Mormons until we take care of the erroneous belief of theirs about the Total Apostasy

Oh, BTW, the New Testament speaks of prophets and prophecy as a gift of grace in 1 Corinthians. In Confirmation we are spoken of as “priests, prophets, and kings”. (This is not to be confused with the minesterial priesthood.) It’s in the Mass too. Private revelation has not stopped–we have Guadalupe, Loudes, Fatima, Betania, etc. It’s just non-binding since it isn’t about Jesus. And every mother that has “that little feeling” that she either ignores or accepts. It’s non-binding since it isn’t public revelation.

So if talking about revelation, be clear. What revelation? Public? Private? Which?

So Who’s on first?
Joking.
Well put. Mormonism hinges on if there was or wasn’t a Great Apostacy. The only eveidence they can come up with is “Well we said so, so it must have happened.” History proves otherwise…
Well put.

 

[NewSeeker]

So Who’s on first?
Joking.
Well put. Mormonism hinges on if there was or wasn’t a Great Apostacy. The only eveidence they can come up with is “Well we said so, so it must have happened.” History proves otherwise…
Well put.

It is pointless to debate with Mormons about whether there was a Great Apostasy. We know there is no evidence that one occurred and that this fact negates Mormonism’s reason for existence. Mormons will never accept any amount of historical evidence or historical reasoning since they base their view on what Joseph Smith told them God told Joseph in the woods in 1820. “Well we said so, so it must have happened” comes from their personal testimony, which is based on a personal feeling that no one can possibly gainsay or contradict using evidence. They know Joseph Smith is a prophet and that what he said about a Great Apostasy is true because they believe the Book of Mormon is true since they prayed about it and God revealed its truthfulness to them by stimulating an emotional response within them. They feel good about it, it “feels right”, they have a feeling of peacefulness, they received a “burning in the bosom”, etc. etc. It all comes down to their personal testimony, which is rooted in a feeling that Mormons interpret as having come from God. When push comes to shove, Mormons will always just go back to their testimony and that special feeling they have inside. It just a big waste of time to debate the Great Apostasy with Mormons since nothing can possibly overcome the fact that they have an impenetrable shield wall that no amount or reasoned argument or evidence can breach - they prayed about the Book of Mormon, God told them it was true, so they feel good about Joseph Smith and Joseph told them there was an Apostasy. End of discussion. They don’t need any historical evidence since God told them Joseph Smith was a prophet.

As has already been stated, we’ll always end up back on first base in discussion such as this. Catholics and Mormons use completely different methods to arrive at truth, so we just end up talking past each other.

NS