LDS claim about J. Smith

[Superstar905]

amgid:

I didn’t say that. Mormon fool said that. You have to let him answer that for you. Apparently he was referring to the Christian church that the Lord established among the Nephites on the American continent. But that is a bit of a diversion. When we talk of the Apostasy, we generally refer to the apostasy of the Christian church on the old continent, not the Americas. The two are not directly related.

I’m sorry, I thought it was you.

By the Apostasy we mean the loss of priesthood authority and the keys of revelation to lead and direct the Church by revelation from God. Only the Apostles held those keys. Whey they died, those keys were lost.

So you assume that this happened when the Apostles died. Interesting theory. Why do you believe that? Why would Jesus come and establish a hierical Church only to have it stop being athoritative after the death of the Apostles? Why go through the trouble giving them authority, the keys, etc, only to have it end with their death? That makes no sense.

I agree. The Lord first established His church in Palestine. But after His resurrection He visited the Nephites in America, and established His church among them too.

Where is the historic documentation to support his visit to the Nephites?

The answer to that is given in the Book of Mormon. You have to get hold of a copy of the Book of Mormon and read it for yourself. It would take too long for me to explain it here.

amgid

I’m talking about historically verified sources from that time or close to the time of the Apostles. I’m not interested in reading a book composed 1830 of years after Christ. So please, show me the documentation from anytime before the year 421AD to authenticate your claims. Sure, if such momentus events took place, these documents would have been preserved and copied for all believers. Look forward to this, thanks in advance.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Superstar905:

I’m talking about historically verified sources from that time or close to the time of the Apostles. I’m not interested in reading a book composed 1830 of years after Christ. So please, show me the documentation from anytime before the year 421AD to authenticate your claims. Sure, if such momentus events took place, these documents would have been preserved and copied for all believers. Look forward to this, thanks in advance.

catholic-rcia.com/pages/Popes.html

 

[mormon_fool]

I’m talking about historically verified sources from that time or close to the time of the Apostles. I’m not interested in reading a book composed 1830 of years after Christ. So please, show me the documentation from anytime before the year 421AD to authenticate your claims. Sure, if such momentus events took place, these documents would have been preserved and copied for all believers. Look forward to this, thanks in advance.

Great. Then you will enjoy the Book of Mormon. It was compiled from documents written between 600 BC and 421 AD (mostly). It was compiled by ancient prophets well before it was modernly translated for the benefit of “all believers”.

While I understand a general reluctance to accept the Book of Mormon as a credible source, nevertheless it does provide some answers to the how and why of how the apostasy occurred. In my opinion the arguments for its historicity are more convincing than alternative explanations. A book off a national press published this remark, which most of the critics appeared to agree on this discussion. “With so much at stake [regarding the historicity], the proponents are as energetic and ingenious as the critics in mustering support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. On the whole better trained, with more technical language skills than their opponents, they are located mainly at Brigham Young University and associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). As a loosely coordinated group, they are as assiduous in demonstrating the historical authenticity of the book as the critics are in situating it in the nineteenth century. The two scholarships almost mirror one another, one drawing parallels with nineteenth-century culture and the other with antiquity” Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling, 93.

This point is further demonstrated here and here. I suppose that my point is that we shouldn’t just dismiss the Book of Mormon from being a witness of the apostasy just because its credibility is questioned by one side. Not letting the BoM testify is akin to having pre-formed conclusions and not examining anomolous facts, i.e. theory controlling the data.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

TamaraS:

Sorry to pop in now, but I’ve reading this for days, watching everyone go back and forth. I won’t post anymore after this. I just have a quick question. I’ll look for someone’s reply, then I’ll leave everyone alone because I feel I don’t belong in this one.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut and questions.

You and/or Amgid (sorry I can’t remember exactly who posted what without going back through the whole thread) say there is absolutely no proof that Peter or Paul were appointed bishops,

“[A]bsolutley no proof” would be too strong of a position for me to take. Amgid may very well take a harder line than I do. I think that there is some evidence that could be interpretted that “apostles were appointed bishops” but I am not convinced by it. A recurring theme in religous discussions is that much of the evidence on debated issues is ambiguous and equally knowledgable people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. I don’t try to prove the LDS position, I merely try to help show it isn’t as absurd as skeptics portray it. Likewise, the more I learn about catholicism, the more healthy of a respect I have for it.

As I have reviewed the evidence, I can see where apostles originally established some of the important local branches (sees) of the church. Before the church in that area got off the ground, an apostle probably did run the church in that area until it stabilized and a bishop could be trained to properly take over. But just because an apostle might have administered in a bishop-like capacity, it is somewhat of a leap to think of a bishop performing in an apostle-like capacity. A more extreme example is found in Acts, where we find apostles waiting on tables – a job that is later delegated to deacons. Just because apostles performed deacon’s responsibilities at one time does not make deacons authorized to perform all of an apostle’s duties.

I think that the Catholic church does point out two important differences between apostles and bishops. 1) An apostle needs to have a personal witness of Christ like Paul, Matthias, and the original 11. While bishops can be said to be personal witnesses, their witness is usually distinguished from the original apostles compared to the personal tutoring of the 11 by Jesus and Paul’s theophany. 2) Bishops cannot receive “public revelation” and yet the NT records some of the “public revelation” of apostles. If the so-called apostasy entails no greater change than this, I think LDS would still have sufficient grounds to desire these two things to be restored.

A third point that is up for debate is that the early bishops appear to be just local leaders and not leaders over the entire church. I will agree, though, that having the more powerful, established bishops taking over Old World church at the death of the apostles seems like a natural development.

but who are some of the men in the priesthhood that retained this priestly authority in the church in the America’s? What makes the latter true, and the former is not? I don’t know much about the Mormon church and I was just curious.

Christ set up a priesthood leadership on the American continent. For example he set up 12 disciples as a counterpart to the 12 Jerusalem-based apostles. The American conditions for the first couple of centuries for more favorable than they were in the Roman empire. Christ shook things up a bit prior to his appearance and his follows were quite humble and receptive to his message. For 200 years there was relative peace among the American Christians and good records were kept and passed down. Between 200 AD and 421 AD the church disinegrated and the warring factions eradicated most of the believers. Nevertheless Mormon and his son Moroni remained faithful until their deaths. Both of these men discuss priesthood ordinances (sacraments) which implies they retained the priesthood.

So in answer to your question: apostles appointed as bishops rests on debatable evidence. The American continent evidence is conclusive, but one has to accept the Book of Mormon as a historical record first.

Feel free to ask any more questions.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Ian,

Thanks for posting the information from “The History of Joseph the Carpenter”. I still regard identifying the two prophets that John speaks of a very speculative topic. But let’s go with the idea that they are prophets that have been translated (assumed) into heaven. What if they were to utter any “public revelation”, would the RCC have to disregard their teachings? Or is this one of those hypotheticals that couldn’t conceivably happen?

So much of the non-LDS Christian seems to based on the idea that public revelation after Christ is anti-climatic. However while Christ did some important work for our salvation more dramatic than anything since the creation, the second coming is a climax in its on right. I will take all the revelation that I can get to prepare me or my descendents for it.

You responded to Jesus’s test of a prophet by citing the deuteronomist’s test.

*Deuteronomy, chapter 18:21-22
*
I have to admit I still know very little about the LDS compared to you, but what prophecies of Joseph Smith have come true, which ones have not?

The Deut. scripture tells us we shouldn’t be afraid of a prophet who predicts something in the name of the Lord and it doesn’t come to pass. We shouldn’t be afraid because the Lord is on top of the situation and will deal with the errant prophet himself. Like all the biblical prophet’s, Joseph Smith’s predictions had mixed results. Sometimes a prophet promises destruction, which doesn’t happen because his listeners repent. Other times the prophecies lack specifics, are symbolic, poetic, or apocolyptic. That makes them open to interpretation and hard to verify one way or another. I am not trying to make excuses for Joseph Smith because I think parts of his predictions came true like the Civil War starting in South Carolina (although perhaps anyone could have predicted this in the 1830s, who would want to put their reputation as a prophet on the line for it) and that small time politician, Stephen Douglas, would run for President and lose if he ever turned on the Mormons.

But a prophet’s fruits aren’t confined to how well his predictions hold up. For Joseph Smith, his entire body of work has to be looked at. The current prophet wrote an article highlighting some of Joseph Smith’s good fruit in this month’s Ensign. I won’t sit here and rattle off Joseph Smith’s list of accomplishments because some will seek to balance things out by posting negatives. Looking at Joseph Smith’s works, it is hard to remain neutral. For me, something is good, if it helps me draw closer to Christ. That is the ultimate yardstick–the ultimate value or criteria in making religous decisions-- even if it is subjective.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Brad Haas:

Let theory control the data? You seem familiar with my websites, so I take it you’ve read my page of New Testament passages that stand against an imminent great apostasy. Is that just reading my theory into it?

Your NT page is a prime example of controlling the data. You admit right at the top that you are carefully selecting passages. Your excuse for doing so was tu quoque. Of course you are right that LDS engage in the same type of activity, see for instance an appendix by Noel Reynolds in *Early Christians in Disarray. *My position is that the totality of the relevant evidence from which both religions take uphold is ambiguous, hence my reaction from someone claiming to be able to “prove” a definitive position.

I hope I just got the wrong impression from your post, but it just seems to me that you’ll reject whatever is presented to you as the product of a priori assertions. To me, that itself is letting your theory that it’ll be wrong control the data given to you!

The impression I want to convey is that I tentatively hold onto conclusions. If someone marshals evidence and presents a superior interpretion that accounts for most of the data, then I will gladly update my views. And I am also interested in what can be established from “common ground” evidence even if my views are largely formed from sources that we don’t share. It isn’t a priori rejection as I am at least willing to hear people out in search of a superior paradigm. I just don’t want to get people’s hopes up, because I find some eyewitnesses credible that others don’t.

–fool

 

[Brad_Haas]

I should have phrased that better. What I meant to ask was whether that actually is evidence that supports the Catholic position, or just my making it seem so? But perhaps I misunderstood what you meant about controlling the data in the first place, so never mind. I think I get it now.

 

[Superstar905]

So, the Book of Mormon, is the only historical evidence of the apostasy of the church, and of the church being set up in america?

Wow, how does anyone pit their faith on a book, that cannot be authenticated by historically verified sources. We have tons of Extra biblical Christian witness to the truth of the Early Church, these same people who wrote while on their way to persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire.

Where are the historian’s writings confirming these claims by mormons on the Apostasy, and of the Church in the America’s? If the only source is the book of mormon, then that is all you need to tell me. I need more than that.

As Catholics, we are not a religion, derived from the book (bible), but we are a Church, established by Christ, that produced the book (bible). There is a big difference. We don’t need the book alone to authenticate this, but historians validate this too. Historic witness in the form of www.earlychristianwritings.com show this too.

It amazes me, that Mormons put so much faith in the book of Mormon.

What makes the book of Mormon authoritative for Mormons? Why then, is there no supporting documentation supporting the book of mormon?

 

[amgid]

Superstar905:

So you assume that this happened when the Apostles died. Interesting theory. Why do you believe that?

Because the true church of God must always be led by revelation from God. When the Apostles were alive, they had the power and ability to lead it by revelation from God. When they died, that connection with heaven was severed. As a natural consequence of that many incorrect principles and practices crept into the church which would have otherwise been detected and corrected had the divine authority continued in the church. Also, many unworthy individuals were called to positions of authority in the church who were not worthy of it, and who caused harm to the church. Thus the church began to drift, and the authority was lost.

Why would Jesus come and establish a hierical Church only to have it stop being athoritative after the death of the Apostles? Why go through the trouble giving them authority, the keys, etc, only to have it end with their death? That makes no sense.

I agree that if you look at it from a narrow human perspective, it does not seem to make sense. But God takes a much broader perspective into view. He knows “the end from the beginning,” and He arranges for things to happen in the times of His own choosing, to take best advantage of the course of events. Let me first say that apostasy and restoration has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout history. Secondly, Jesus Himself predicted that the “enemy” would “sow tares among the wheat” after His church had been established, and Paul predicted that after his death many of the leadership of the church whom he himself had appointed would apostatize, “not sparing the flock”:

Acts 20:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves {i.e. the leadership he had ordained} shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one {of the impending apostasy} night and day with tears.
The condition of the world among the Gentile nations at that time was not conducive for the institution of the Twelve Apostles, with full divine authority to govern the church by revelation from God, to continue and survive in the church. But interestingly, a portion of the gospel did survive, which enabled vast numbers of mankind to believe and have faith in Christ, and try to live by His teachings and precepts to the best of their knowledge and ability which they possessed at that time. The Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving that Christian tradition in the world until now. But with the restoration of the gospel the Lord has given us a lot more than what the world can receive from the Catholic tradition alone.

Where is the historic documentation to support his visit to the Nephites?
. . .

I’m talking about historically verified sources from that time or close to the time of the Apostles. I’m not interested in reading a book composed 1830 of years after Christ. So please, show me the documentation from anytime before the year 421AD to authenticate your claims. Sure, if such momentus events took place, these documents would have been preserved and copied for all believers. Look forward to this, thanks in advance.

I think that mormon fool has already given a good answer to that. I will just add that the Book of Mormon is a revelation from the Lord. Although it cannot be “proved” by documentary sources from secular history, it cannot be “disproved” by it either. The question that you need to ask yourself is: what is the basis on which you are dismissing it as a revelation from God? Are you questioning God’s ability to reveal such a thing to us in our time, or do you have some other motive?

amgid

 

[Superstar905]

amgid:

Because the true church of God must always be led by revelation from God. When the Apostles were alive, they had the power and ability to lead it by revelation from God. When they died, that connection with heaven was severed. As a natural consequence of that many incorrect principles and practices crept into the church which would have otherwise been detected and corrected had the divine authority continued in the church. Also, many unworthy individuals were called to positions of authority in the church who were not worthy of it, and who caused harm to the church. Thus the church began to drift, and the authority was lost.

I agree that if you look at it from a narrow human perspective, it does not seem to make sense. But God takes a much broader perspective into view. He knows “the end from the beginning,” and He arranges for things to happen in the times of His own choosing, to take best advantage of the course of events. Let me first say that apostasy and restoration has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout history. Secondly, Jesus Himself predicted that the “enemy” would “sow tares among the wheat” after His church had been established, and Paul predicted that after his death many of the leadership of the church whom he himself had appointed would apostatize, “not sparing the flock”:

Acts 20:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves {i.e. the leadership he had ordained} shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one {of the impending apostasy} night and day with tears.
The condition of the world among the Gentile nations at that time was not conducive for the institution of the Twelve Apostles, with full divine authority to govern the church by revelation from God, to continue and survive in the church. But interestingly, a portion of the gospel did survive, which enabled vast numbers of mankind to believe and have faith in Christ, and try to live by His teachings and precepts to the best of their knowledge and ability which they possessed at that time. The Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving that Christian tradition in the world until now. But with the restoration of the gospel the Lord has given us a lot more than what the world can receive from the Catholic tradition alone.

I think that mormon fool has already given a good answer to that. I will just add that the Book of Mormon is a revelation from the Lord. Although it cannot be “proved” by documentary sources from secular history, it cannot be “disproved” by it either. The question that you need to ask yourself is: what is the basis on which you are dismissing it as a revelation from God? Are you questioning God’s ability to reveal such a thing to us in our time, or do you have some other motive?

amgid

Amgid, I dont have any other motive, just asking questions because the Mormon position here doesn’t make sense, thats all. Why do you accept the Book of Mormon as revelation? Didn’t all “relevation” end with the Apostles?

The powers given to the Apostles, where that of an office, the office of Bishoprik. The office remains, even when the person in the office dies. It makes no sense whatsoever, that Jesus came, set up the office, only to have it severed with the death of the person oradained to that office. The Office of the President is a good example. Anyway, you get my point. Understanding this from a Jewish perspective, do you understand what it means to give someone the “keys”, and the authority to “bind and loose”? Do you understand that those are given to the office, and used by the individual in the office?

You talk about unworthy individuals taking up those positions in the Church. What makes them unworthy, and why do you judge them so?

 

[Superstar905]

amgid:

Also, many unworthy individuals were called to positions of authority in the church who were not worthy of it, and who caused harm to the church. Thus the church began to drift, and the authority was lost.

By what authority doYOU determine this, and by what authority to YOU determine that the authority given by Christ, was lost at any point in time?

 

[amgid]

Superstar905:

So, the Book of Mormon, is the only historical evidence of the apostasy of the church, . . .

The Book of Mormon is not “the only historical evidence of the apostasy of the church”. That is evident from Christian history, and from the Church itself.

. . . and of the church being set up in america?

Yes, it is the only historical evidence (at the present time) for the church being set up in America.

Wow, how does anyone pit their faith on a book, that cannot be authenticated by historically verified sources.

I do.

We have tons of Extra biblical Christian witness to the truth of the Early Church, these same people who wrote while on their way to persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire.

We do not deny the truth of the “Early Church”.

Where are the historian’s writings confirming these claims by mormons on the Apostasy, and of the Church in the America’s?

The “Apostasy” and the “church in America” are two different things. We don’t need the Book of Mormon to tell us that the Christian church apostatized. That is discernible from Christian history. We are not the first to think of that idea. The Protestants thought of it before we did. And they didn’t get their ideas from the Book of Mormon.

As far as the historicity of the Book of Mormon is concerned, I have no difficulty accepting the historical validity of the Book of Mormon without having independent historical evidence to verify it it. If you have difficulty with that, then don’t, who said you should?

There are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world every year who accept the claims of the Book of Mormon without requiring independent historical verification. So it appears that some people can accept it, and some can’t. The Book of Mormon is intended for those who can accept it, not for those who can’t. If you are among the latter, then you shouldn’t. It is not for you.

If the only source is the book of mormon, then that is all you need to tell me. I need more than that.

As Catholics, we are not a religion, derived from the book (bible), but we are a Church, established by Christ, that produced the book (bible).

The Catholic Church did not produce the Bible. The Jews produced the Bible. The OT was written by Jews; the NT was also written by Jews. The Christian church that the Apostles of Christ established among the Gentiles later apostatized from the truths that thy had established.

There is a big difference. We don’t need the book alone to authenticate this, but historians validate this too. Historic witness in the form of www.earlychristianwritings.com show this too.

The LDS Church was established by Jesus Christ, by revelation and angelic ministration, through the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is not derived from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is an additional volume of scripture that provides spiritual confirmation of its divine authenticity, and helps correct some incorrect doctrines that had crept into the Christian church, and teaches us some new truths.

It amazes me, that Mormons put so much faith in the book of Mormon.

Then be amazed! We do!

What makes the book of Mormon authoritative for Mormons?

The testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Why then, is there no supporting documentation supporting the book of mormon?

The Book of Mormon is a great sifter. It is designed to test our faith in the power and revelations of God.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Superstar905:

Amgid, I dont have any other motive, just asking questions because the Mormon position here doesn’t make sense, thats all.

It doesn’t make sense to you because you ignore the fact that religion is a matter of faith, and of spiritual testimony, not of historical evidence. In the days of the Apostles people had the same kind of problems with Christianity that you now have with the LDS Church; hence the Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 1:

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom {i.e. philosophy}:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
You may not realize it, but what you are doing is the same as what those “Jews” and “Greeks” were doing—demanding a “sign,” or a philosophical, historical, or documentary evidence for what is essentially spiritual, and can only be discerned spiritually. Paul again writes:

1 Corinthians 2:

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Why do you accept the Book of Mormon as revelation?

Because the Holy Spirit bears witness to us that it is true.

Didn’t all “relevation” end with the Apostles?

No, it did not.

The powers given to the Apostles, where that of an office, the office of Bishoprik. The office remains, even when the person in the office dies. It makes no sense whatsoever, that Jesus came, set up the office, only to have it severed with the death of the person oradained to that office. The Office of the President is a good example.

That has already been answered in posts #75 and #88. I am not going to go over that all over again.

Anyway, you get my point. Understanding this from a Jewish perspective, do you understand what it means to give someone the “keys”, and the authority to “bind and loose”? Do you understand that those are given to the office, and used by the individual in the office?

Yes, the “keys” were given to the Apostles. They held the keys. When they died, they keys were taken from the earth with them.

You talk about unworthy individuals taking up those positions in the Church. What makes them unworthy, and why do you judge them so?
. . .

By what authority do YOU determine this, and by what authority to YOU determine that the authority given by Christ, was lost at any point in time?

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a restoration of the original church of Christ on earth. It is the only true and living church of God on earth today. I derive my authority to say these things by virtue of my affiliation with that Church.

amgid

 

[majick275]

The BoM must be seen for what it really is. Somewhere between the Koran and Dianetics. They are all three written by a man for the purpose of founding a religion. JS was little different than Anne Lee and the shaker movement was very similar to Mormonism.

Had it not been for Brigham Young taking the Mormons to Utah and basically living as a seperate nation the LDS church would be but a blip in the history of American Churches.

History shows us what context to view the writings in the bible in. We can see from science, anthropology and early writings much proof for early christianity. We can see in great detail exactly what course the Catholic church has taken from St. Peter to the present. We can SEE from that there was never a global apostasy. Thus there can be no “restoration”.

We can also see that Mormonism is not restoration of any primitive Christian faith but is in fact a completely new religion with a completely new theory of teh nature of God and cetainly his relationship to mankind. We see how it has changed over the years to try and cover for it’s gaping holes in logic that existed in it’s early years and we see the changes to make it appear morte mainstream in an effort to achieve greater membership.

compare this with the RCC wich keeps the same Gospel that it was taught by Apostles.

There is no need for Christ churchc to be led by a “prophet”. Scripture supports this as well the obsolence of the Temple. (see the letter to the Hebrews). We see the spiritual gift of prophecy existent throughout the history of the RCC. That is VERy different. We see an unbroken line of Apostolic succesion in the Catholic church that shows true priesthood authority. Compare this with a man who claims an angel ordained him…

How is this different than Islam? or David Koresh? Shakers, seventh day Adventists, JWs, etc.?

It’s not! Don’t drink the Kool-aid. Keep to the sacred scriptures and sacred traditions that have been passed down from the Apostles who received them from Jesus. Secret ceremonies with masonic handshakes and such will not make anyone a God. Nothing will. Our only hope is to follow Christ in his One, Holy, Catholic and Apsotolic church so that we may dwell with him forever One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. THe beatific vision is and should be our true goal, a oneness with god that can only be achieved by supressing our self and devoting ourselves to him. The created submitting to the creator. This in contrast to brothers and sisters of Christ seeking to obtain our own kingdoms wher WE rule… That’s blasphemy.

 

[Superstar905]

wow, some of this stuff is fascinating. I still cannot comprehend the mormon position, and cannot fathom putting blind faith into a Prophet who claims a bunch of new relevation in his book, and there is nothing outside of this book to back up any of it’s claims.

That said, one thing I will reply to, is that PUBLIC REVELATION DID END WITH THE APOSTLES!

Perhaps an illustration will help us get the hang of it. Compare, for example, the Catholic gospel with the Mormon picture of things. For the Catholic, the gospel in New Testament times was like a newborn baby. The Church has never denied the reality that baby must grow up and experience life more deeply. Indeed, the Lord Jesus assured us that He would lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and that the Church would deepen and grow in faith and understanding. But He said that this would happen, not via “new revelation” but via the Spirit reminding us of everything He has already said to us (John 14:26).
In contrast, Mormonism really does assert that God is still showing radically new things which have never ever been revealed before. Mormon belief in new revelation quite openly adds really new (and frequently contradictory) things to the deposit of faith handed on by the apostles. It adds, for example, new scriptures, a new announcement that God the Father was once a man like us and a declaration that the three persons of the Trinity are, in fact, three separate Gods. In short, Mormonism proclaims an evolving, polytheistic Godhead in flat contradiction to the revelation of the Old and New Testaments.

This is the fact.

Now this is a different kettle of fish than the Catholic view of development of doctrine. For Mormonism quite happily seeks to innovate where the Church (beginning with the Apostles) has always sought to conserve and cultivate. What’s the difference? The difference is between nurturing a baby to maturity and performing radical surgery on the baby to add an extra leg or two more pairs of eyes. Just as it is natural for a baby boy to eventually grow a beard, so it was natural for the Church to eventually grow, say, the doctrine of the Trinity from the seed of the apostolic preaching. For both the beard and the doctrine were in baby’s genes from the start. But it does not therefore follow that it is natural for baby to grow a tumor. Nor is it natural for the Faith to suddenly proclaim a “new revelation” in flat denial of the preaching of Moses, the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles. For Catholics, the baby Faith needed the food and drink of the sacraments and the exercise of holiness to mature into the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. For those who believe in new revelation, the baby needed an ever-increasing number of noses, fingers, ears, and eyes. Very well then, the Church does indeed proclaim the completion of public revelation with the end of the apostolic age. But to assert that there is no new public revelation does not mean that the Holy Spirit has been silent since the end of the apostolic era. Rather, it means that He is not saying anything different, any more than He is adding a fifth season to the original four. In short, as He creates spring anew every year (though it is millions of years old) so, in the gospel He is continually saying the same new thing again and again until we really hear it.

 

[mormon_fool]

Superstar905:

wow, some of this stuff is fascinating. I still cannot comprehend the mormon position,

That much is obvious! But hey, we appreciate your attempts to do so.

and cannot fathom putting blind faith into a Prophet

You will be relieved to know that neither do mormons. We study and reason like it all depends on us and pray like it all depends on God in our search for truth. If there is a better epistemological method to come to accept Christ’s doctrines, I haven’t found it.

there is nothing outside of this book to back up any of it’s claims.

Actually there is quite a bit outside the book that establishes its plausibility as an ancient text. Just like Jesus’s resurrection had its eyewitnesses, so did the original Book of Mormon document, In contrast no one has seen, in modern times, the original Biblical manuscript. A prominent non-Mormon scholar, Margaret Barker recently answered this question affirmatively to the Library of Congress:

What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholar—“Are the revelations to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem about 600 B.C.E?”
In the 1950’s, Hugh Nibley reconstructed the route Lehi, the original Book of Mormon prophet, took from Jerusalem and predicted the location of a place named NHM. Now an inscription of NHM has been recently found at the right place and dates to exactly the right time.

I could go on and on about the evidence that lends plausibility to the Book of Mormon. In short, my decision to accept it as a translation of ancient scripture is one made by study and faith.

–fool

 

[Superstar905]

mormon fool:

That much is obvious! But hey, we appreciate your attempts to do so.

You will be relieved to know that neither do mormons. We study and reason like it all depends on us and pray like it all depends on God in our search for truth. If there is a better epistemological method to come to accept Christ’s doctrines, I haven’t found it.

Actually there is quite a bit outside the book that establishes its plausibility as an ancient text. Just like Jesus’s resurrection had its eyewitnesses, so did the original Book of Mormon document, In contrast no one has seen, in modern times, the original Biblical manuscript. A prominent non-Mormon scholar, Margaret Barker recently answered this question affirmatively to the Library of Congress:

What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholar—“Are the revelations to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem about 600 B.C.E?”

In the 1950’s, Hugh Nibley reconstructed the route Lehi, the original Book of Mormon prophet, took from Jerusalem and predicted the location of a place named NHM. Now an inscription of NHM has been recently found at the right place and dates to exactly the right time.

I could go on and on about the evidence that lends plausibility to the Book of Mormon. In short, my decision to accept it as a translation of ancient scripture is one made by study and faith.

–fool

Thanks Mormon fool. I need to gather my thoughts. Even though I don’t agree with the position of your faith or its tenets, I respect the way you discuss your faith.

 

[mormon_fool]

Superstar905:

That said, one thing I will reply to, is that PUBLIC REVELATION DID END WITH THE APOSTLES!

I am glad we can agree that this is what happened in the Old World. In the New World, prophet/disciples of Christ continued to receive new, public revelation for the church.

For the Catholic, the gospel in New Testament times was like a newborn baby.

I like this thought. The NT church had all the essentials: doctrines about Christ and salvation and a foundation of apostles and prophets. However it still needed to mature and face challenges.

But He said that this would happen, not via “new revelation” but via the Spirit reminding us of everything He has already said to us (John 14:26).

The “not via new revelation” is interpretive spin. John 14:26 is an “AND” proposition. The apostles would be taught all things AND be reminded of the old things. Even after they recieved the Holy Spirit, the apostles continued to meet challenges by seeking and obtaining new revelations.

In contrast, Mormonism really does assert that God is still showing radically new things which have never ever been revealed before.

“New things” works better than “radically new things”, but essentially this is correct. There is no need to poison the well here.

Mormon belief in new revelation quite openly adds really new (and frequently contradictory) things to the deposit of faith handed on by the apostles.

I’ll not claim that revelations recorded by different individuals at different times can not contain conflicting messages. We see that all the time in the Bible. Man learns things “line upon line, precept upon precept” as Isaiah says, so when prophets record the revelations they receive they are subject to error. The “deposit of faith” is a catholic term that embraces all the developments that are felt to be true to the original apostles vision. However at least 3 of the apostles have thrown their support behind the LDS movement (according to LDS eyewitnesses), so they appear to be disappointed in the development of the early church.

It adds, for example, new scriptures, a new announcement that God the Father was once a man like us

This belief is not explicitly found in LDS scripture, so you may wish to pick a better example than this one to illustrate your point.

and a declaration that the three persons of the Trinity are, in fact, three separate Gods. In short, Mormonism proclaims an evolving, polytheistic Godhead in flat contradiction to the revelation of the Old and New Testaments.

First, without describing what LDS actually believe, I think that the consistency of the Bible is being overplayed here. It is well accepted by liberal Biblical scholars that pre-exilic Israel was polytheistic. Second some of the nuances of the Trinity as formulated by 4th century creeds and beyond are regarded as Extra-Biblical. Indeed LDS find themselves at home among the Ante-Nicean fathers who were, to a man, all subordinationalists. To get caught up on the latter issue, you may enjoy the now-Catholic David Waltz’s discussion of the nature of God although recently Mr. Waltz is taking liberal scholars to task on OT polytheism here.

This is the fact.

How about forming this as a question instead of asserting it? I personally find the semantics about “three separate Gods” less than clear, especially if one tries to interpret that the way a catholic might. Put into LDS terms we believe that the Godhead is “infinitely more one than it is three” as Robert Millet, the Richard L. Evans Chair of Religous Understanding put it.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Now this is a different kettle of fish than the Catholic view of development of doctrine. For Mormonism quite happily seeks to innovate where the Church (beginning with the Apostles) has always sought to conserve and cultivate.

I agree that LDS has a liberal theology, although there are some conservative elements to it to, as it claims to a “restoration of all things”. I think early Christian theology was also very dynamic and liberal in the early centuries, it just looks conservative now because Catholicism has a great body of literature to draw from.

But to assert that there is no new public revelation does not mean that the Holy Spirit has been silent since the end of the apostolic era.

It isn’t a claim of the LDS that Holy Spirit went entirely silent after the apostles.

As for the rest of the anology I get that mormonism is not seen as a natural development of the original church. If I were to change the analogy, the NT church was like a child who couldn’t get along with her parents, then the parents later died in a car accident. The child was then brought up in foster care and mixed the teachings of both old and new parents. Later the original parents were resurrected and had a new child. The parents love both children and hope for the best for each of them.

–fool

 

[catholic-rcia]

Quote:

But to assert that there is no new public revelation does not mean that the Holy Spirit has been silent since the end of the apostolic era.

The Holy Spirit is all over our Church world wide, in every corner of every Parish, in our people, in me. Christ made way, turned the old into the new. Christ is the restoration of all things past present and future. We were lost, now we are found. What does Christian mean if not Christ in us?

It is Christ now that leads the Church, He has come, God to us. We still battle with sin daily, this is why we have the Church / Christ / His Cross / His Sacraments, with Him at the center of our lives, through Him we healed from our fallen nature.

This gift is all over the Catholic Apostolic Faith, it flows to all other faiths who proclaim the true name of Christ, the One and only Eternal Son in which we have been adopted, through creation through Christ Himself into His One Body. 1: Cor 12.

Do I have such revelation? Do I need a New Age Prophet to tell me what the Prophets have already said and accomplished in announcing the Coming of Christ? Such as John the Baptist? No, I have Jesus in Me to do that. He informs me of what is right and what is wrong. He has confirmed these things already. The only revelation that is left that matters is for others to get this Revelation as to whom Christ is, so that they to can become Christians. Placing God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit above all things.

(ALL) Things

This is where life begins. Anything else preached and accepted is where life can end. With God you can breath for eternity by allowing Him to breath you. You can only live under water for a short time without coming up for air. You can only live here on earth for a short time without coming up for God.

God Bless