LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[TheosisM]

I believe that the text I have bolded above reflects an important difference between Catholic and LDS ways of thinking and “doing” belief. In particular, there is this idea of “sure knowledge”–which (some) LDS who I know personally, claim that they have, and for which they use the term “know”.

However, I (as well as an LDS friend who has much training in theology) would argue that in terms of epistemology, that they really do not “know” certain theological things that they claim to know, despite using the word “know” to describe their sense of certainty. Instead, it appears (again, taking epistemology into account) to actually be a strong belief, and not “sure knowledge.”

To be fair, I would apply the same thinking/definitions to my OWN faith situation. Despite a St. Paul on the road to Damascus-like conversion experience, which included some supernatural stuff, I do not, epistemologically speaking, “know” that Jesus is the real deal despite the fact that I have at some times been imprecise with my language and used the word “know”, when what I in fact meant, was that I have a VERY strong belief in Jesus being the real thing, while at the same time having it be something that I cannot empirically prove (and therefore, cannot “know” for certain the same way I know that right now I am typing on a keyboard).

I could be wrong, but I think that you are misunderstanding what the Vatican article is stating as far as “sure knowledge” and “prayerful hope”. The article is making an implied reference to revelation/deposit of faith. Within the Catholic faith, there is “sure knowledge” that, for example, Jesus was crucified, died, and resurrected. There is “sure knowledge” that Mary was immaculately conceived and assumed. There is “sure knowledge” of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist). These are things that are seen as “fact” within the Catholic faith, since these things are drawn from revelation (public revelation).

In contrast, it has not been definitively revealed that unbaptized infants go to Heaven or somewhere else. The article instead states that there are various theological and liturgical reasons (including the mercy of God) to have “prayerful hope” that God does save unbaptized infants. This is also way limbo of infants has been speculated on, since again, the status of unbaptized infants has not been revealed. So in Catholicism, it is perfectly acceptable for someone to believe that unbaptized infants go to Limbo (which is not doctrine, though it is doctrinally correct, meaning that it does not contradict anything that has been revealed), and it is perfectly acceptable to believe that God saves unbaptized infants (which is not doctrine, though it is doctrinally correct for the reasons given in the article, and seems to be the position that the Vatican ITC takes, and they also speak against Limbo). Contrast this with the Real Presence. There is no middle ground or multiple views on the Eucharist acceptable in Catholicism. It has been revealed that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. It is part of the Deposit of Faith. Catholics don’t “hope” that Jesus is present in a valid Mass. They have “sure knowledge” that Jesus is present, since that has been revealed to the Church.

Mormons may say that they have “sure knowledge” that unbaptized infants are saved, since in their religion, it has been revealed to them that they are saved.

So, I understand what you are saying about “knowing” (I assume you are referring to testimonies and “knowing” that the LDS Church is true, for example), however in the context of the Vatican article, it is talking about public revelation, and that the fate of unbaptized infants has not been revealed (in contrast to the Real Presence, which has been revealed, as a contrasting example), though there are reasons to believe one way or another (and the ITC strongly believes that there is sound reason to hope that they are saved) based on what has been revealed that is related to the salvation of unbaptized infants.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,
You will recall that I was writing specifically about a hypothetical example of a nine-year-old who happened to die and happened to not have been baptized and happened to have lied to their parent at some point. I was writing that Christ offers mercy, including mercy to such a nine-year-old.

I also wrote that sin is related to the knowledge of the person, meaning that a nine-year-old has less likelihood of understanding the full importance of being truthful than, say, a twenty-six-year old. Therefore, Christ will be more merciful to a nine-year-old in such a hypothetical case than to a twenty-six-year-old who lies to their parent.

There is the side issue of “baptism for the dead”, of course as you probably are aware, that may occur at some point in behalf of a nine-year-old who had died and would not be done for a seven-year-old who had died. But even if not, then I think a child age nine who had died is going to be viewed mercifully by the Savior and treated with such love and kindness that that child will feel the full power of repentance in the spirit world and will be forgiven for their sins committed during their young life on earth.

An important aspect of the example of a nine-year-old is that such a child would be in a position as a spirit in the spirit world to choose what they want, whether they want to make a covenant with Christ or not and whether they want to be sanctified by the Spirit or not. What would matter is what is the desire of their heart, and their faith in Christ.

You used many words but little reason. I do not see why it is reasonable for a Mormon to get baptized at all; given what you just told me. God is merciful, so you don’t need to baptize.

Mormon Bible Dictionary: Baptism in water has several purposes. It is for the remission of sins, for membership in the Church, and for entrance into the celestial kingdom; it is also the doorway to personal sanctification when followed by the reception of the Holy Ghost.
Fourth Article of Faith: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The baptizing of an infant takes the decision-making away from the person as to the making of a covenant with Christ, although I am fully aware that the youth is expected and encouraged to make a decision where they “accept” their baptism at an age when they decide it is right.

Decision making is not part of baptism in the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church. Eight year olds do not make decisions any more than an eight day old infant does.

Those who were baptized in New Testament times were making a decision on their own to make and keep a covenant.

In “New Testament times” infants were baptized as the new circumcision of the new covenant. (2 Col 11-14) to wash away original sin (1 Cor 15:21-23, Roman 5:12-19).

I hope this helps in understanding that the LDS view of baptism is different than the Catholic view, and that age eight is not some critical age where “sin” begins to be viewed as a fearful circumstance for a child if they hadn’t yet been baptized.

I think I understand the LDS understanding of baptism. My point is ontologically, what Mormons believe happens at baptism, does not preclude it happening to an infant; like it did in New Testament times.

(However, to lighten things up, I was baptized on my birthday at age eight since it happened to be a Saturday, so I have the benefit of being able to remember my baptismal date easily.)

Is knowing ones date of baptism important to Mormons? Or is knowing your own personal thing?

 

[ParkerD]

You used many words but little reason. I do not see why it is reasonable for a Mormon to get baptized at all; given what you just told me. God is merciful, so you don’t need to baptize.

Decision making is not part of baptism in the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church. Eight year olds do not make decisions any more than an eight day old infant does.
In “New Testament times” infants were baptized as the new circumcision of the new covenant. (2 Col 11-14) to wash away original sin (1 Cor 15:21-23, Roman 5:12-19).
I think I understand the LDS understanding of baptism. My point is ontologically, what Mormons believe happens at baptism, does not preclude it happening to an infant; like it did in New Testament times.
Is knowing ones date of baptism important to Mormons? Or is knowing your own personal thing?

Stephen168,
I have seen your post here. We haven’t communicated, nor does it appear we can about this subject, though I tried my best.

Paul does not write about “original sin”, nor does he write that infants were baptized, but he does compare baptism under the new covenant to circumcision under the old covenant. That does not mean the new covenant token needs to be done at the same age as the old covenant token. Such a belief is directly refuted by Christ in His teaching to Nicodemus in John 3.

I stated that I was baptized on my birthday to “lighten things up” as I stated, so although the date of baptism is recorded and many do remember the date of their baptism, it happens to be easier for me to remember than my children, for example. We would have to look theirs up in a journal or on a membership record.

 

[dianaiad]

I believe that the text I have bolded above reflects an important difference between Catholic and LDS ways of thinking and “doing” belief. In particular, there is this idea of “sure knowledge”–which (some) LDS who I know personally, claim that they have, and for which they use the term “know”.

However, I (as well as an LDS friend who has much training in theology) would argue that in terms of epistemology, that they really do not “know” certain theological things that they claim to know, despite using the word “know” to describe their sense of certainty. Instead, it appears (again, taking epistemology into account) to actually be a strong belief, and not “sure knowledge.”

To be fair, I would apply the same thinking/definitions to my OWN faith situation. Despite a St. Paul on the road to Damascus-like conversion experience, which included some supernatural stuff, I do not, epistemologically speaking, “know” that Jesus is the real deal despite the fact that I have at some times been imprecise with my language and used the word “know”, when what I in fact meant, was that I have a VERY strong belief in Jesus being the real thing, while at the same time having it be something that I cannot empirically prove (and therefore, cannot “know” for certain the same way I know that right now I am typing on a keyboard).

Epistemologically speaking, you are exactly right, and I will admit that it’s one of my VERY pet peeves about not only the LDS church, but pretty much everybody else out there, as well.

Perhaps an illustration from our own beliefs about that unpardonable sin would help. One cannot, we believe, COMMIT the sin of denying the Holy Ghost unless one has absolute knowledge that what the Holy Ghost is telling you is true. If you then turn away, in spite of the fact that you know (the way you know that the bridge you just crossed actually held you out of the water) what He said was true, then you are commiting that sin. There are very few people who reach that state of absolute knowledge…that state of knowing that has no hint of faith in it.

All the rest of us have belief. That belief may be so strong that we can’t even imagine a circumstance in which that belief is not true, and our faith may be so strong that we would act on that belief no matter WHAT sort of evidence or attacks against it are put in front of us…like the man who is so convinced that the bridge will hold him up that he will cross it even if he can’t see it, and has actually seen it fall down and take hundreds of cars with it. He’ll still attempt to cross it because his faith in it is so great he cannot concieve of it NOT holding him up. Who knows? The mere memory of it might. This is a faith so deep that, when absolute knowledge does come, that he might not even see the difference. It doesn’t matter…the difference is very, very real.

lax just exhibited a little bit of that sort of faith when he said that the Catholic church did NOT apostate, and that he has proof of it; not faith, but that he can PROVE it. Well, he can’t. No matter how strongly he believes he can, he can’t prove it, because this isn’t something you CAN prove empirically. It’s a faith thing, a belief thing, and I can prove the apostasy to exactly the same extent than he can prove that it didn’t happen…that is, not at all. This is a matter for God to convict us of; we look at stuff, we think about it, and then we pray about it. God will do the telling, and the proof HE gives isn’t transferable to other people. I can TELL you what I believe, and why, and how sincerely I believe it, but you have to get your own the same way I got mine, or you got yours.

So I always get a little impatient with people who tell me that they can prove ANYTHING religiously. Wrong…magesterium…I guess.

 

[lax16]

Epistemologically speaking, you are exactly right, and I will admit that it’s one of my VERY pet peeves about not only the LDS church, but pretty much everybody else out there, as well.

Perhaps an illustration from our own beliefs about that unpardonable sin would help. One cannot, we believe, COMMIT the sin of denying the Holy Ghost unless one has absolute knowledge that what the Holy Ghost is telling you is true. If you then turn away, in spite of the fact that you know (the way you know that the bridge you just crossed actually held you out of the water) what He said was true, then you are commiting that sin. There are very few people who reach that state of absolute knowledge…that state of knowing that has no hint of faith in it.

All the rest of us have belief. That belief may be so strong that we can’t even imagine a circumstance in which that belief is not true, and our faith may be so strong that we would act on that belief no matter WHAT sort of evidence or attacks against it are put in front of us…like the man who is so convinced that the bridge will hold him up that he will cross it even if he can’t see it, and has actually seen it fall down and take hundreds of cars with it. He’ll still attempt to cross it because his faith in it is so great he cannot concieve of it NOT holding him up. Who knows? The mere memory of it might. This is a faith so deep that, when absolute knowledge does come, that he might not even see the difference. It doesn’t matter…the difference is very, very real.

lax just exhibited a little bit of that sort of faith when he said that the Catholic church did NOT apostate, and that he has proof of it; not faith, but that he can PROVE it. Well, he can’t. No matter how strongly he believes he can, he can’t prove it, because this isn’t something you CAN prove empirically. It’s a faith thing, a belief thing, and I can prove the apostasy to exactly the same extent than he can prove that it didn’t happen…that is, not at all. This is a matter for God to convict us of; we look at stuff, we think about it, and then we pray about it. God will do the telling, and the proof HE gives isn’t transferable to other people. I can TELL you what I believe, and why, and how sincerely I believe it, but you have to get your own the same way I got mine, or you got yours.

So I always get a little impatient with people who tell me that they can prove ANYTHING religiously. Wrong…magesterium…I guess.

Proving that there have been Catholics for two thousand years is not proving something religiously, Diana. It’s history.

If someone wrote about the Church, say 1500 years ago, and there was historical evidence to prove that the writings are from that time period, wouldn’t that mean there was evidence of believers of an early (Catholic) Church? Not only would it indicate the writer was a Christian/Catholic, but so was the audience he was writing to/for?

If there is archaeological evidence of early churches, complete with altar and the words Jesus Christ in mosaic, from about 200-300 AD, isn’t that proof that a Church dedicated to Jesus Christ existed? (The altar has great significance as well).

If a person of Irish descent does a geneological study of their ancestry and discovers they have been Catholic for generations, possibly back to the time of St. Patrick, wouldn’t that have significance?

By the way, dianaiad, it is not ME proving the Catholic Church has never been in a state of apostasy, but archaelogists, theologians, historians…I can only share what I read in credible research documents.

 

[sablouwho]

Epistemologically speaking, you are exactly right, and I will admit that it’s one of my VERY pet peeves about not only the LDS church, but pretty much everybody else out there, as well.

Me too.

Perhaps an illustration from our own beliefs about that unpardonable sin would help. One cannot, we believe, COMMIT the sin of denying the Holy Ghost unless one has absolute knowledge that what the Holy Ghost is telling you is true. If you then turn away, in spite of the fact that you know (the way you know that the bridge you just crossed actually held you out of the water) what He said was true, then you are commiting that sin. There are very few people who reach that state of absolute knowledge…that state of knowing that has no hint of faith in it.

Exactly.

All the rest of us have belief. That belief may be so strong that we can’t even imagine a circumstance in which that belief is not true, and our faith may be so strong that we would act on that belief no matter WHAT sort of evidence or attacks against it are put in front of us… This is a faith so deep that, when absolute knowledge does come, that he might not even see the difference. It doesn’t matter…the difference is very, very real.

Can’t argue with that!

This is a matter for God to convict us of; we look at stuff, we think about it, and then we pray about it. God will do the telling, and the proof HE gives isn’t transferable to other people. I can TELL you what I believe, and why, and how sincerely I believe it, but you have to get your own the same way I got mine, or you got yours.

LOL with the non-transferable thing–sounds like a coupon. Really is true though. Otherwise, everyone would believe Jesus is the Christ.

 

[lax16]

Epistemologically speaking, you are exactly right, and I will admit that it’s one of my VERY pet peeves about not only the LDS church, but pretty much everybody else out there, as well.

Perhaps an illustration from our own beliefs about that unpardonable sin would help. One cannot, we believe, COMMIT the sin of denying the Holy Ghost unless one has absolute knowledge that what the Holy Ghost is telling you is true. If you then turn away, in spite of the fact that you know (the way you know that the bridge you just crossed actually held you out of the water) what He said was true, then you are commiting that sin. There are very few people who reach that state of absolute knowledge…that state of knowing that has no hint of faith in it.

All the rest of us have belief. That belief may be so strong that we can’t even imagine a circumstance in which that belief is not true, and our faith may be so strong that we would act on that belief no matter WHAT sort of evidence or attacks against it are put in front of us…like the man who is so convinced that the bridge will hold him up that he will cross it even if he can’t see it, and has actually seen it fall down and take hundreds of cars with it. He’ll still attempt to cross it because his faith in it is so great he cannot concieve of it NOT holding him up. Who knows? The mere memory of it might. This is a faith so deep that, when absolute knowledge does come, that he might not even see the difference. It doesn’t matter…the difference is very, very real.

lax just exhibited a little bit of that sort of faith when he said that the Catholic church did NOT apostate, and that he has proof of it; not faith, but that he can PROVE it. Well, he can’t. No matter how strongly he believes he can, he can’t prove it, because this isn’t something you CAN prove empirically. It’s a faith thing, a belief thing, and I can prove the apostasy to exactly the same extent than he can prove that it didn’t happen…that is, not at all. This is a matter for God to convict us of; we look at stuff, we think about it, and then we pray about it. God will do the telling, and the proof HE gives isn’t transferable to other people. I can TELL you what I believe, and why, and how sincerely I believe it, but you have to get your own the same way I got mine, or you got yours.

So I always get a little impatient with people who tell me that they can prove ANYTHING religiously. Wrong…magesterium…I guess.

Dianaiad - I have had my faith challenged so many times I’m afraid I don’t see things the way you do. The thing is, I go with it, question, study, sometimes pray (I need to work on the praying more than the studying!)
Every single time, I land in the same spot (as far as the faith goes).
This is the stuff I can’t prove to you or anyone else - it’s personal, though I am willing to discuss it.

This has nothing to do with proving the apostasy did or did not exist. It is a different conversation. One filled with facts, study, historical references…not a bridge built on hope and faith, but one built with bricks and mortar.

 

[AtticusFinch]

dianaiad;6405321:

AtticusFinch;6405045:

Atticus, please show me where Jesus said that infants need baptising

Sure. It says ALL must be baptized. Now, suppose you show me in the Bible where jesus said “all does not mean children”. Or “All means children only after their 8th Birthday”.

We have already seen where Mormons do not believe children are part of their households…now you are saying that “all” does not include children, either? Geez, kids don;t have much of a chance in an LDS family…

, or where he did anything at all with small children except bless them

Using that theory, short people do not need to be baptized, because jesus only blessed them (Zacheeus), or tax collectors do not need to be baptized, because Jesus always blessed them, and never said ANYTHING about baptising tax collectors. Your argument is silly and not supported by the Bible, the facts, or even logic.

Still waiting for the answers to my questions…

 

[Zoin]

For me, Jesus built only one true church. If the church that you are belong now has a doctrine which is contradictory to what’s written in the bible then you need to seek the right one. It’s like choosing the best school for you. The one that will teach you the right lessons that you will benefit on it. Many thinks that Catholicism is not the true church that’s why they are trying to convert them to their religion or church which they think is the right one.

 

[AtticusFinch]

For me, Jesus built only one true church. If the church that you are belong now has a doctrine which is contradictory to what’s written in the bible then you need to seek the right one. It’s like choosing the best school for you. The one that will teach you the right lessons that you will benefit on it. Many thinks that Catholicism is not the true church that’s why they are trying to convert them to their religion or church which they think is the right one.

contradictory according to whom? Who makes that determination?

 

[dianaiad]

Proving that there have been Catholics for two thousand years is not proving something religiously, Diana. It’s history.

That’s not what we are talking about when we talk about an apostasy, lax. Yes, there have been Christians for 2000 years. I personally don’t think that there have been CATHOLICS that long, because somewhere early on, the Church of Jesus Christ morphed into Catholicism. There is a continuum of people, but…not of the priesthood or complete truth.

If what you mean is that you can prove that Christianity has been around for 2000 years, well, of course it has. We claim that part of it was lost, or rather turned away from; not all of it. We believe that the priesthood authority was lost, among other things.

If someone wrote about the Church, say 1500 years ago, and there was historical evidence to prove that the writings are from that time period, wouldn’t that mean there was evidence of believers of an early (Catholic) Church? Not only would it indicate the writer was a Christian/Catholic, but so was the audience he was writing to/for?

You realize, don’t you, that we believe the apostasy happened further back than 1500 years ago, yes?

If there is archaeological evidence of early churches, complete with altar and the words Jesus Christ in mosaic, from about 200-300 AD, isn’t that proof that a Church dedicated to Jesus Christ existed? (The altar has great significance as well).

Ok, I see what you are working at. You are claiming that because there is proof that there have been Christians since Christ, and people who have worshipped and devoted their lives to Him, that this proves that there was no apostasy.

All that proves is that there have been Christians since Christ, and that people have been worshipping and devoting their lives to Him since He began teaching. We certainly do not make any claims that there were not, y’know.

If a person of Irish descent does a geneological study of their ancestry and discovers they have been Catholic for generations, possibly back to the time of St. Patrick, wouldn’t that have significance?

only that there have been Catholics around for a long time, lax, not that Catholicism itself is ‘true,’ or ‘not apostate.’

By the way, dianaiad, it is not ME proving the Catholic Church has never been in a state of apostasy, but archaelogists, theologians, historians…I can only share what I read in credible research documents.

lax, if what you are presenting here is what you think is proof that there was no apostasy, sorry…but you are begging a HUGE question.

It’s not whether the Catholics have been around a very long time. They have; no problem; those churches exist, the people did, everything you say here is true. However, NONE of that proves that the whole system didn’t go off the rails doctrinally, y’know. Remember, Mormons have been around now for gettin’ close to 200 years. We’re doing pretty good, all things considered. Just how would you react if I pointed to all the Temples we’ve built, and the first chapel my family built in Cache Valley back in 1854, and said see…this proves we’re RIGHT?

Think about it. Just because Catholicism has been AROUND awhile doesn’t mean that there was no apostasy. It simply means it was a GREAT apostasy. As in, pretty much everybody, went haring down another path. Just because it WAS almost everybody doesn’t mean it wasn’t the wrong path–or bunch of paths. Remember from your early church history that there was quite a lengthy process, choosing the path everybody was supposed to follow. The losers were deemed ‘heretic’ and unpleasant things tended to happen to them.

finally…the winners write the history, lax.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad - I have had my faith challenged so many times I’m afraid I don’t see things the way you do. The thing is, I go with it, question, study, sometimes pray (I need to work on the praying more than the studying!)
Every single time, I land in the same spot (as far as the faith goes).
This is the stuff I can’t prove to you or anyone else - it’s personal, though I am willing to discuss it.

Ah. There it is. You get the concept very well. That is exactly what I’m talking about.

This has nothing to do with proving the apostasy did or did not exist. It is a different conversation. One filled with facts, study, historical references…not a bridge built on hope and faith, but one built with bricks and mortar.

As I saw from another post, I think you have things a little confused. You think that if you can prove that Catholicism has been around a long time, and that there is physical evidence that Christianity has been around since year 0-3, that this is proof that there was no apostasy.

It’s not, y’know.

To me it only proves that the apostates won, and stuck around. What you have to PROVE is that all these Christians never changed any of the teachings of Christ; that they continued the priesthood the way it was intended to be, that nothing was added or changed to what was taught, and that the way that Jesus intended the church to be continued to be the way the church was through all those millenia.

I have talked about the first thing that struck me; the problem of revelation. For me, it is the sticking point; the one thing that I can’t get past. Can you show me where Christ said, anywhere, that He would send no more public revelation to His church, because we didn’t need any?

The only arguments I have recieved about this so far are circular; revelation was supposed to stop because it stopped.

VERY much like ‘the bible is true because it says so.’

I say…revelation stopped, not because it was supposed to, but because apostasy entered in and everybody stopped listening. OF COURSE those who stopped listening would claim that it stopped because it was supposed to. What else were they going to say…oopsy, we goofed?

Then there is the priesthood thing, with the original church organization, which even you have to admit did NOT continue as it began. OF COURSE those who continued would think that this was OK; apostates do not think of themselves as apostate; they think everybody else is.

…and again, the winners write the history.

 

[truthsilence]

I have talked about the first thing that struck me; the problem of revelation. For me, it is the sticking point; the one thing that I can’t get past. Can you show me where Christ said, anywhere, that He would send no more public revelation to His church, because we didn’t need any?

The only arguments I have recieved about this so far are circular; revelation was supposed to stop because it stopped.

VERY much like ‘the bible is true because it says so.’ .

Diana, I’m curious, where did Christ ever say any further revelation to His church would be needed? I don’t recall Him saying that either; so if that’s the case, what’s your point?

(check out Hebrews 1)

 

[SteveVH]

That’s not what we are talking about when we talk about an apostasy, lax. Yes, there have been Christians for 2000 years. I personally don’t think that there have been CATHOLICS that long, because somewhere early on, the Church of Jesus Christ morphed into Catholicism. There is a continuum of people, but…not of the priesthood or complete truth.

If what you mean is that you can prove that Christianity has been around for 2000 years, well, of course it has. We claim that part of it was lost, or rather turned away from; not all of it. We believe that the priesthood authority was lost, among other things.

You realize, don’t you, that we believe the apostasy happened further back than 1500 years ago, yes?

Ok, I see what you are working at. You are claiming that because there is proof that there have been Christians since Christ, and people who have worshipped and devoted their lives to Him, that this proves that there was no apostasy.

All that proves is that there have been Christians since Christ, and that people have been worshipping and devoting their lives to Him since He began teaching. We certainly do not make any claims that there were not, y’know.

only that there have been Catholics around for a long time, lax, not that Catholicism itself is ‘true,’ or ‘not apostate.’

lax, if what you are presenting here is what you think is proof that there was no apostasy, sorry…but you are begging a HUGE question.

It’s not whether the Catholics have been around a very long time. They have; no problem; those churches exist, the people did, everything you say here is true. However, NONE of that proves that the whole system didn’t go off the rails doctrinally, y’know. Remember, Mormons have been around now for gettin’ close to 200 years. We’re doing pretty good, all things considered. Just how would you react if I pointed to all the Temples we’ve built, and the first chapel my family built in Cache Valley back in 1854, and said see…this proves we’re RIGHT?

Think about it. Just because Catholicism has been AROUND awhile doesn’t mean that there was no apostasy. It simply means it was a GREAT apostasy. As in, pretty much everybody, went haring down another path. Just because it WAS almost everybody doesn’t mean it wasn’t the wrong path–or bunch of paths. Remember from your early church history that there was quite a lengthy process, choosing the path everybody was supposed to follow. The losers were deemed ‘heretic’ and unpleasant things tended to happen to them.

finally…the winners write the history, lax.

Diana, I would agree with you that proving there have been Christians for 2000 years does not prove that there was no apostasy. What can be proven, and has many times on these threads, is that the Catholic Church of today is the Church of Apostolic times and that that authority was handed down from the Apostles themselves to their successors, the bishops, without any break. Even more telling is that history is completely devoid of speaking of a “great apostasy”.

It is the claim of the apostasy that lacks entirely any evidence and is nothing more than… a claim. When history conflicts with this claim it must be because “the winners write the history.” When scripture conflicts it is because it has been translated incorrectly. You have no positive evidence, only a claim, and to support that claim the only thing you can do is deny the accuracy of history and even the scriptures. I don’t want to hijack this thread and start down the “great apostasy” road. I’ve been down it too many times with the same result, but it is hard for me to remain silent when the subject is brought up.

 

[lax16]

Diana, I would agree with you that proving there have been Christians for 2000 years does not prove that there was no apostasy. What can be proven, and has many times on these threads, is that the Catholic Church of today is the Church of Apostolic times and that that authority was handed down from the Apostles themselves to their successors, the bishops, without any break. Even more telling is that history is completely devoid of speaking of a “great apostasy”.

It is the claim of the apostasy that lacks entirely any evidence and is nothing more than… a claim. When history conflicts with this claim it must be because “the winners write the history.” When scripture conflicts it is because it has been translated incorrectly. You have no positive evidence, only a claim, and to support that claim the only thing you can do is deny the accuracy of history and even the scriptures. I don’t want to hijack this thread and start down the “great apostasy” road. I’ve been down it too many times with the same result, but it is hard for me to remain silent when the subject is brought up.

Okay, before answering your questions, I have to ask a few of my own. (I’m combining your comments from different posts).

First of all, let me say, that two LDS missionaries told me that the apostasy meant that there was no Catholic Church on earth once the last apostle died. So pardon my confusion…

1. Exactly who was apostate? Church leaders/fathers/followers?
2. The apostasy doesn’t need to proven 1800+ years back, only, say the day before Joseph Smith had his first revelation, right? If the apostasy was from the time of the death of the last apostle until JS revelation, one does not have to go all the way back in Church history to debate this.
3. You (Mormons) believe there was a “break” that was predicted. What and when happened exactly?
4. You said that people stopped listening. Who stopped listening to who about what?
5. Is only the Catholic Church apostate? What about Greek Orthodox, Protestants…?
6. Would you say that famous saints/martyrs (Joan of Arc, St. Frances, St. Thomas Aquinas) are apostates? If so, what would lead a person to willingly die for their faith or devote their life to a deeper understanding of their faith if they were apostate/not listening?
7. Do you believe Catholic people who have done wonderful things for the poor/hungry/abandoned are apostate? Examples would be Blessed Mother Theresa, Saint Damien…

Okay, that’s a start!

 

[lax16]

Ooops! I quoted the wrong post.
Dianaiad - this is actually in response to your posts.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I’m curious, where did Christ ever say any further revelation to His church would be needed? I don’t recall Him saying that either; so if that’s the case, what’s your point?

(check out Hebrews 1)

He did, by the very fact that He GAVE it.

I might buy the argument that no further revelation would be required after Jesus IF no further revelation were actually GIVEN after Him…If, that is, revelation ceased utterly upon His assencion, especially if He said something about it at the time. However…He didn’t, and it didn’t.

He kept giving revelation. Paul recieved it. Peter did. John did…it kept coming and there was absolutely no hint anywhere that there was going to come a time when there was no more such revelation required.

There WERE hints that there would come a time when none would be heeded, but those versed referred to apostacy. It was not considered to be a good thing.

 

[lax16]

Okay, before answering your questions, I have to ask a few of my own. (I’m combining your comments from different posts).

First of all, let me say, that two LDS missionaries told me that the apostasy meant that there was no Catholic Church on earth once the last apostle died. So pardon my confusion…

1. Exactly who was apostate? Church leaders/fathers/followers?
2. The apostasy doesn’t need to proven 1800+ years back, only, say the day before Joseph Smith had his first revelation, right? If the apostasy was from the time of the death of the last apostle until JS revelation, one does not have to go all the way back in Church history to debate this.
3. You (Mormons) believe there was a “break” that was predicted. What and when happened exactly?
4. You said that people stopped listening. Who stopped listening to who about what?
5. Is only the Catholic Church apostate? What about Greek Orthodox, Protestants…?
6. Would you say that famous saints/martyrs (Joan of Arc, St. Frances, St. Thomas Aquinas) are apostates? If so, what would lead a person to willingly die for their faith or devote their life to a deeper understanding of their faith if they were apostate/not listening?
7. Do you believe Catholic people who have done wonderful things for the poor/hungry/abandoned are apostate? Examples would be Blessed Mother Theresa, Saint Damien…

Okay, that’s a start!

Dianaiad- these questions are actually for you.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I would agree with you that proving there have been Christians for 2000 years does not prove that there was no apostasy. What can be proven, and has many times on these threads, is that the Catholic Church of today is the Church of Apostolic times and that that authority was handed down from the Apostles themselves to their successors, the bishops, without any break. Even more telling is that history is completely devoid of speaking of a “great apostasy”.

It is the claim of the apostasy that lacks entirely any evidence and is nothing more than… a claim. When history conflicts with this claim it must be because “the winners write the history.” When scripture conflicts it is because it has been translated incorrectly. You have no positive evidence, only a claim, and to support that claim the only thing you can do is deny the accuracy of history and even the scriptures. I don’t want to hijack this thread and start down the “great apostasy” road. I’ve been down it too many times with the same result, but it is hard for me to remain silent when the subject is brought up.

Not…quite.

What has been done ‘many times on these threads’ is that evidence has been presented that confirms to YOU that no apostasy happened. That’s not the same thing as proving it to anybody else.

Have you ever seen me resort to the 'scriptures weren’t translated correctly" argument? I have presented my reasoning for believing in an apostasy, and to me, that reasoning is good. It ‘proves’ to me that there was…and the only evidence y’all have for me that there was not is that there has been a continuous Christian belief. well, I don’t argue with that one bit. There has been.

My argument is that (something we both agree upon) public revelation stopped. I can’t see anywhere in the scriptures that say where it was supposed to stop. The argument made that ‘well, it stopped, and therefore it was supposed to…’ is really begging the question, don’t you think?

All other arguments to the side, the above one is the biggie. Can you show me, anywhere in the scriptures, where public revelation really was supposed to STOP less than a century after Christ died? That no more real, honest to goodness SCRIPTURE was to be written?

The answer I keep getting is, well…we’re still here, and we didn’t get any, so obviously it was supposed to. The problem is, yes, y’all are still here, but our claim is that the whole LOT of you went off the rails together (well, not quite, but again the winners do get to write the history…) and that was the problem.

the other problem I run up against is a simpler one; the organization of the church as Christ had it. The very early Christians attempted to keep it…but you notice that they didn’t manage it. No more apostles.

Now WE believe that it requires public revelation, to apostles/prophets, to keep the train on the track; to keep the priesthood authority here. Since public revelation stopped, and there were no apostles, I personally do not see how the priesthood could possibly have remained.

Y’all claim that since you can trace the line of people back that far, that the authority remains…and therefore there was no apostasy. However, that continuation of people, does not mean that all those people passed on Truth OR authority.

So, what you have to do, in order to prove to me that there was no apostasy, is give me a VALID and reasonable explanation as to why public revelation stopped; something you can point to in SCRIPTURE as to why the entire organization and method of running the church changed, and that so quickly and so completely.

…and yes, it would have to be from scripture, because of course anything from Holy Tradition would be post apostasy from my POV. , and again, begging the question. Holy Tradition explains the doctrines you have…but it does not explain its own presence in the entire religious context. You know…why go with Holy Tradition (without public revelation) rather than revealed scripture, as was done previously.

 

[dianaiad]

Okay, before answering your questions, I have to ask a few of my own. (I’m combining your comments from different posts).

First of all, let me say, that two LDS missionaries told me that the apostasy meant that there was no Catholic Church on earth once the last apostle died. So pardon my confusion…

In a later post, you write that the following questions are specifically to me, so…

1. Exactly who was apostate? Church leaders/fathers/followers?

We believe that the apostasy began very, very early. In fact, we believe that there were germs of it referred to in the NT: Paul wrote to the Galatians “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:” (Gal. 1:5)

In fact, almost every single letter in the NT combats and corrects some form of apostasy or wandering away. We believe that upon the death of the last apostle the priesthood line of authority was broken; those who held the priesthood did not have the authority to pass it to another, and so when they died, it did. When Christians declared that there was no more public revelation, and that there was no need for such guidance, they were in full blown apostasy…and that happened very, very early on.

1. The apostasy doesn’t need to proven 1800+ years back, only, say the day before Joseph Smith had his first revelation, right? If the apostasy was from the time of the death of the last apostle until JS revelation, one does not have to go all the way back in Church history to debate this.

It does if that’s when it happened, lax.

1. You (Mormons) believe there was a “break” that was predicted. What and when happened exactly?

I believe I covered that in the answer to #1.

1. You said that people stopped listening. Who stopped listening to who about what?

The leaders stopped listening…they declared that there was to be no more public revelation, when they stopped recieving, or listening for, any. Private revelation is a very different matter…and God’s guidance in handling personal and family matters–that didn’t stop, but revelation that resulted in written scripture? That came to a screeching halt. The question I ask is…why? There is no reason for it to have done so. There was no prediction that it would. It DID continue after the death and resurrection of Jesus, as did the appointment of apostles…so what happened?

THAT, we believe, is the crux of the apostasy.

1. Is only the Catholic Church apostate? What about Greek Orthodox, Protestants…?

I do believe that the answer to that one is made obvious in the answers to your previous questions.

1. Would you say that famous saints/martyrs (Joan of Arc, St. Frances, St. Thomas Aquinas) are apostates? If so, what would lead a person to willingly die for their faith or devote their life to a deeper understanding of their faith if they were apostate/not listening?

Please do not confuse the general apostasy with personal rebellion. There was no ceasing of personal faith and belief, or the ability of individuals to have a personal and vital relationship with Christ…and the lack of public revelation, scripture and the priesthood did not mean that there were no Christians, that God abandoned everybody, or that because they didn’t have ALL the truth, that Christians didn’t have some, or most, of it, and were not well able to live Christ like lives.

1. Do you believe Catholic people who have done wonderful things for the poor/hungry/abandoned are apostate? Examples would be Blessed Mother Theresa, Saint Damien…

Okay, that’s a start!

Again, do NOT confuse what happened to the very early church and the general apostasy with wrong doing by individuals who weren’t aware that there were problems. It sure wasn’t THEIR fault.