Let's talk about Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Concerning some things LDS emphasize extra-Biblical revelation because the CoJCoLDS is not based on the Bible, it is based on the same thing the Bible is based on, the revelation of God to man. Catholicism is in the same boat. Do you disagee?

Not exactly the same boat. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Catholicism is based on sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and sacred teaching authority.

the LDS do not have sacred tradition, expanded sacred scripture (which you can’t do according to sacred scripture) and have no sacred teaching authority.

basically, the LDS are no different than Scientologists or any other start up religion.

Same boat in that Catholics and LDS do not claim to be based on the Bible, but instead claim to based on the same thing the Bible is based on, revelation from God. Did you really not see this.

Catholicism and Scientology are actually the same because neither of them are God’s Church on earth like the CoJCoLDS. Well, isn’t that nice!

I am tired (and I do not believe that Catholicism and Scientology are the same).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Did first century Christian believe in creation ex nihilio; from nothing? The subject is not settled as there are scholars on both sides.

What is clear it the subject is not settled by reading the bible as the Mormons on this thread claim. The bible does not reject the belief in creation from nothing.

The Gnostics believed the God of the old testament and the God of the new testament were two different gods. It is from the Christian belief in one God and their second century arguments with Gnostics that we have our written record of the Christian belief in creation ex nihilio.

Monotheism and creation ex nihilio are linked. Not only is this the claim I’ve made to Mormons in the past on CAF, but it is the claim of the scholar the Mormons quoted in this thread. Remember the quote was from a work on the development of monotheism in Judaism.

Christianity has been a monotheist religion from the beginning therefore it would not be hard to believe that IF a first century Christian thought about creation from nothing, they would accept it as true.

Mormonism is a polytheist religion which claims to be Christian, this requires it to take the side against creation ex nihilio as a founding belief of Christianity. The Mormon argument for their belief is from silence.

 

[Stephen168]

But, LDS do not claim to have infallible authority, LDS do not claim to have irreformable doctrines. Our CHANGES are sometimes problematic and sometimes less so, but they are not a “fatal flaw.”

The Mormon President does claim infallibility. He not only claims it in faith and morals, but in all things “spiritual and temporal.” This is the flaw that I talked about which causes Mormonism to reject science.

The LDS President is not Christ’s Prophet. Simple!

The Mormon President claims to speak for the Lord.
I know Mormonism believes they are two different gods, but I just wanted to be clear.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

The LDS President is not Christ’s Prophet. Simple!

The Mormon President claims to speak for the Lord.
I know Mormonism believes they are two different gods, but I just wanted to be clear.

You are not reading what I am saying or you are misquoting me on purpose!
I believe that the LDS President is Christ’s Prophet.
I was saying that if you judge the LDS President using Catholic standards, he is not Christ’s Prophet. If you judge the Pope from LDS standards, he is not Christ’s vicar.
I am saying that when you judge Pope Francis (increasingly clearly) and other Pope’s and Catholic CHANGES, by CATHOLIC standards the CHANGES are damning.
When you just LDS Prophets by LDS standards the changes may or may not be problematic, but they are no where near as damning despite the fact that there is greater CHANGE on the LDS side of this equation.

The first part of your response is inaccurate too, but you are just baldly stating your opinion as to what my church teaches. You are wrong.

Concerning the part I quoted, please read carefully and/or make sure not to misquote me.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

You are not reading what I am saying or you are misquoting me on purpose!

I believe that the LDS President is Christ’s Prophet.

I was saying that if you judge the LDS President using Catholic standards, he is not Christ’s Prophet. If you judge the Pope from LDS standards, he is not Christ’s vicar.

The first part of your response is inaccurate too, but you are just baldly stating your opinion as to what my church teaches. You are wrong.

I was clarifying by using the the words from the Mormon website. Mormonism is a 19th century American religion, so it makes it easy for an English speaker to understand it.

I am saying that when you judge Pope Francis (increasingly clearly) and other Pope’s and Catholic CHANGES, by CATHOLIC standards the CHANGES are damning.

When you just LDS Prophets by LDS standards the changes may or may not be problematic, but they are no where near as damning despite the fact that there is greater CHANGE on the LDS side of this equation.

No, what you are doing is judging the Catholic Church by what you believe are Catholic standards and what you believe are Catholic changes. You have started whole threads trying to prove this, and have been proven to be wrong in what you believe about Catholicism. Yet, you continue…

 

[vsedriver]

The studies conclude that in the 2nd century, Jews and Christians BEGAN to claim that God created everything from nothing. St. Justin Martyr didn’t believe this. St, Clement of Rome didn’t believe this. But it became the Christian belief.

This is what the scholars say.

There is no one within the 1st generation of the Apostles who taught creation ex nihilo. You are simply not well informed.

Charity, TOm

so what were the 1 generation of the apostles teaching? was it a uniform teaching, held by the whole church? or was it a concept under discussion? The way the church discussed whether or not a person had to be Jewish before they could become a follower of Christ?

What about those who in the late 1st century and early 2nd century did believe in ex nihilo? Are you claiming that NO early church fathers believed this?

which brings up the question, if everything has to be defined by the first century church then Mormonism itself can’t be true since it didn’t exist or was never mentioned by the early church fathers. After all, if there was going to be an apostasy then it would have had to have been written into scripture and discussed by the early church fathers. Otherwise it would fall under the same error as ex nihilo.

But that also presents a contradiction for Mormons. The Trinity isn’t defined in the first century either. So it would not be possible for Mormons to believe in 3 persons in one God. They must accept only one God which would mean that Jesus Christ is fully human but not divine. Neither is the Holy Spirit divine.

 

[Stephen168]

But that also presents a contradiction for Mormons. The Trinity isn’t defined in the first century either. So it would not be possible for Mormons to believe in 3 persons in one God. They must accept only one God which would mean that Jesus Christ is fully human but not divine. Neither is the Holy Spirit divine.

I think you could also ask why the unique beliefs of Mormonism were not settled before the end of the first century.
Where are:
barring blacks from the priesthood
exaltation
polygamy
Melchizedek Priesthood
God was a man
blood atonement
God near the star Kolob (as recorded in Mormon scripture translated by
Joseph Smith from papyrus which turned out to be an Egyptian funeral text.)

discussed in the bible or even the early church fathers.

 

[Stephen168]

That is always the default button for Mormons. Once you back them into a corner, the answer is that none of that matters because God told them that the Mormon Church is true and how can you argue with God?

Yes, there was even a Mormon scientist who thought digging around looking for proof for the Book of Mormon was a waste of time, because the result have never, and will never change a Mormon’s testimony.

 

[vsedriver]

Now colleges have LIBERAL congregations at their Newman center

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘liberal’ congregations. There is only 1 Catholic Church. Whether a person is liberal or conservative doesn’t change Catholic teaching.

But, LDS do not claim to have infallible authority, LDS do not claim to have irreformable doctrines. Our CHANGES are sometimes problematic and sometimes less so, but they are not a “fatal flaw.”

if LDS are fallible then there is no reason to be LDS. I wouldn’t want to waste my time on something that lacks real Truth. Truth can’t change.

Catholics judged by LDS rules are clearly flawed, If God’s human church leader cannot receive revelation and write scripture they are not truly God’s church leader. The Pope doesn’t even make this claim so he is not the Vicar of Christ. Simple!

this is a non sequitur. No where in scripture or in sacred tradition was it taught that the leaders of the church must receive revelation or write scripture.

LDS judged by Catholic rules are clearly flawed. God’s human church leader must protect the deposit of faith. This deposit of faith does not CHANGE. LDS leaders do not have a fixed set of teachings and there clearly has been changed. The LDS President is not Christ’s Prophet. Simple!

Yes, the deposit of faith is protected by the pope and bishops. And yes, the deposit of faith doesn’t change. But our understanding of the depth of it can grow. And you are correct the LDS do not have a fixed set of teachings. They are like a church built on sand. How the world shifts is how the LDS shift their teachings. Very unlike the Catholic Church which is built on rock. A solid foundation set up by Jesus Christ himself.

What was taught was that Jesus would send an advocate who would help guide the church. So the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ (per sacred scripture) and in union with the Bishops of the church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Hence, the reason the Pope and the bishops in unity with him can pronounce doctrine and dogma.

But, I submit that when you judge the Pope by the standards established by 2000 years of Catholic tradition, it becomes quite unlikely the Pope Francis is truly the Vicar of Christ.

I judge the pope based on canon law. Pope Francis is the validly elected pope of the Catholic Church based on the laws set up by the Catholic Church.

Some Catholics are now Sedavacantist because this has become clear enough that they have departed from Rome

And this is nothing new. People have been leaving the church since the church began. What’s clear is that these people based their idea of the Catholic Church not on the teachings of the church but on the rituals and formalities they were comfortable. Shame on them. They are no different from the protestants who left because they wanted to be their own pope.

 

[vsedriver]

part 2’

'

As an outsider, the Catholicism with Pope Francis at its head is far less likely to be God’s church than the Catholicism with Pope JPII at its head, because Francis says and does things that Catholic Answers taught me would NEVER be said or done.

is that based on what you read in the secular media? having read what Pope Francis has actually written he’s very, very Catholic. But there is more than one way to ‘talk’ Catholic. Pope Francis is very ‘pastoral’ and not as ‘legalistic’ or ‘theological’ as some previous Popes. And that is not a bad thing. After all, the pope is also a shepherd. But I can assure you, he hasn’t changed any doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church.

CHANGE in the Catholic teachings, CHANGE in Catholic Dogma violates the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning what CAN happen

Right, Catholic Dogma can’t change. But our understanding of it can grow and deepen as the Holy Spirit guides us through the centuries.

 

[vsedriver]

I have not found that branch of the Catholic Church. The first rejected me three times because I was trying to be true to God and become one with Him. Until I am accepted based on who I am and what God is telling me to do I am not interested in joining that branch of any church. I should not be required to bow down to any man or woman to do God’s will or to receive of His blessing. I bow only to God and that is out of reverence to Him not out of some kind of demand. God the father demands no such thing.

I don’t understand what happened to you. What would a ‘catechism’ practicing Catholic Church look like to you?

Are you saying you were ‘rejected’ by the Catholic Church 3 times? How were you rejected? Were you refused Baptism or were you trying to take Communion before fully entering the Church?

What do you mean by being accepted based on who you are and what God is telling you to do? Can you cite an example of how this conflicts with a Catholic Community?

Who are you expected to bow down to? I don’t bow down to anyone in the church. I might bow down to the Pope if I was given the opportunity to meet him but then I’d bow down to the Queen of England under the same circumstances. Bowing is an act of humility. Or is it a sign of subservience and you reject that?

 

[Stephen168]

Only a faith that is viewed as ridiculous could be the real Christian faith (that is the position of Cardinal Newman and even Fulton Sheen).

Like Cardinal Newman said, I embrace a faith that folks do not think they must learn about before they declare it to be ridiculous. So I can embrace a faith that does not violate the basic laws of logic and yet is still called ridiculous because nobody takes the time to read and learn before dismissing. Awesome!

Do you have references for these claims? They don’t seem right to me, and you have a good track record for misunderstanding Catholic authors.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I am saying that when you judge Pope Francis (increasingly clearly) and other Pope’s and Catholic CHANGES, by CATHOLIC standards the CHANGES are damning.

No, what you are doing is judging the Catholic Church by what you believe are Catholic standards and what you believe are Catholic changes. You have started whole threads trying to prove this, and have been proven to be wrong in what you believe about Catholicism. Yet, you continue…

I am judging the Catholic Church by the standards I was taught for many years at Catholic Answer. By the standards I learned when I read Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine (not to mention hundreds of his personal letters).

When the Vatican was first discussing the admittance of the divorced and remarried (not living as brother and sister) to communion, Jimmy Akin expressed his concern on Catholic Answers. Karl Keating said that Pope Francis should respond to the dubia submitted by the four cardinals. Now that it is greater than one year after the dubia and the Argentine Bishops letter has been elevated in stature, Tim Staples is explaining that there is nothing to see here. I am not a Catholic. I judge Catholicism based on what it has claimed to be for 2000 years. There is no more public revelation, Catholicism is to protect and develop the revelation once delivered. There should be no change only development. Newman outlined 7 characteristics of TRUE developments. Post Vatican II CHANGES do not even align with Newman’s thesis (which was condemned from many Catholic directions when it first came out, but is ESSENTIAL to Catholic truth claims now that the ECF are more widely read and discussed).

As I suspect you know, I do not think you have proven me wrong. Accused me of lying, yes. Claimed I do not understand Catholicism, yes. PROVEN me wrong. Not by my observation.

You claim to be opposed to sophistry and to exalt reason and science, but most of your posts are “your wrong,” “you’ve been proven wrong,” “TOm is using sophistry,” … very little interaction with the positions I put forth. Very little but your own opinion and words. I think the contrast with that and me references scholars or Pew Research or … is striking and should change minds of those who read our exchanges.

Pick something I have said and ask me to retract or substantiate it (make sure you provide the proper context). I would recommend my post from 3 days ago (I think #706), I have a vague memory that I have some unfinished research there (I point to it because I really want to know if I am wrong even if it means I must eat some crow). Other than what I reference in #706, I do not think I have made any claims you will show to be unsubstantiatable (though I might have been misunderstood and correcting that is also good).

I would then most appreciate if you would retract or substantial things I ask you about, but I cannot force you to do such things. You usually just move on to other junk.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Only a faith that is viewed as ridiculous could be the real Christian faith (that is the position of Cardinal Newman and even Fulton Sheen).

Like Cardinal Newman said, I embrace a faith that folks do not think they must learn about before they declare it to be ridiculous. So I can embrace a faith that does not violate the basic laws of logic and yet is still called ridiculous because nobody takes the time to read and learn before dismissing. Awesome!

Do you have references for these claims? They don’t seem right to me, and you have a good track record for misunderstanding Catholic authors.

I disagree that I have a history of misunderstanding Catholic authors, but on the quite REASON-BASED board I often post on there is a rule that you must respond to a “call for reference.” I think such is a great policy and I will get to your request directly.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am judging the Catholic Church by the standards I was taught for many years at Catholic Answer. By the standards I learned when I read Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine (not to mention hundreds of his personal letters).

The reason I asked for a reference is because I already know you have misunderstood Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine. So I’ll be waiting.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I am judging the Catholic Church by the standards I was taught for many years at Catholic Answer. By the standards I learned when I read Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine (not to mention hundreds of his personal letters).

The reason I asked for a reference is because I already know you have misunderstood Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine. So I’ll be waiting.

Awesome. Have you read his personal letters? How do you know I misunderstand? Maybe it is you!
But, I want to understand so I will listen to your points of course.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

The studies conclude that in the 2nd century, Jews and Christians BEGAN to claim that God created everything from nothing. St. Justin Martyr didn’t believe this. St, Clement of Rome didn’t believe this. But it became the Christian belief.

This is what the scholars say.

There is no one within the 1st generation of the Apostles who taught creation ex nihilo. You are simply not well informed.

Charity, TOm

so what were the 1 generation of the apostles teaching? was it a uniform teaching, held by the whole church? or was it a concept under discussion? The way the church discussed whether or not a person had to be Jewish before they could become a follower of Christ?

What about those who in the late 1st century and early 2nd century did believe in ex nihilo? Are you claiming that NO early church fathers believed this?

You claim that there are those who in the late 1st Century and early 2nd century taught creation ex nihilo. I have read most of the Shepard of Hermas (because I think it foretells the ending of Christian authority and the “lesser organization” that would replace it), and I am aware of the passages that are used to claim creation ex nihilo, but those passages are in alignment with God bringing forth creation out of non-existence and use the same EXACT Greek phrase Aristotle used to describe creation ex materia. I have also reviewed all the text sited by those who defend Creation ex nihilo as having been embraced by ANYONE earlier than the late 2nd century. All these texts are consistent with LDS thought on the rejection of creation ex nihilo.

Contrast this with St. Justin Martyr whose words are unambiguously rejecting the future orthodoxy.

My point is that if LDS’s rejection of creation ex nihilo are true, the Shepard of Hermas and some other Jewish and Christian writers do not make themselves heretics.

But, if the DEVELOPED Catholic understanding is true, St. Justin Martyr is absolutely heretical and St. Clement of Rome is also heretical.

Gerard May still has the distinction of the most thorough evaluation of these questions. He agrees with the position I (well Gazalem) put forth and is cited regularly by non-LDS. In fact, I am unaware of anyone not involved in criticizing the CoJCoLDS who has responded to Gerard May’s work, but numerous scholars have followed and agreed with him. I actually think you MIGHT be able to find responses to May that are not produced by folks who interact with LDS thought, but these are vanishingly small (even smaller than the total number of scholars who disagree with May).
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

which brings up the question, if everything has to be defined by the first century church then Mormonism itself can’t be true since it didn’t exist or was never mentioned by the early church fathers. After all, if there was going to be an apostasy then it would have had to have been written into scripture and discussed by the early church fathers. Otherwise it would fall under the same error as ex nihilo.

But that also presents a contradiction for Mormons. The Trinity isn’t defined in the first century either. So it would not be possible for Mormons to believe in 3 persons in one God. They must accept only one God which would mean that Jesus Christ is fully human but not divine. Neither is the Holy Spirit divine.

I am not even saying the “creation ex nihilo” is not a valid development. It certainly has seeds in concepts that existed within the early church (unlike the hope for salvation of unbaptized infants or the “state of grace” present within the divorced and remarried). One might argue that Creation ex Nihilo has “early anticipation” (one of the characteristics of a valid development Newman highlights). I am just saying that the LDS position is MORE ANCIENT than the Catholic position. It is in fact a restored truth that I find REMARKABLE in that Joseph Smith restored it from SOMEWHERE. It is also somewhat of a lynchpin from which other distinct LDS teachings flow. Again how did Joseph Smith come up with this?

It is the Catholic Church that claims public revelation ENDED in the first century. LDS believe that God has revealed and will yet reveal truths to His prophets.

But that also presents a contradiction for Mormons. The Trinity isn’t defined in the first century either. So it would not be possible for Mormons to believe in 3 persons in one God. They must accept only one God which would mean that Jesus Christ is fully human but not divine. Neither is the Holy Spirit divine.

I applaud your recognition that the Trinity is not present in the Bible nor in the ECF before the 4th century. The three in one concept is certainly present in the Bible and in many ECF including the term that became Trinity in Tertullian. But, LDS recognize that “God is one.” The question is how “God is one.” I answer that in John 17 Christ explained that the apostles were to be one in the same way He and His Father were one. Is the one the “numeric homoousian” that Catholic after Athanasius and Augustine claim that the Father and the Son possess. Couldn’t be. The Bible only speaks ONCE in a way that helps us to know HOW God the Father and God the Son are one. In this passage they support the concept of oneness I embrace and speak against the concept Augustine and Athanasius embraced. We both agree that Christ is consubstantial with you and me, what we disagree on is what sort of qualifiers we must provide when we claim that Christ is one with the Father.

Charity, TOm

 

[mbmulkern]

Why did yuouj have to pray and fast etc. etc.? Just the first chapter will show you that it is absolutely “bogus.” Excuse the expression.

 

[TOmNossor]

part 2’

TOmNossor:

As an outsider, the Catholicism with Pope Francis at its head is far less likely to be God’s church than the Catholicism with Pope JPII at its head, because Francis says and does things that Catholic Answers taught me would NEVER be said or done.

is that based on what you read in the secular media? having read what Pope Francis has actually written he’s very, very Catholic. But there is more than one way to ‘talk’ Catholic. Pope Francis is very ‘pastoral’ and not as ‘legalistic’ or ‘theological’ as some previous Popes. And that is not a bad thing. After all, the pope is also a shepherd. But I can assure you, he hasn’t changed any doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church.

No not much “secular media.” Some Catholic media. Some Catholic discussions.
I have read the Dubia from the Cardinals. I read Karl Keating claiming that the Dubia SHOULD be responded to.
Long before this when there was just one or two Cardinals encouraging the admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics to the Eucharist, I asked Jimmy Akin about it (I think, but I might have just listened to a question I intended to ask – it was > 2years ago and I have a horrible memory). Jimmy Akin was disturbed by the situation, but said that nothing was decided. He did not declare the Cardinals were CRAZY, but he was concerned.
I of course read parts of Amoris Laetitia on my own. I read the interpretation of the Argentine Bishops that was elevated to “authentic magisterium.”
One of the things that really impacted me was Father Thomas Weinandy. I own one or two of his books. I have quoted him here starting around 7 years ago. I have considered him a clear voiced defender of REAL Catholicism. As a consultant to the Committee on Doctrine for the USCCB, it is clear that not only I but others recognized his contributions. He is actually quite brilliant in addition to being informed. Well, Weinandy believes he received personal revelation from God instructing him to speak out against AL and Pope Francis’s fostering of “chronic confusion.” He did this. He is no longer with the USCCB.
I do not know if Weinandy is a better judge of this situation than Tim Staples, but I strongly suspect that he is.
This is not “secular media” reading for me.
That being said the celebration of Pope Francis within the “secular media” is not a badge of honor IMO.
Charity, TOm