Mormon apologetics...

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

I believe you have mis-understood Luke 24.

I think that you have.

Jesus called them fools because they did not beleive the holy prophets even though they had scriptures opened and experienced the physcial sensation.

You are incorrect on two accounts. Firstly, Jesus chided them for not understanding the scriptures before He had begun to “open the scriptures” to them:

Luke 14:

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And {then} beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
They experienced the “burning in their hearts” after He had begun expounding the scriptures to them:

Luke 14:

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Secondly, the “the burning in their hearts” that they had experienced is not a “physical sensation,” as you had supposed; it is a spiritual phenomenon and experience that is difficult to put into words, hence the scriptures describe it as a “burning in their heart”. It is a burning witness of the Holy Spirit that something is true. But it is not a “physical” sensation or experience, and it is not something that can be easily described.

Jesus was known to the disciples with the breaking of the bread … sounds very Catholic.

What is so Catholic about the “breaking of bread”? That is something that is mentioned in scripture, and every Christian knows about the breaking of bread.

Could you back up words that “I think that the opposite is true”.

I was merely responding to your post. You had not backed up your argument, and neither did I.

Since this off-topic open another thread and I will glad to discuss this topic.

I leave that up to you, if you wish.

I would disagree with you that Catholics discount bible verses and the teachings of the first Christians.

I would also disagree with you that Mormons discount Bible verses and the teachings of first Christians.

For example Mormons discount the following verses:

Luke 1
[68] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

1Tim.3
[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Mormons do not “discount” any of these verses.

For example Mormons discount the following Early Father Teaching:

• there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word (Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD))

Mormons do not discount this statement either. It agrees with LDS doctrine.

Compare Catholicism to Mormonism ( comparing-views.com

)Not interested in comparing articles on the Internet. If you have anything specific to discuss, bring it along and we will discuss them.

amgid

 

[amgid]

mormon fool:

Thanks for popping in and providing an alternative LDS view on this thread. Please be gentle on those who are gracious enough to allow us to correspond with them and entertain our thoughts. But regardless, thanks for picking up on things I have missed and being more articulate than myself.

Your contributions are appreciated by myself and, I am sure by our Catholic friends. I am sure they prefer to debate with a gentle soul like you, than with an abrasive one like me! (I can hear them all say, Amen!)

amgid

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

One of the things that confused me, in my second reading of the particular Mormon standard works, was how great an abomination infant baptism was taught to be in the BoM, and yet to read in Doctrine & Covenants 84 that John the Baptist was “baptized while yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old…”. I never bothered to see what the official LDS reply was as I simply assume it would have some explanation about how John the Baptist was a special case.

The scripture you are referring to is as follows:

D&C 84:

28 For he {John the Baptist} was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.
An eight year old would still be classed as a child. If he was baptized in his “childhood,” that does not mean that he must have been less than eight years old. As for his being “ordained” when he was eight days old, this was not a “priesthood” ordination. It simply means that he was appointed, or foreordained, or set apart for the task. Jeremiah also has had a similar experience:

Jeremiah 1:

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
This simply meant that he was appointed or foreordained before he was born to be a prophet. This does not mean he was literally “ordained,” in the same sense in which we “ordain” someone to the priesthood.

(And to LDS who would make reply - there’s no need: this is just an off-topic observation that serves to illustrate only that there exists a need for Mormon apologetics when seemingly conflicting passages from the BoM and later revelations arise).

When you post something as challenging and provocative as the above, it demands a response.

amgid

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

Another problem I see with the Mormon approach is the acceptence of the argument from silence. Here’s how the argument works:

Mormon:
It was revealed to Joseph Smith in the 1800’s that the Church apostized after the last Apostle died, say around 100 AD.

Catholic:
Really, what evidence do you have for this besides the word of some man who lived 1700 after the fact?

Mormon:
There is no evidence. Once the Church apostized it destroyed all evidence of true Mormon belief. The fact that there is no evidence proves the Church apostized.

Catholic:
What? That lact of evidence proves the Church apostized? That proves nothing. I could say that lack of proof shows the opposite, that the Church stayed true to her call, it was Smith who was wrong.

Mormon:
No, the lack of evidence proves that Church apostized. It validates what the Prophet received from Christ.

Catholic:
That is circular reasoning and begging the question. It does not follow that the lack of evidence proves the existence of said evidence.

Mormon:
Well, this is not all we rely on. I have also had a personal testimony that these things are true.

Catholic:
Well, that is good for you, but is proves nothing to me. I need more concrete evidence than just your subject religious experience.

Just curious, is your intention here to debate with yourself or with Mormons? If your intention is to debate with yourself, then you have caught the wrong bus. I don’t think that anybody, Catholics or Mormons, are interested in monologues. The caricature you have portrayed above does not strike a recognizable note with me. That is not how I would present my case for the Apostasy with a Catholic. If you have a point to discuss, bring it along and we will discuss it. But you are wasting your time with this kind of nonsensical monologue.

amgid

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

My point with Luke 24 is that they did not “know” Jesus even though they had scripture opened and experienced their “heart burn”.

Have you experienced your eyes being opened after you received the broken bread like these disciples?

Luke 24
[30] And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
[31] And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

You say that Luke 1:68, 1Tim 3:16, and Ignatius agree with LDS doctrine. Who is the God that was manifest in the flesh … is it Elohim or Jehovah … is it the Father or the Son?

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

I might add that Jeremiah 1 does not reveal that prophets prepare themselves to become leaders on earth while they were still spirits in heaven as the LDS church teaches and LDS scripture reveals (Alma 13:1-3).

 

[majick275]

I found Johnny’s post to be very accurate. The purpose here is to provide Catholic Answers not to debate mormons. we could do that on any of the bashboards or go and seek them at FAIR. That some Mormons like to come here and debate for fun is a side issue that is reluctantly tolerated.

Johnny’s “monologue” is a pretty good synopsis of the many LDS posts we have seen in this forum that make unsupported claims while trying to frame every discussion within the LDS view that there was a great apostasy, Gods church must be led by a prophet and apostles with continuing revelation to the church as a whole and that only the LDS even claim this. This is a fallacy at best.

We still have no evidence scripturally, anecdotaly or empirically for a universal apostasy. LDS scriptures that claim this do not provide any examples of when or even how this occured.

We have no biblical requirement or even historical (ECF type) example that the Christian church is to be led by a prophet. There also is no requirement in any of these sources for the church to continue to be led by apostles after the one swho saw Christ died. The LDS church didn’t even start this way. Line upon line is no excusr either as it’s either required or it is not. Regarding revelation to the church as a whole we have the book of Hebrews explaining in context how that is a past practice like the rest of the old covenant that prepared for Christ. Now that he is come there are new and different practices under the new covenant. Once again we have no scriptural or tradition requirement for the the CHRISTIAN church to be led be new revelation as taught by LDS. (The RCC does claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit)

The history of the LDS church shows a changing doctrine based on what JS believed, the influence of Sidney Rigdon and a serious misunderstanding of the Bible.

The RCC is still the same church that Christ established.

 

[dennisknapp]

majick275:

I found Johnny’s post to be very accurate. The purpose here is to provide Catholic Answers not to debate mormons. we could do that on any of the bashboards or go and seek them at FAIR. That some Mormons like to come here and debate for fun is a side issue that is reluctantly tolerated.

Johnny’s “monologue” is a pretty good synopsis of the many LDS posts we have seen in this forum that make unsupported claims while trying to frame every discussion within the LDS view that there was a great apostasy, Gods church must be led by a prophet and apostles with continuing revelation to the church as a whole and that only the LDS even claim this. This is a fallacy at best.

We still have no evidence scripturally, anecdotaly or empirically for a universal apostasy. LDS scriptures that claim this do not provide any examples of when or even how this occured.

We have no biblical requirement or even historical (ECF type) example that the Christian church is to be led by a prophet. There also is no requirement in any of these sources for the church to continue to be led by apostles after the one swho saw Christ died. The LDS church didn’t even start this way. Line upon line is no excusr either as it’s either required or it is not. Regarding revelation to the church as a whole we have the book of Hebrews explaining in context how that is a past practice like the rest of the old covenant that prepared for Christ. Now that he is come there are new and different practices under the new covenant. Once again we have no scriptural or tradition requirement for the the CHRISTIAN church to be led be new revelation as taught by LDS. (The RCC does claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit)

The history of the LDS church shows a changing doctrine based on what JS believed, the influence of Sidney Rigdon and a serious misunderstanding of the Bible.

The RCC is still the same church that Christ established.

It was my “monologue,” but no biggie. And I agree with you. In many of the debates that occur here on CA forum regarding the “great apostasy” this is how the debate seems to go. I have even seen this type of argumentation in amgid’s posts.

The reason why I posted said “monologue” was to pin-point why I started this thread to begin with. Mormon argumentation is poorly lacking and ultimately relies on a “personal witness” to be true. Circular reasoning, arguments from silence, begging the question, and subjective experience is not good apologetics.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

Just curious, is your intention here to debate with yourself or with Mormons? If your intention is to debate with yourself, then you have caught the wrong bus. I don’t think that anybody, Catholics or Mormons, are interested in monologues. The caricature you have portrayed above does not strike a recognizable note with me. That is not how I would present my case for the Apostasy with a Catholic. If you have a point to discuss, bring it along and we will discuss it. But you are wasting your time with this kind of nonsensical monologue.

amgid

Just a summation of past debates with Mormons. What is your case for the “great apostasy?” I know there is a thread already dedicated this topic, but could you provide a concise argument that contradicts what I have just posted?

Peace

 

[ben_dy]

dennisknapp:

It was my “monologue,” but no biggie. And I agree with you. In many of the debates that occur here on CA forum regarding the “great apostasy” this is how the debate seems to go. I have even seen this type of argumentation in amgid’s posts.

The reason why I posted said “monologue” was to pin-point why I started this thread to begin with. Mormon argumentation is poorly lacking and ultimately relies on a “personal witness” to be true. Circular reasoning, arguments from silence, begging the question, and subjective experience is not good apologetics.

Peace

Dennis,

I’m new to the Mormon game, really - about 2 1/2 years of ‘introductory’ look-and-see’ and only 5 months or so of making it an 8 hour-a-day hobby (making a concerted - with flame’s suggested reading list - and I believe successful, attempt to digest both the milk and what meat I could find of LDS doctrine, history, apologetics, etc., relying heavily on FARMS and, to a lesser degree, FAIR (thinking, erroneously I now realize, that the association of FARMS with BYU would result in opinions closer to apologetics with greater authority) and I have come to very similar conclusions as yourself. I’m still giving these sources time but it seems that everything I read and hear is, finally, summed up by apologists resorting to “circular reasoning, arguments from silence, begging the question, and subjective experience”.

It is not the type of apologetics to which I am accustomed and I thought, for a good 3-4 months, that it was just my personal interpretation of what I was reading: that I simply wasn’t ‘getting it’, that Mormon apologetics was in a field unrelated to the apologetics of other Christian religions. I began to think it a weakness of my thinking to insist upon reason from others if I insisted on reason for my own beliefs.

When I think of myself as a child, before my First Communion, in awe of what was taking place before me daily, I believed only through faith. As I grew older and began to doubt it was through reason that my faith was sustained. And it’s only through faith and reason that I have remained true to myself and, although I have failed at times, true to God.

In one way I suppose I have some envy for those who can say, as one FARMS apologist did in attempting to prove the Book of Abraham as scripture, that they believe something is true based upon faith alone: that no amount of reason that might prove the Book of Abraham to be anything other than a true translation of script written by the hand of Abraham could sway his belief.

The only thing I can compare with that sort of faith is the faith I have in those things that the Church calls “mystery” - that is where my faith properly resides, in the realm of the supernatural. Yet with Mormon apologetics - with Mormon doctrine - faith not only includes the supernatural, but the natural: that which is explainable, should it prove false, is still clung to as if it were true - “no apostasy can be proven yet it must have occurred or there would be no reason for the LDS church therefor a great apostasy occurred”. Circular reasoning.

I could go on and on with other examples of the methods which you cited, but I need not: I’m simply glad, at this point, to realize that even within my short stint in looking at Mormon apologetics I am not alone in seeing the weaknesses.

 

[dennisknapp]

ben_dy:

Dennis,

I’m new to the Mormon game, really - about 2 1/2 years of ‘introductory’ look-and-see’ and only 5 months or so of making it an 8 hour-a-day hobby (making a concerted - with flame’s suggested reading list - and I believe successful, attempt to digest both the milk and what meat I could find of LDS doctrine, history, apologetics, etc., relying heavily on FARMS and, to a lesser degree, FAIR (thinking, erroneously I now realize, that the association of FARMS with BYU would result in opinions closer to apologetics with greater authority) and I have come to very similar conclusions as yourself. I’m still giving these sources time but it seems that everything I read and hear is, finally, summed up by apologists resorting to “circular reasoning, arguments from silence, begging the question, and subjective experience”.

It is not the type of apologetics to which I am accustomed and I thought, for a good 3-4 months, that it was just my personal interpretation of what I was reading: that I simply wasn’t ‘getting it’, that Mormon apologetics was in a field unrelated to the apologetics of other Christian religions. I began to think it a weakness of my thinking to insist upon reason from others if I insisted on reason for my own beliefs.

When I think of myself as a child, before my First Communion, in awe of what was taking place before me daily, I believed only through faith. As I grew older and began to doubt it was through reason that my faith was sustained. And it’s only through faith and reason that I have remained true to myself and, although I have failed at times, true to God.

In one way I suppose I have some envy for those who can say, as one FARMS apologist did in attempting to prove the Book of Abraham as scripture, that they believe something is true based upon faith alone: that no amount of reason that might prove the Book of Abraham to be anything other than a true translation of script written by the hand of Abraham could sway his belief.

The only thing I can compare with that sort of faith is the faith I have in those things that the Church calls “mystery” - that is where my faith properly resides, in the realm of the supernatural. Yet with Mormon apologetics - with Mormon doctrine - faith not only includes the supernatural, but the natural: that which is explainable, should it prove false, is still clung to as if it were true - “no apostasy can be proven yet it must have occurred or there would be no reason for the LDS church therefor a great apostasy occurred”. Circular reasoning.

I could go on and on with other examples of the methods which you cited, but I need not: I’m simply glad, at this point, to realize that even within my short stint in looking at Mormon apologetics I am not alone in seeing the weaknesses.

No, you are not alone. Intellectual honesty in not the modis operondi of Mormon apologetics, just propaganda. I know this seems harsh, but it is the truth. This is not to say that Mormons are bad people, heavens no! They are the nicest people in the world, just not intellectually honest.

It all comes down to their “spiritual testimony.” No matter what facts you bring forth, they are ignored it in leu of their personal experience. But what if I have a “spiritual testimony” which contradicts their “spiritual testemony?” Since they contradict they both cannot be true. Either they are both false or one is true and the other false. Could the Mormon “prove” my testemony false simply by refering to his own? No. His personal testemony is good for one person only, himself. So, if my testemony contradict his and has the same weight as his (hence, they are both personal testemonies) he has no way of saying what my testemony says is false. The only thing he can do is jump on the relativistic bandwagon and say, “well, if it is true for you, its true for you.” Once again, in Mormon apologetics there is NO room for reason, none at all.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Here is an example of what amgid has posted on another thread and my response to him. As you can see, he does us the method I have descripted above.

I agree that defining the Apostasy in precise theological terms, and exactly how and when it occurred, is a bit difficult to do.

But our observations lead us to the conclusion that it did happen. A US judge once said that although I can’t give an accurate legal definition of what constitutes pornography, I can always recognize it when I see it! The same holds true of the Apostasy**. I can’t give you an accurate theological description for it, but I can for sure recognize it when I see it. And that is what I observe in the Christian world today.**

This is an argument from silence. It like saying, “this man murdered his wife.” The man responds, “No I didn’t. What proof do you have?” You say, “well, since there is no evidence to convict you, it may be hard to prove you did it, but I know a murderer when I see one.” This would never hold up in a court of law.

Mormon verdict: Catholic Church found guilty on a count of lack of evidence.

amgid:
There are biblical passages that LDS understand as pointing to the restoration of the gospel in the latter days, but they are open to interpretation, and I am sure you would not agree with them.

True, there in no scriptural passage that states there will be a full apostasy, none.

amgid:
I don’t claim to be an expert on the Catholic Church and its teachings, but I don’t think I need to be in order to come to that conclusion. I come to that conclusion as per what I stated above.

Yes, you come to that conclusion based on a total lack of evidence.

amgid:
God’s true church must be led by revelation from God. That has been the pattern throughout sacred history. And people who receive revelations from God are normally called prophets!

Yes, God has indeed led His people through prophets. We know these prophets are true if they uphold that which God has revealed previously, not if they contradict it.

amgid:
God communicates His will to His prophets in many different ways, “visions” being one of them. As it says in Proverbs 29:18: “where there is no vision, the people perish”!

So, you base this entirely on one passage in Proverbs, and a faulty reading of it at that. Amazing.

amgid:
Where does it say that they aren’t necessary? That has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout sacred history. What has changed? Has God suddenly changed? Has God’s behavior towards men suddenly undergone a fundamental metamorphosis that He no longer wishes to communicate with them by revelation any more? If God has spoken to mankind by revelation from the dawn of creation, why should He not want to do so now? Are we less in need of His direction and guidance now than we were before? I think not!

The revelation is over. It ended with Christ, who IS the final Word. There need not be any other.

amgid:
Since that has been God’s pattern of behavior towards mankind throughout history, we must assume that pattern must continue, unless God had revealed to us by another public revelation in the Bible that that pattern was to change; and I see no such revelation in the Bible.

(Continued into the next post…)

amgid

The Word of God came in human form. This is the completion of God’s revelation. There is no other.

Peace

 

[Phaedrus]

dennisknapp:

Thus far, this is what I can gather about Mormon apologetics.
First, presuppose the Mormon position to be true.
Next, read all available data in the light of your presupposition.
Finally, when doubt enters your mind, take out a copy of the BoM, pray for the burning in your bosom.
Once this is received, repeat first step.
Peace

Dennis,

That seems to be my experience when debating Mormons. Sooner or later, they state that they just “know” that Mormonism is true. At that point, further discussion becomes futile. When I was investigating the Catholic Church, I went through a process amazingly like that described arieh0310’s post. At every step, I was hounded by reason. Logic took me to the gates of Rome, and when I made my “leap of faith” into the RCC, it was with every reasonable expectation that there was a rock there to stand on. I would sometimes have a “burning in my bosom”, but Tums took care of that.

This is quite unlike the conversion process described by the Mormons on this board. All their arguments presuppose that Mormonism is true, and are thus circular, as in that they know the Catholic Church is apostate because it does not fulfill the criteria of the True Church as defined by the Mormon Church. It makes me realize that too few people are taught logic and reasoning skills in school.

Good luck in your thread, but I think you will find that you are beating your head against a brick wall.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

You say that Luke 1:68, 1Tim 3:16, and Ignatius agree with LDS doctrine. Who is the God that was manifest in the flesh … is it Elohim or Jehovah … is it the Father or the Son?

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 Nephi 11:

24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God agoing forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.
amgid

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

I might add that Jeremiah 1 does not reveal that prophets prepare themselves to become leaders on earth while they were still spirits in heaven as the LDS church teaches and LDS scripture reveals (Alma 13:1-3).

Jeremiah 1 reveals just that:

Jeremiah 1:

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
amgid

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

How does John 3:16 answer the question of who was manifest in the flesh?

You said Luke 1:68, 1Tim 3:16, and Ignatius agreed with LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine reveals at least two Gods, the LDS church teaches that Elohim is the Father and Jehovah is the Son.

Again I ask who was manifest in flesh … Elohim … Jehovah … the Father … the Son?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I found Johnny’s post to be very accurate.

I don’t thing that you did.

The purpose here is to provide Catholic Answers not to debate mormons. we could do that on any of the bashboards or go and seek them at FAIR. That some Mormons like to come here and debate for fun is a side issue that is reluctantly tolerated.

You know best why you are here; but I am here to give a correct understanding of LDS position regarding many issues, and to counter the many incorrect notions concerning it (some mistaken, some malicious) that are pften presented here. Too bad you don’t like it. You act like you own the place. I don’t think that you do. You try to intimidate LDS from coming here so that you can have the field to yourself, and say what you like about LDS unopposed. That won’t work with me.

Johnny’s “monologue” is a pretty good synopsis of the many LDS posts we have seen in this forum that make unsupported claims while trying to frame every discussion within the LDS view that there was a great apostasy, Gods church must be led by a prophet and apostles with continuing revelation to the church as a whole and that only the LDS even claim this. This is a fallacy at best.

No falacy at all. That is perfectly correct.

We still have no evidence scripturally, anecdotaly or empirically for a universal apostasy. LDS scriptures that claim this do not provide any examples of when or even how this occured.

I have adequately discussed and answered that before. No need to go over it again.

We have no biblical requirement or even historical (ECF type) example that the Christian church is to be led by a prophet.

The true Church of God must be led by revelation form God, and those who receive revelation are popularly known as prophets.

There also is no requirement in any of these sources for the church to continue to be led by apostles after the one swho saw Christ died.

There is plenty of such “requirement” in the scriptures, which has been adequately discussed before.

The LDS church didn’t even start this way. Line upon line is no excusr either as it’s either required or it is not.

Correct answer given before, no need to go over it again.

Regarding revelation to the church as a whole we have the book of Hebrews explaining in context how that is a past practice like the rest of the old covenant that prepared for Christ. Now that he is come there are new and different practices under the new covenant. Once again we have no scriptural or tradition requirement for the the CHRISTIAN church to be led be new revelation as taught by LDS.

That is the biggest sign of the apostasy of Christendom if there ever was one. This is apostate talk.God is unchangeable. His methods and attributes do not change. If He led His church by revelation in ancient times, He will do so today—unless it is an apostate church which has lost touch with the divine.

(The RCC does claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit)

Any worty and decent individual who strives to act in righteousness in his life may to some measure enjoy the guidance of the Holy Spirit no matter what his religion is. But that is not a substitue for direct revelation under Apostolic and prophetic authority from God.

The history of the LDS church shows a changing doctrine based on what JS believed, the influence of Sidney Rigdon and a serious misunderstanding of the Bible.

That is not ture.

The RCC is still the same church that Christ established.

We disagree.

amgid

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

Jeremiah 1 reveals just that God has forknowledge … again Jeremiah 1 does not support the LDS teaching that prophets prepare themselves to become leaders on earth while they were still spirits in heaven.

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

Just a summation of past debates with Mormons. What is your case for the “great apostasy?” I know there is a thread already dedicated this topic, but could you provide a concise argument that contradicts what I have just posted?

Yes, my concise argument for the Apostasy is best summarized in the following scripture:

2 Tim 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, …

---

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Verse 5 is a perfect description of the apostate condition of present day Christendom. They have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. They pretend to have religion, but deny the most fundamental of its attributes: the ability to commune directly with God, and to lead and direct the church by direct revelation form God. That is what makes Christendom apostate.

I have also noticed that you have dug up the old thread: “Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?”, and started commenting on my posts there. That thread has run its course. It has run out of steam. If you are really that keen to discuss the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy with me, as you appear to be, we had better start afresh. You can start right here! I have quoted above my scriptural justification for why I believe there was an Apostasy. If you disagree with that, feel free to argue against it if you wish.

amgid

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Actually, I’m going to ask that the discussion of ‘Apostacy’ remain in it’s thread, and the discussion of Mormon apologetics remain in this one.

Thanks for your cooperation and participation.