Mormonism vs Catholicism

[LivingWaters7]

Thank-you for your posts, they are very informative and I have started reading your blog too! Yes you are right, it does come down to whether or not there was indeed an apostasy which is why I quoted the talk by the Catholic professor. It makes sense! Obviously I wasn’t suggesting he believed Mormonism to be an option, of course not! He didn’t believe in an apostasy and so was Catholic (if there wasn’t an apostasy then the Catholic Church is the true church). I think some posters have misunderstood my use of the quote. Horton (I think) asked why not any others, why Catholicism or Mormonism and that quote along with what you have just said is the reason…it all comes down to the apostasy. If there was an apostasy, then a restoration would have been needed such as JS (like the quote mentions) and all Protestant churches woud be wrong alongside Catholicism. However if there wasn’t an apostasy (like quite clearly the professor believed there wasnt) then the only true church is the Catholic Church. I guess I’m struggling to decide if I believe there was an apostasy or not hence I’m looking into different details of the churches.

No problem. My point, not against you, is that the way this quote is often used is incorrect. If there was an apostasy, Mormonism isn’t the only option. There are many other churches that claim to be a restoration of the original Church, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh-day Adventist church being two. Mormonism, quite simply, is one among many restorationist churches that have existed since the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago.

Just out of interest you mentioned the inquisition briefly and whether or not the church was responsible does that mean the Catholic Church wasn’t responsible?

The Inquisition isn’t as cut and dry as many critics like to make it. As you may be aware, there wasn’t even just one Inquisition. This Catholic Answers tract is helpful to start:

catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

 

[LivingWaters7]

Also, feel free to ask me anything re: Catholicism and Mormonism. I think it’s great that we have a number of people here that have been both. I personally was Elders Quorum President at the time I left.

 

[Miriam1947]

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Holy_Trinity_Template.jpg

 

[Horton]

Thank-you for your posts, they are very informative and I have started reading your blog too! Yes you are right, it does come down to whether or not there was indeed an apostasy which is why I quoted the talk by the Catholic professor. It makes sense! Obviously I wasn’t suggesting he believed Mormonism to be an option, of course not! He didn’t believe in an apostasy and so was Catholic (if there wasn’t an apostasy then the Catholic Church is the true church). I think some posters have misunderstood my use of the quote. Horton (I think) asked why not any others, why Catholicism or Mormonism and that quote along with what you have just said is the reason…it all comes down to the apostasy. If there was an apostasy, then a restoration would have been needed such as JS (like the quote mentions) and all Protestant churches woud be wrong alongside Catholicism. However if there wasn’t an apostasy (like quite clearly the professor believed there wasnt) then the only true church is the Catholic Church. I guess I’m struggling to decide if I believe there was an apostasy or not hence I’m looking into different details of the churches.

Just out of interest you mentioned the inquisition briefly and whether or not the church was responsible does that mean the Catholic Church wasn’t responsible?

Thank you True Faith. That does help me understand. Do you have family members who are LDS?

When it comes to apostasy all I can say is to look at history. The New Testament, ECF, and other early church writers. There is a book, History of the Catholic Church, that traces the apostolic history of the Church. This does two things, one it shows an unbroken line from Jesus Christ to the present day Church. Two is shows there is no apostasy. The New Testament also does not show any evidence of the apostasy.
smile.amazon.com/History-Catholic-Church-Apostolic-Millennium/dp/1586176641/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478628415&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+catholic+church

Then we have to look at logic & reason. It seems illogical Jesus Christ would form His Church on earth, going through all He did, suffering for us, just have it fall into apostasy in less than a 100 years. In Genesis 1:31* God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good*. God made the Church, it was of His creation and He found it good. Consider God made the day & the night, the land & the water, the man & the woman and found they were good, and those creations of God remain. If God could do that, why would He make such a flimsy Church that falls apart in less than 100 years? It is reasonable to believe that all things from God are good including His Church, established through our Lord, Jesus Christ.

So when you consider whether there was an apostasy, consider the greatness of God and His creations.

 

[Tarquin]

You’ve confused me here, are you saying Catholics don’t believe in apostolic succession? Why then do you have Popes? I thought that’s was because of the belief in apostolic succession?

I apologize for the confusion my comments caused. I did not mean to imply disbelief in “apostolic succession.”

I believe there is a strong difference between on the one hand Apostolic *successors *- one Apostle dies, another takes his place, so on ad infinitum - and on the other hand, continuance of apostolic authority. A somewhat neutral statement would be: “Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.” In other words, it is the authority to administer Church affairs, to teach, instruct, conduct, correct, and so on. But what it is not is a series of human replacements of the Twelve Apostles.

Not every “office” needs to have successors. There are many people who believe that, since Jesus died, we need a new Messiah - and they provide us with them! (If we choose to accept them.) I could be wrong, but I believe that when Jesus said *his *Apostles would judge the twelve tribes of Israel, he meant them and them alone. Maybe there is more or less to it than that, but basically, he intended those particular individuals, not just anyone holding the title of “apostle,” to be and do what he assigned. It is not his fault that one of them gave up his throne. In that case, it was proper for Christ, through the remaining eleven, to find another to fill the vacancy. That other, and the remaining eleven, apparently conducted themselves appropriately, so that none of them needed replacement again.

Does this sound correct? I see I do not always explain as clearly as I would like, sometimes misspeak when trying to respond timely, and sometimes leave out qualifying comments that I need to add later. Like the post you have asked about.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thank you True Faith. That does help me understand. Do you have family members who are LDS?

When it comes to apostasy all I can say is to look at history. The New Testament, ECF, and other early church writers. There is a book, History of the Catholic Church, that traces the apostolic history of the Church. This does two things, one it shows an unbroken line from Jesus Christ to the present day Church. Two is shows there is no apostasy. The New Testament also does not show any evidence of the apostasy.
smile.amazon.com/History-Catholic-Church-Apostolic-Millennium/dp/1586176641/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478628415&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+catholic+church

Then we have to look at logic & reason. It seems illogical Jesus Christ would form His Church on earth, going through all He did, suffering for us, just have it fall into apostasy in less than a 100 years. In Genesis 1:31* God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good*. God made the Church, it was of His creation and He found it good. Consider God made the day & the night, the land & the water, the man & the woman and found they were good, and those creations of God remain. If God could do that, why would He make such a flimsy Church that falls apart in less than 100 years? It is reasonable to believe that all things from God are good including His Church, established through our Lord, Jesus Christ.

So when you consider whether there was an apostasy, consider the greatness of God and His creations.

Thank-you Horton, I will look into that book!

No none of my family are LDS, actually I come from a pretty secular upbringing with the exception of going to a Catholic School in primary. I’m married to an atheist.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I apologize for the confusion my comments caused. I did not mean to imply disbelief in “apostolic succession.”

I believe there is a strong difference between on the one hand Apostolic *successors *- one Apostle dies, another takes his place, so on ad infinitum - and on the other hand, continuance of apostolic authority. A somewhat neutral statement would be: “Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.” In other words, it is the authority to administer Church affairs, to teach, instruct, conduct, correct, and so on. But what it is not is a series of human replacements of the Twelve Apostles.

Not every “office” needs to have successors. There are many people who believe that, since Jesus died, we need a new Messiah - and they provide us with them! (If we choose to accept them.) I could be wrong, but I believe that when Jesus said *his *Apostles would judge the twelve tribes of Israel, he meant them and them alone. Maybe there is more or less to it than that, but basically, he intended those particular individuals, not just anyone holding the title of “apostle,” to be and do what he assigned. It is not his fault that one of them gave up his throne. In that case, it was proper for Christ, through the remaining eleven, to find another to fill the vacancy. That other, and the remaining eleven, apparently conducted themselves appropriately, so that none of them needed replacement again.

Does this sound correct? I see I do not always explain as clearly as I would like, sometimes misspeak when trying to respond timely, and sometimes leave out qualifying comments that I need to add later. Like the post you have asked about.

That makes sense! Thank-you for clarifying

 

[gazelam]

I much appreciate your entire post, LivingWaters7.

You gave “the faith of the people” as a support for a lack of apostasy of a degree that would require a “restoration”. Any claim of a total apostasy seems to me to be a crude affront to the countless faithful followers, diligent missionaries and teachers, sincere and knowledgeable leaders, and the thousands of martyrs. To say that “when all the apostles died” - which according to Mormon doctrines never happened (John and “The Three Nephite” apostles never having died!), all hell broke loose, manifests such an ignorance of Church history, communication, teachings, and life, of the first century, that it nearly stuns one’s mind.

Mormons, if a total apostasy had occurred, maybe at the time of Christ’s crucifixion it could conceivably (although in an alternate universe!) have occurred. When Christ suffered and died, although a few fled, the multitudes regrouped, they grew in number, the apostles visited them, the elders/bishops (titles interchangeable) taught them, and the teachings continued, generation after generation. Do you have evidence refuting this? Not speculation or assertions or interpretations, but evidence? I am as open to new evidence in favor of Mormonism, as I am to new evidence refuting Mormonism.

Here’s some evidence that not all was hunky-dory in the early Church after the passing of the Apostles.

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

Revelation 2:5 states: Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (KJV)

Adam Clarke explained that this was a stern warning by the Lord in which He threatened to: “take away my ordinances, remove your ministers, and send you a famine of the word. As there is here an allusion to the candlestick in the tabernacle and temple, which could not be removed without suspending the whole Levitical service, so the threatening here intimates that, if they did not repent, he would unchurch them; that they should no longer have a pastor, no longer have the word and sacraments, and it no longer have the presence of the Lord Jesus.” (Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 6:976)

Eusebius referring to his own day wrote:

*We [sank] into negligence and sloth, One in being and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, on the point of taking up arms against each other, and where is sailing each other with words as with darts and Spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity; … we added one wickedness in misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strides, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other. * (Eusebius, ecclesiastical history, 8:318)

Tertullian observed “The gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized… so many priestly functions, so many ministries were wrongly executed.” (The Ante-Niceness Fathers, 3:256)

Adolf von Harnack commented on the much-changed Christianity after a century of compromise and worldly assimilation:

If we place ourselves about the year 200, about 100 or 120 years after the apostolic age… what kind of spectacle does the Christian religion offer?.. The living faith seems to be transformed into a creed… devotion to Christ, into Christology… prophecy, into technical exegesis and theological learning; The ministers of the Spirit, into clerics… miracles and miraculous cures disappear altogether… The “Spirit” becomes law and compulsion… this enormous transformation took place within 120 years. (Von Harnack, What is Christianity? 192-93)"

My library of copy/paste quotes keeps growing…

 

[CourtingTex]

Here’s some evidence that not all was hunky-dory in the early Church after the passing of the Apostles.

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

Revelation 2:5 states: Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (KJV)

Adam Clarke explained that this was a stern warning by the Lord in which He threatened to: “take away my ordinances, remove your ministers, and send you a famine of the word. As there is here an allusion to the candlestick in the tabernacle and temple, which could not be removed without suspending the whole Levitical service, so the threatening here intimates that, if they did not repent, he would unchurch them; that they should no longer have a pastor, no longer have the word and sacraments, and it no longer have the presence of the Lord Jesus.” (Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 6:976)

Eusebius referring to his own day wrote:

*We [sank] into negligence and sloth, One in being and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, on the point of taking up arms against each other, and where is sailing each other with words as with darts and Spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity; … we added one wickedness in misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strides, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other. * (Eusebius, ecclesiastical history, 8:318)

Tertullian observed “The gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized… so many priestly functions, so many ministries were wrongly executed.” (The Ante-Niceness Fathers, 3:256)

Adolf von Harnack commented on the much-changed Christianity after a century of compromise and worldly assimilation:

If we place ourselves about the year 200, about 100 or 120 years after the apostolic age… what kind of spectacle does the Christian religion offer?.. The living faith seems to be transformed into a creed… devotion to Christ, into Christology… prophecy, into technical exegesis and theological learning; The ministers of the Spirit, into clerics… miracles and miraculous cures disappear altogether… The “Spirit” becomes law and compulsion… this enormous transformation took place within 120 years. (Von Harnack, What is Christianity? 192-93)"

My library of copy/paste quotes keeps growing…

I appreciate further the longer view, historically speaking ---- not seeking to question in this arena my fellow Catholics since birth, new since last year, came back to the church, other believers and non believers here on the forums.

For me, and I stated this previously, can we just exist with the differences in dogma/practice with the world in generally, walking away from God or showing less interest, if you in religion/spirituality — secularism continues on the march over the world.

Happiness and peace or misery and hatred.

 

[HojaVerde]

Here’s some evidence that not all was hunky-dory in the early Church after the passing of the Apostles.

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

Revelation 2:5 states: Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (KJV)

Adam Clarke explained that this was a stern warning by the Lord in which He threatened to: “take away my ordinances, remove your ministers, and send you a famine of the word. As there is here an allusion to the candlestick in the tabernacle and temple, which could not be removed without suspending the whole Levitical service, so the threatening here intimates that, if they did not repent, he would unchurch them; that they should no longer have a pastor, no longer have the word and sacraments, and it no longer have the presence of the Lord Jesus.” (Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 6:976)

Eusebius referring to his own day wrote:

*We [sank] into negligence and sloth, One in being and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, on the point of taking up arms against each other, and where is sailing each other with words as with darts and Spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity; … we added one wickedness in misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strides, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other. * (Eusebius, ecclesiastical history, 8:318)

Tertullian observed “The gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized… so many priestly functions, so many ministries were wrongly executed.” (The Ante-Niceness Fathers, 3:256)

Adolf von Harnack commented on the much-changed Christianity after a century of compromise and worldly assimilation:

If we place ourselves about the year 200, about 100 or 120 years after the apostolic age… what kind of spectacle does the Christian religion offer?.. The living faith seems to be transformed into a creed… devotion to Christ, into Christology… prophecy, into technical exegesis and theological learning; The ministers of the Spirit, into clerics… miracles and miraculous cures disappear altogether… The “Spirit” becomes law and compulsion… this enormous transformation took place within 120 years. (Von Harnack, What is Christianity? 192-93)"

My library of copy/paste quotes keeps growing…

2 John 1,1-2:
1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2 For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.

Either John is wrong (and he is not inspirated) and our and your churches are wrong
OR he is right, and then your church is wrong.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Here’s some evidence that not all was hunky-dory in the early Church after the passing of the Apostles.

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

My library of copy/paste quotes keeps growing…

No one has claimed Christian history was perfect after the apostles, it wasn’t perfect during the time of the apostles since heresies and false beliefs even arose during that time. What is the case is that the truth has continued to persevere in all age despite falsehood and hypocritical practice by believers.

Mormons happily dismiss much of what their Presidents and even what Joseph Smith said in the past but that doesn’t mean the Church ceased to exist even if their Presidents got things drastically wrong. The above quotes are not evidence of a total apostasy, they are evidences of the problems that exist in humanity in all ages, in the time of the Apostles, in the third century and even now.

 

[Stephen168]

Here’s some evidence that not all was hunky-dory in the early Church after the passing of the Apostles.

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)…

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus also warns against Joseph Smith’s private revelation

But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.

And he tells us about the great job the Bishops were doing through Apostolic Succession.

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.

Clearly he was not concerned with a need for Apostles to maintain the deposit of faith.

The Pope has been the Vicar of Christ with authority handed down for 2000 years.
Mormon Apostles are an invention of Joseph Smith and a tool of Brigham Young, with no authority or ability to give revelation. We know this from history and by the false and counter ruling “revelation” they give.

 

[Tarquin]

Why would a Mormon, to support his post-apostasy doctrinal views, quote men whom Mormons believe lost apostolic guidance “after the apostles all died”, and being followers of a universally apostate church, no longer even knew correct doctrine!?

…. when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius …)

Just as today we encounter false teachers attempting without shame to preach false doctrines (polytheism, polyandry, gnostic secrecy) and delusions. Fortunately there is a repository and pillar which has preserved the gospel of truth against the continuous but never victorious onslaught of false teachers. This legitimate observation of Eusebius is not offered as evidence of a total, universal apostasy! He has illustrated legitimate successions of apostolic authority. He never claimed apostolic succession was irreparably broken.

Revelation 2:5 states: Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (KJV)
Adam Clarke explained

– may I interject here to say how grateful I am that you have Adam Clarke to rely on. You could have done worse. But he is a Methodist, so don’t you consider his creed to be an “abomination” –

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; ….” – Joseph Smith, History 1:19

– and his doctrines as emanating from “the church of the devil”?

Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. - 1st Nephi 14:10

The several exemplar congregations of Revelations are categories. They are given so we may examine the sort of congregation ours is, to stay on course. Is the Catholic Church to be compared with a local congregation? “Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.” “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” 2:4, 6. Nicolaitans thought Christians were free from moral law. They believed idolatry and materialism would not be held against them, because they had been set free by Christ.” Freed from the moral law! – much as Dallin Oaks preached to the recipients of the Second Anointing, isn’t that right?

…that this was a stern warning by the Lord in which He threatened to: "*take away my ordinances, remove your ministers, and send you a famine of the word.  As there is here an allusion to the candlestick in the tabernacle and temple, which could not be removed without suspending the whole Levitical service, so the threatening here intimates that, if they did not repent, he would unchurch them; that they should no longer have a pastor, no longer have the word and sacraments, and it no longer have the presence of the Lord Jesus.*"  (Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, 6:976)

There are several ways to interpret “candlestick.” A person needs to be ware he is not over-confident with his personal interpretation. As for having a “pastor” and “sacraments,” I believe the Mormon Church is in greater danger now (lacking pastors and some sacraments) than the Catholic Church back then. As for the threat, it applied only “if they did not repent.” They did.

Eusebius …:

We [sank] into negligence and sloth, … prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity; … we added one wickedness in misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strides, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other. …

That happens. In all churches.

Please note, Eusebius continued that thought with “the divine judgment with forbearance (as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble) gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy.” In other words, a total universal apostasy did not result, but a corrective was applied, a divine judgment. Eusebius then gives examples of Christians who endured these hardships and persecutions without apostatizing. Far from being a universal apostasy, these events strengthened their resolve and inspired them to great and bold deeds. Please don’t denigrate them by saying “they all apostatized.”

I could give as examples of “prelates inveighing against prelates” and of “hypocrisy and dissimulation”: the denial during Smith’s time that polygamy was being practiced, Apostles Richard Lyman, Matthias Cowley, and George P. Lee, as well as the in-house bickering among “the Brethren” over Priesthood restrictions during David O. McKay’s tenure as prophet, also Ernest Wilkinson’s spy ring, and the more recent denunciation of the “September Six” and others. As Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer infamously said, “The truth is not uplifting.”

 

[Tarquin]

Tertullian observed “The gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized… so many priestly functions, so many ministries were wrongly executed.” (The Ante-Niceness Fathers, 3:256)

Tertullian was a great writer.

I hasten to admit that I again agree with you, generally speaking. That is what people are like. That is what churches are like. Members argue. Some leave. Some return, others don’t. Sometimes a dissident number create a new congregation. I mean, for heaven’s sake, Joseph Smith’s church suffered at least six schisms while he was alive, and hundreds after his death. Imagine all the Mormon candlesticks that have been removed! More than seven. It’s a wonder any light is left at all.

 Adolf von Harnack commented on the much-changed Christianity after a century of compromise and worldly assimilation:

If we place ourselves about the year 200, about 100 or 120 years after the apostolic age… what kind of spectacle does the Christian religion offer?.. The living faith seems to be transformed into a creed… devotion to Christ, into Christology… prophecy, into technical exegesis and theological learning; The ministers of the Spirit, into clerics… miracles and miraculous cures disappear altogether… The “Spirit” becomes law and compulsion… this enormous transformation took place within 120 years. (Von Harnack, What is Christianity? 192-93)"

Yes, it is true. Beliefs and the manner of expressing and explaining them do develop over time. (They don’t “evolve” if evolution is random mutation, since these beliefs change by humans not mutants and orderly not randomly.)
Faith and creed, devotion and sound Christology, prophecy and exegesis, revelation and theology – these can all co-exist. It is good for a Christian Church to have a logically developed theology and an intellectually coherent Christology, as does the Catholic Church.

Apparently, from what I read, von Harnack taught that the existence and value of Christianity lay more in history and culture, than in theology or doctrine. Because of his liberal theological views, especially with respect to the validity of historical Christian creeds, his appointment to a professorship in Berlin was opposed by Prussia’s Evangelical Church. Bismark pushed him through anyway. All this matters because we need to understand von Harnack’s prejudices, and his reputation among practicing Christians, in order to evaluate his pronouncements on historical Christianity. Harnack believed Christianity should be studied as an historical development, rather than as a spiritual phenomenon. He took a decidedly humanistic approach to the study of Christianity. If you, too, wish to believe that dogma (collection of doctrines) is less important than the culture in which Christianity arose, or that the culture that grew from Christianity did so independently of Christian doctrines, that’s your choice. But for me and my family, I do not believe “The ‘Spirit’ [became] law and compulsion.” To say such a thing displays either ignorance of, or a partisan obstructionist opposition against Paul’s distinctive treatment on law and spirit, compulsion and love.

In the case of Mormonism, however, von Harnack’s observation are applicable. Mormonism denies the existence of non-material Spirit, and teaches that exaltation to the presence of God requires perfect obedience to the Law. Maybe that is why a Mormon would be comfortable quoting von Harnack.

I may be incorrect on some points, as I have only now begun to become familiar with some of the points made, and with von Harnack.
I accept correction.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Truth_Faith13, I see over on Religious Forums you mentioned that there’s one thing about the temple that is making you unsure. Just wondering if you don’t mind sharing here as well?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Truth_Faith13, I see over on Religious Forums you mentioned that there’s one thing about the temple that is making you unsure. Just wondering if you don’t mind sharing here as well?

It’s the second anointing and the guaranteed exaltation. If eternal progression is true, I don’t see how anyone other than God should know that.

 

[Horton]

It’s the second anointing and the guaranteed exaltation. If eternal progression is true, I don’t see how anyone other than God should know that.

I don’t know much LDS anointings, first or second, but this has always been a problem for me. The idea that everything about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, heaven, and all things religious have to be explained. The idea the LDS are not comfortable with not being able to answer every question.

Catholics are very comfortable with being able to say “we don’t know”. We are ok with being able say it’s a mystery. This is again a difference with the revelation issue.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I don’t know much LDS anointings, first or second, but this has always been a problem for me. The idea that everything about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, heaven, and all things religious have to be explained. The idea the LDS are not comfortable with not being able to answer every question.

Catholics are very comfortable with being able to say “we don’t know”. We are ok with being able say it’s a mystery. This is again a difference with the revelation issue.

With the second anointing (the first being the endowment ceremony), it is less about knowledge and more about the Church making the judgement on behalf of God while the person is still living. The few that receive this ordinance are said to be guaranteed exaltation. The only sin that would prevent them from doing so is denying the Holy Ghost.

I suppose its similar to the Saints in Catholicism except in Catholicism the person is dead and you have a full history of their life. From what I have read, this ordinance performed in the Temple means that the person could commit murder (for example) the day after and still enter the highest celestial glory.

I have been doing a lot of thinking and praying the last couple of days and it basically comes down to 2 questions (the rest is small print)

1. Did an apostasy occur?
2. Can the Church (if true) grant someone guaranteed exaltation to the highest celestial glory while they are still living and before the Judgement of God?

 

[Horton]

With the second anointing (the first being the endowment ceremony), it is less about knowledge and more about the Church making the judgement on behalf of God while the person is still living. The few that receive this ordinance are said to be guaranteed exaltation. The only sin that would prevent them from doing so is denying the Holy Ghost.

I suppose its similar to the Saints in Catholicism except in Catholicism the person is dead and you have a full history of their life. From what I have read, this ordinance performed in the Temple means that the person could commit murder (for example) the day after and still enter the highest celestial glory.

I have been doing a lot of thinking and praying the last couple of days and it basically comes down to 2 questions (the rest is small print)

1. Did an apostasy occur?
2. Can the Church (if true) grant someone guaranteed exaltation to the highest celestial glory while they are still living and before the Judgement of God?

As I said I don’t know much about anointings in the LDS. But you are right, no man on earth has the ability to judge the worthiness of another and grant them a free pass to heaven. We all are responsible for our own salvation and we can lose that salvation by our behaviors up to the time of death. No amount of good works will save us, no amount of recognition in the community as a good person will save us, no other human on earth can save us, IF we die in a state of mortal sin. Only the mercy of God can save us and that is unknown to any man on earth.

Only God knows our hearts and only He will determine our final outcome. My priest can’t guarantee I’m going to heaven, the Bishop can’t and the Pope can’t. They can lead me in my faith, teach me what I need to do, teach me how I can go to heaven, but ultimately it is between God & I. There are no guarantees.

 

[Sarcelle]

Being gullible and willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, I did used to believe this. But after calming down and giving due consideration using my reasoning, I decided that this is not true. Of course an inquiry into Mormonism, whether serious or not,could hardly escape mention of Smith and the Book of Mormon. That’s more like an “introduction.” The investigation itself, if it truly is serious, requires comparison of known evidence (“facts”) with the claims of Mormonism, whether in the Book of Mormon or not, and whether voiced by Smith or not - maybe it’s in the Doctrine and Covenants, or it’s something Brigham Young claimed was doctrine. So, as already mentioned, a serious inquiry into Mormonism can be expected to include some archaeological, historical, and Biblical investigation at the very least. One could also include metallurgy, botany, linguistics, and zoology, as well as methods of travel (land and sea), worship, finance, and so on.I think there are probably many people who would disagree, some partly, some wholly. John Henry Newman, partly; C. S. Lewis, by some accounts, wholly. St. Augustine testified that reason puts man on the road toward God, which he applied as wholly as he could. He also believed that reason is “informed and elevated” by faith. But reason comes first. People who rely only on faith - that’s the reason they join harmful groups like Aum Shinrikyo and the later People’s Temple. I would not join a faith system that I did not believe was rationally defensible. From what I have learned so far, Catholicism is one of the very few religions to apply solid reasoning and clear (not confusing) logic to determine as well as defend its theology. I am a fan of scholastic reasoning and Robert Spitzer. The reason I believe God exists has everything to do with the reasoning of Thomas Aquinas, the Scholastics, and Robert Sptizer, and virtually nothing (less than 1%) to do with pure “faith.” I hope my strong reliance on reason isn’t too disappointing to those who trust faith as a more sure confirmation.

I am also a fan of Robert Spitzer, especially his lectures on cosmology.

I was raised atheist but it was my physics and philosophy studies that turned me towards the road from unbelief to belief.

I also liked how the Catholic Church used reason instead of emotion. As Pope Benedict XVI said faith without reason can lead to fanaticism.