Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

[wussup]

Dearest Allweather-
I checked my post to ensure I did not miss write my thoughts, I had not. I did not say the Catholic Church originally held the blessed sacrament as a metaphor. In fact, the words ‘blessed sacrament’ and ‘Catholic Church’ were not in my writings concerning this point at all. Please allow me to reiterate the point, CLEMENT said the sacrament of the Eucharist was a metaphor. I even gave the exact word number so you can look up his writings yourself. And he did not use the word ‘Catholic Church’. I suppose that is because the ‘Catholic Church’ as it is known did not exist then.

Regarding baptism. Baptism as a symbol teaches many points of doctrine, not the least of which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It also is symbolic of washing away of sins, etc… As already demonstrated, baptism is more than just sprinkling. When you have kids, don’t be surprised when you send them back to WASH (baptizo) your hands, not sprinkle them with water. There is also a lot of archaeological research that demonstrates that baptisms were performed by immersion by lots in the Jewish community (including the worshippers at Quomron). Finally, your understanding of LDS theology is very shallow if you do not understand our doctrine regarding infant baptism. Dupre, why don’t you explain it?

Again, please elevate your arguments to a more sophisticated level. I did not imply, nor can you infer anything from my writings (or any other LDS writer) to suggest Christ cannot transubstantiate his body at the sacrament. Certainly he can. Myself, Clement, and many billions of others believe he chose not to. Christ is the great teacher. His lessons are filled with parables, simile, etc… It is completely in character for Him to use the bread and wine as a metaphor.

Regarding the infusion baptism comments, logically speaking, a good case does not mean a theologically valid one. See, I learn from the article points regarding baptism, or have a more profound appreciation for it as a consequence of the discussion.

Regarding the Didache, the only thing the document proves is that some (I would say heretical) would suggest that part of the dating process includes a lack of formation of Church Doctrine within the writing. For instance, can you pick out the beginning of the Montanism (a heretical teaching) forming in the Didache? That is one of the reasons the Catholic Church is cautious about putting to much weight on what the Didache says.

Finally, regarding your comments about my understanding of Mariology. You have demonstrated your knowledge of the Church is fairly poor and primarily consists of the understanding of apostate members and anti-mormon literature. People like Dupre disgust me. I like to consider myself a member after the pattern of BH Roberts or J Golden Kimball. I know enough about the Church to choke most members to death (feeding them to much meat as it were) in the Gospel, and never tell a lie. Assuming dupre was a member, his not correcting the basic doctrinal errors found in these pages bears the lie. As one lover of Christ to another, Allweather, I respect your passion for the RC, but would council you to be cautious about taking the words of such as dupre to much to heart. After all, what if he (or any of the anti mormon books) are lying? Doesn’t that reflect upon your salvation?
Dupre-
I find your proclamations regarding your alleged apostate nature…disturbing. Your concepts of the Church are so grossly out of line with reality I can only conclude you are either a liar and your status as a Church member was lip service only, or you have never actually been in the Church.

For those who want to see how we think of Mary, go to www.lds.org, and search for Mary, or Mother of Jesus and you will see articles explaining our understanding of Mary. You can enter woman and see the high status women have in the Church. For the record, the Church considers Mary to be a ‘pure vessel, worthy to be the Mother of our Lord and Savior’. Her status as teacher and nurturer of the Christ is supreme over all woman (if not over all men and woman save Him). Do we believe she was without sin? No, ‘for all have sinned and fallen short’. Do we believe she had other children, yep. Does that lessen her in any way? Nope, she fulfilled her nature.

 

[Allweather]

OK, back from Mass, I will continue…

That is absurd suggestion. You have no idea what divine authority is or how it works. When the two churches excommunicated each other, if either of them had the divine authority to do so, that means that the other lost it. The truth is that neither of them did, which means that in a way you are right—it didn’t make any difference either way!

Divine Authority. I’m taking your definition of that to mean that the orders in the Catholic Church are invalid. Priests aren’t really priests. Bishops aren’t really bishops. The Sacraments are therefore invalid and carry no Grace. I’m not familiar enough with the details of the east-west schism of the 11th century to know whether “the two churches excommunicated each other” such that the excommunications were applicable to all believers, or if they were more targeted. I’ll have to read about that to know. But what I do know is that the orders are valid on both sides. The Bishops in the east retained their authority to ordain and administer the sacraments, and they do so in modern times. We also know that both branches of Catholicism survived; the west survived hierarchically intact, and the east survived in the form of “national” churches, and came under significant domination of the temporal rulers in the various countries where it lives. But, theologically, the two branches are essentially identical, and this is a further proof, in our minds, of the lovingcare of Almighty God for his Church. The east remained Catholic even without the Papal authority God desired for it. No Reformation there.

I don’t think anyone is persuaded. The idea that because the church has remained intact as an earthly institution, therefore it must have divine authority, simply doesn’t hold water. There is no rhyme or reason or logic behind it.

We’ll just disagree on that, then. I wouldn’t expect a Protestant or a Protestant-derived sect member to agree with that or be persuaded about it, because, as I said earlier, for him to be so persuaded would bring on a rather heavy-duty catharsis. You’re not ready for that. Yet.

Jesus said that we shall know them by their fruit. If the church became corrupt at the highest levels, and bore evil fruit, then it could not have had divine authority.zerinus

That’s a good-sounding argument, but when you analyze it carefully, you will see that it is faulty. Every tree, even very good ones, give an occasionally bad fruit. A poorly-formed apple, a rotten orange, a withered fig. Because there were a very few Popes who, while not downright evil, were less than they could have been, doesn’t impeach the entire Magisterium. Bad Popes were followed by very, very good ones. After the early 16th century there have been no more corrupted popes. The Papacy and the selection methods were reformed to prevent such things as undue influence by the large and powerful Italian families, or the influence of Kings, which is really what caused the corruption in the first place. The temporal authority that accrued to the Popes after the collapse of the Roman Empire, mainly out of necessity, since no one else was able or willing to take on the job of temporal rule, turned out to be a bad thing for the Church, and we can see that clearly now.

The way we look at it, the occasional corrupted leaders in the Church serve to confirm the oversight of Almighty God. Men are never perfect, they are always sinners, and we see that again, and again throughout Scripture. The OT people were usually a mix of sinner and holy-man/woman. The NT teaches us that sin has a function of showcasing, as it were, the holiness of God. The Church is a holy vehicle for God’s redemptive action in the world, but it isn’t holy to the extent that its members are without sin, nor does God say that the Church will be free of error, or composed of sinless people. In terms of the Big Picture, the Church is without error, but sometimes down at the ground level it can be a fairly unholy place.

 

[wussup]

Jon-
My apologies if my explanations are more complex than you willing to spend the time to cogitate upon them. That would be your problem, not mine. I give a lot of thought to my answers and choose my words carefully so my answers are as correct as possible. Not that I won’t misspeak, after all, I am just an ignorant truck driver.

As for a date, the answer has been given overr and over again. if you choose to ignore the answer because it ‘doesn’t get the point of your question’ sorry. I am not going to say the same thing over and over again.

Allweather-
So your a vet. Hmm, would have placed you much younger. I was a sailor in the very early 80s (nuclear reactor technician aboard the Big E, got out after 6 years as e-6).
Again, got to move on down the road. Still researching information. I haven’t looked at this stuff in years so it will take a while.

By way of correction, a close friend of both Paul Johnson and myself corrected me. Johnson is an english catholic, not swiss; and he is alive. Sorry for the error.

 

[Allweather]

I did not say the Catholic Church originally held the blessed sacrament as a metaphor. In fact, the words ‘blessed sacrament’ and ‘Catholic Church’ were not in my writings concerning this point at all. Please allow me to reiterate the point, CLEMENT said the sacrament of the Eucharist was a metaphor. I even gave the exact word number so you can look up his writings yourself. And he did not use the word ‘Catholic Church’. I suppose that is because the ‘Catholic Church’ as it is known did not exist then.

Whether you call it Catholic or some other, it was/is the same Church. I’m not an expert on Clement, or any other early theologian or Father, or Doctor of the Church. I’m just a simple guy who lives out his faith according to a model of submission, humility, and surrender. When I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I go to the Catechism. Is it useful to read the early teachers? Sure. But they are not the Church. The Church consists of ALL the teachers, the bishops, the popes, the Bible, out of which we distill Tradition and the Catechism. In other words, I think it is a mistake to focus too finely on one individual.

Baptism as a symbol teaches many points of doctrine, not the least of which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It also is symbolic of washing away of sins, etc… As already demonstrated, baptism is more than just sprinkling.

And, as already demonstrated, it is also more than just immersion. It is also much, much more than just symbol. God’s grace is active in baptism, and God is not limited by format, or by man’s faulty interpretations of Scripture or Tradition. It seems to me that the immersion-only sects are too legalistic in that area, which I find interesting considering that they usually trumpet themselves to be non-legalistic in other areas of piety. Just a personal observation.

I did not imply, nor can you infer anything from my writings (or any other LDS writer) to suggest Christ cannot transubstantiate his body at the sacrament. Certainly he can. Myself, Clement, and many billions of others believe he chose not to.

I don’t know about “billions.” There are only about 1.3 billion Christians in the entire world (alive today) and the vast majority of those, around 1 billion of 'em, believe in transsubstantiation in the Eucharist. That puts you among the approximately 300,000,000 sectists (worldwide) who do not. Of course, it is your choice to decide that you know better than the Catholic Church the meaning of the words of Christ, and the understandings of almost all Christians for 2 millenia. Myself, I submit and follow, aadmitting the reality that I am not God, I am not the Pope, I am just a little guy who functions a lot better in life when I’m not relying on my own understanding in these weighty matters of theology, in which I am not qualified.

Regarding the infusion baptism comments, logically speaking, a good case does not mean a theologically valid one. See, I learn from the article points regarding baptism, or have a more profound appreciation for it as a consequence of the discussion.

Learning is a good thing, and I’m learning, too. But, this is the understanding of 2,000 years of Christian faith and practice, and so we attach great significance to that. The Protestants, and the Mormons (and others among the sects) came up with novel interpretations. You’re free to follow the novelty, of course, according to the free will that God bequeaths to you. We will go with Tradition, because we know that God reveals himself to man across the centuries, and in the lives of the people who love him and worship him in deepheart fashion.

Regarding the Didache… again, I am not an expert. You brought it up in the earlier post, and I made the comment that the Church teaches that BOTH immersion AND infusion are acceptable forms of baptism, and that this is seen not just from what is taught by the Church today, but what has ALWAYS been taught by the Church (and by Church I mean the Catholic Church).

Regarding Mary. I take what you say at face value. It appears that your own personal Marian piety is quite a cut above that of most Protestants, or Mormons I know. I was a Protestant for many years. Mary was a big obstacle for me in the beginning of my journey Home, I realize now, the result of my years of Protestant indoctrination. She turned out not an obstacle at all, but a doorway, through which I passed to know Jesus in a fuller, more complete way. Mary is active today. She isn’t just a model, an admirable person. She continues to bear Christ to us, and to lead us to him. Mary is not the object, Jesus is the object. Her main function is to bear Jesus, and to reveal Him to us, perfectly, fully. I hope that you will look deeper into what Mary offers you.

 

[majick275]

Dearest Allweather-
I checked my post to ensure I did not miss write my thoughts, I had not. I did not say the Catholic Church originally held the blessed sacrament as a metaphor. In fact, the words ‘blessed sacrament’ and ‘Catholic Church’ were not in my writings concerning this point at all. Please allow me to reiterate the point, CLEMENT said the sacrament of the Eucharist was a metaphor. I even gave the exact word number so you can look up his writings yourself. And he did not use the word ‘Catholic Church’. I suppose that is because the ‘Catholic Church’ as it is known did not exist then.

let’s be clear you are referencing clement of alexandria NOT the early pope clement of rome whom we had discussed earlier. Clement of alexandria NEVER contradicts the real presence in fact he reinforces it in book one of the stromata. as to the pedadgogus, let’s look at the WHOLE quote shall we? “The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!” this isn’t a metaphor. I doubt you will see ANY denial of the real presence prior to 500 AD

Regarding baptism. Baptism as a symbol teaches many points of doctrine, not the least of which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It also is symbolic of washing away of sins, etc… As already demonstrated, baptism is more than just sprinkling. When you have kids, don’t be surprised when you send them back to WASH (baptizo) your hands, not sprinkle them with water. There is also a lot of archaeological research that demonstrates that baptisms were performed by immersion by lots in the Jewish community (including the worshippers at Quomron).

baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant. the didache tells us immersion is great, many early christians were immersed, many current christians are baptised by immersion. catholics don’t deny that as a valid form. we also allow for other forms of baptism since it is a symbol as long as water is used and it is done with the correct trinitarian formula. where does the bible tell us ONLY immersion is permissible? i give you this from another poster :the Greek prepositions translated “into” and “out of” may also mean “to,” “toward,” or “unto,” and “from” or “away from.” In fact, in Acts 8, the Greek preposition eis is used eleven times, but only once (vs. 38) is it commonly translated “into.” In verses 3, 5, 16, 25, 26, 27, and 40, it is best translated as “to.” Similarly, we should understand that when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he went “to” the water, dipped his hand into it, and sprinkled the eunuch, identifying him with the Messiah and his cleansing work (see Isaiah 52:15, a passage that the eunuch would have just been reading, cf. Acts 8:30–33). Or, they may have stepped into and out of the water, without anyone being immersed.

Again, please elevate your arguments to a more sophisticated level. I did not imply, nor can you infer anything from my writings (or any other LDS writer) to suggest Christ cannot transubstantiate his body at the sacrament. Certainly he can. Myself, Clement, and many billions of others believe he chose not to.

i think we have seen that NEITHER Clement believed this.

 

[majick275]

(continued)

Christ is the great teacher. His lessons are filled with parables, simile, etc… It is completely in character for Him to use the bread and wine as a metaphor.

sure, except that he and his apostles and their successors unanimously said it was in this case literal.

Regarding the Didache, the only thing the document proves is that some (I would say heretical) would suggest that part of the dating process includes a lack of formation of Church Doctrine within the writing. For instance, can you pick out the beginning of the Montanism (a heretical teaching) forming in the Didache? That is one of the reasons the Catholic Church is cautious about putting to much weight on what the Didache says.

true but in the absence of writings to the contrary it is AN example of the early christian church. we have all examples of like it in agreement. there is no requirement for immersion and we have real presence in the eucharist. only the apostates strayed from that later on.

Finally, regarding your comments about my understanding of Mariology. You have demonstrated your knowledge of the Church is fairly poor and primarily consists of the understanding of apostate members and anti-mormon literature. People like Dupre disgust me. I like to consider myself a member after the pattern of BH Roberts or J Golden Kimball. I know enough about the Church to choke most members to death (feeding them to much meat as it were) in the Gospel, and never tell a lie. Assuming dupre was a member, his not correcting the basic doctrinal errors found in these pages bears the lie. As one lover of Christ to another, Allweather, I respect your passion for the RC, but would council you to be cautious about taking the words of such as dupre to much to heart. After all, what if he (or any of the anti mormon books) are lying? Doesn’t that reflect upon your salvation?

yet we can see from strictly LDS writings how much LDS doctrines have changed over the years and just how wrong so many of them are. why do LDS materials do so much revisionist history? it’s downright orwellian how the latest books on brigham young try to paint him as a monogamist. or how LDS relief society rooms have the picture of Emma Smith there as the example of the good wife. didn’t she leave the LDS church permanently? what about those primary pictures showing joseph smith translating the plates. why don’t they show the real story with the seer stone in the hat? these aren’t anti-mormon fabrications you can verify them from LDS sources.

Dupre-
I find your proclamations regarding your alleged apostate nature…disturbing. Your concepts of the Church are so grossly out of line with reality I can only conclude you are either a liar and your status as a Church member was lip service only, or you have never actually been in the Church.

was that an ad hominem? just checking cuz I thought you were opposed to those. last time i looked every single claim of paul’s could be verified from LDS sources. what i find disturbing was the portrayal of the sectarian minister and the derogatory reference to the pope in the temple endowment (pre 1990 of course) the doctrinal racism and the blasphemy of eternal progression are offensive too.

 

[Chris-WA]

of course they were needed while they were still alive. The whole purpose of calling them was so that they could pass on the teachings of Jesus without error. AFTER they all died their ministry was complete. God kept them until they were through. if that office was meant to continue then why didn’t they ordain more apostles as individual apostles died?

Zerinus said in another thread it was because the remaining Apostles couldn’t get back together to form a “quorum” and select replacements. Strange how this is never mentioned in scripture…You would think that Paul in one of his epistles, knowing that some of the other Apostles had been martyred (which he does write about), never mentions once this supposed crisis of the Apostles inability to gather together and choose new Apostles.

What Mormons fail to understand is that the Apostles fullfilled their mission perfectly–to preach the good news of Christ throughout the known world and expand the church. How did they do this? By appointing new Apostles? No. They did this by establishing new congregations and appointed bishops as overseers to carry on their authority. What’s the point of establishing bishops if the authority of the Apostles would not carry on? It would have been pointless. But I’m going to assume (crazy me) that the Apostles knew exactly what they were doing in order ensure the authority of the church would continue after they died. If we are to believe the LDS version of things, then we have to believe that the Apostles failed miserably because they didn’t appoint new Apostles. But they didn’t fail–they succeeded against incredible odds, and the Christian church grew rapidly despite terrible persecutions for the first 300 years of its existence. How can you possibly explain this unless the Church had the continual protection of the Holy Spirit? It shouldn’t have survived. It would have fizzled out into nothingness after the Apostles died under the persecution of the Jews, the Romans, and countless other enemies of the early church. And yet it did the exact opposite.

Sure things were messy at the beginning. Jesus Christ didn’t hand the Church an instruction manual with 10 steps on how exactly to build up the kingdom step by step. What He did do was give the Church the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) to guide it into all truth. Not some truth or most truth, but all truth. To be a believing Mormon, you have to have such a dismal view of the early church, and really it’s quite insulting to the countless martyrs who went to their death in defense of the Church. Mormons would say that this weakened the church. I say the blood of the martyrs only gave it more will and strength to preserve truth, authority, and to survive and thrive!

 

[Keikiolu]

Not to continue a conversation that is off subject, but I have to ask…
I have noticed that a lot of Mormons are dentists. My cousin is in dental school and said 75% of his class are Mormons. He also said that his friends who go to other dental schools report the same thing. Why are so many Mormons dentists? Just curious…

Donny and Marie.

Teeth.

Get it…?

 

[wussup]

Allweather, you hit the nail on the head. there is no question the RC grew directly out of the Early Church, though it is very difficult to trace back due to the exact reasons you and every Catholic Theologian give, there is a lack of authentic original manuscripts to ‘prove’ this. However, I believe this is of God’s doing. Let’s get crazy and call the Catholic Church the direct apostalic succession and has the fullness of the Gospel. A clearly documented line of succession would require relatively little faith. This is a double edged sword that cuts my argument as well. That is exactly where I have been attempting to get this discussion to. While Majik and others are trying to recreate their doctrine from a complex and weak form of solo scriptura, it will always fail because God does not want us to find proof. Discussions about the Apostasy are polemic. And they can never be proved because there is simply an insufficient amount of evidence one way or another. Remember, AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION SEEKS AFTER A SIGN! There is no question the Catholic Church fell away from the teachings of Christ. The only question is did the RC recover from this or was it necessary to restart the Church. I get from your writings your prayers have been answered, and you believe the RC has corrected the evil ways of its past masters and is now on the path it needs to be a rightoues branch of Christ. I feel a restitution was necessary, hence the LDS Church.
That gets to the second point. You have clearly a strong belief in Christ as Lord and Savior. Your faith bursts from your writings, and when not making polemic arguments against my faith , your faith precedes your argument and is very convincing. As you may be able to tell, I am ashamed to say somewhat of an ‘intellectual’. This is a sever weakness on my behalf. It clouds my faith with doubt. I have often in the past proclaimed to any who would listen my befuddlement over Ex 24:9-11. I proudly proclaimed that anyone who could see God and then in such a short time worship a false god (the Golden Calf) must certainly be weak. Now I know. Do not tempt God. I started another thread on faith. Anyway, my point is that the ‘learned’ are not whom God calls, but rather the unlearned. I don’t figure you would ever convert, but I still would suggest not to place you trust in vain histories, but in the Living God. Assuming your belief to be true, there is nothing wrong with taking to God to expand your comprehension of the RC mysteries. I am reminded of Paul saying, we must all work out our salvation with fear and trembling, fear and trembling because a mistake here is eternal. I have started another thread on faith. Sure hope ya’ll can help with this.

 

[PaulDupre]

People like Dupre disgust me.

You’re a very sweet man, thank you.

I like to consider myself a member after the pattern of BH Roberts or J Golden Kimball.

Like BH Roberts? So you mean that you don’t believe the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient manuscript, but the just the imaginings of the adolescent mind of Joseph Smith? My respect for you just went up 10 points!

I know enough about the Church to choke most members to death (feeding them to much meat as it were) in the Gospel, and never tell a lie. Assuming dupre was a member, his not correcting the basic doctrinal errors found in these pages bears the lie.
Dupre-
I find your proclamations regarding your alleged apostate nature…disturbing. Your concepts of the Church are so grossly out of line with reality I can only conclude you are either a liar and your status as a Church member was lip service only, or you have never actually been in the Church.

Again, very sweet, thank you.

As far as correcting misconceptions about Mormonism, I have done so on many occasions. But really, that’s what you are here for. I am already busy correcting LDS misconceptions about Catholicism.

And I certainly was LDS - very active and faithful for 11 years. The LDS church has records of my mission in the Taiwan Taipei Mission (1977-1979), my temple marriage in the Washington, D.C. temple (which is actually in Maryland as I recall) in 1980, and my 11 years of full tithe-paying, callings (including Gospel Essentials teacher, Gospel Doctrine teacher, Elder’s Quorum President and 2nd counselor in a bishopric) and consistent “temple-worthiness” right up to the day I turned in my resignation letter to the bishop.

Hardly just lip-service.

I am sure that I understand Mormonism (at least as it was taught when I was LDS) as well as you do. If you met a LDS from 1848, you probably wouldn’t recognize him as a Mormon - the LDS Church has changed that much that fast. And it will continue to morph as public opinion changes and more LDS apply to have their names taken off the records.

I understand why you would like to think I never was LDS or never really understood it. I would like to think that about ex-Catholics, too. But the facts are the facts. Sorry about that.

God love you,
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

By the way, wussup, when and where did you serve your mission?

Paul

 

[Chris-WA]

Remember, AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION SEEKS AFTER A SIGN! There is no question the Catholic Church fell away from the teachings of Christ.

This is the problem with your whole argument. Your evidence that the Catholic Church fell away from the teachings of Christ is that the Reformation happened. That is a big jump, and not a logical conclusion. Yes the Church needed reform, but not of its doctrine. No pope, however lousy a pope he may have been, ever removed or altered the teachings of Christ. Though sinners we have many, sometimes even in high places, none of them ever changed the doctrines of the church. A handful of the popes were lousy human beings. Does that mean the Church’s authority ceased to exist? The authority to govern the church does not rest in the individual, but in the office the individual holds. Even if that office is held buy a less-than stellar-person, that office still holds the keys of authority, and if we can demonstrate that there was a successor, then the office (and therefore authority) still exists. This is a testament to the faithfulness of Christ to his Bride–the Holy Spirit will not permit the doctrines of the Church to ever be reversed or lost. If this protection is not given, no church, not even your own, can claim that it is the true church.

And we are not looking for signs. That passage refers to one looking for miracles from God as proof of his power and authenticity. Studying history is not looking for signs. Studying history gives us insight into what the early church received from the Apostles and how they lived it out. This has helped many Protestants (especially Protestant ministers) find there way back home to the Catholic Church. People like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch were themselves personally taught and trained by the Apostles. That makes them quite worthy of consideration.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Yoo Hoo !

Any Mormons out there ??!!

Yoo Hoo !

Answer the OP’s question.

A “No answer” will give further proof that your presence here is not to EXPLAIN your ‘belief system,’ but rather to proselytize for stragglers.

Stragglers can be found at James White’s website or any Mormon ward or stake building.

:banghead: Convert the true believers:banghead:

Evidently, from the contradictory and oxymoronic descriptions given for what Mormons believe by Zerinus and wussup and friends,

they would be in desperate need of assurance of ‘godhood’ on a planet of their choosing.

:bounce:

 

[Allweather]

In reply to wussup:

I don’t feel a driving need to “trace back” documentary evidence for Apostolic Succession. I’m not a scientist or an historian. I know just enough to get myself into trouble in debates, and I’m painfully aware of my limitations, which is why I never engage in arguments over Scripture details. Still, what I do know satisfies me that the Catholic Church is the only one with the claim to fame in terms of source and succession. Of course, we shouldn’t be myopic, and believe that Catholicism, or Christianity as a whole, is the only religion in the world. One of the lovely things about Catholicism is that it carries on the Jewish idea of a brotherhood of man, saying that there really is no One True Religion, acknowledging that God works in and through all religions, and that all men can be “saved” based on how they respond to the firmware He put into each man, called conscience.

I tend to agree with you that God prefers there be no proof, either of his existence, or of much of anything else. But, there’s lots of circumstantial evidence; and, a good collection of circumstantial evidence can get a conviction in court. I tend to disagree with you that Jesus, in saying "an evil and adulterous generation… " means that no signs will be given. God has sent many, many signs to us, apart from the witness of the Holy Ghost, Who often speaks of God directly to our minds and hearts. Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima, and dozens of others. St. Francis and Padre Pio, the stigmatics, among others. So we have lots of God-given signs that all point towards the truth of God, and the truth of the Church we call Catholic.

There is no question the Catholic Church fell away from the teachings of Christ. The only question is did the RC recover from this or was it necessary to restart the Church.

I think there is a great DEAL of question about that assumption. It depends on what you mean by Catholic Church. If you mean ALL of it globally, then no, that never happened, nor could it. But if you mean that apostasy happened among some people in some places, then that is not very much open to question… one assumes it not only possible, but likely, though I personally have no proof of even of that limited apostasy. The world is very big, and God perhaps built into the Church self-correcting mechanisms based on that size and diversity. When one part of the Church goes bad, another part or parts will make corrections. Reform is always a necessity. The Church should always be in some state of reform. But “restart”? No way. If the Church died, then Jesus failed, or else he lied, and I don’t believe that either is possible.

As for Exodus 24:9-11. Again, I’m not a Scripture scholar, or any other type of scholar. I don’t get too worked up about these types of OT statements. The OT is full of oddities, or at least, things that seem odd to me. Like talking asses, and animal husbandry using some very unusual techniques as described in Genesis 30. I don’t think we need to take these things very literally. An awful lot of this is myth. Which doesn’t detract from its meaning, but the meanings are obscure, and if we get too intent on using them to prove something, without having a comprehensive view of Scripture, seen from within the context of the Church, bearing in mind the difference between OT and NT, then we can get off track.

And BTW, my apologies for being overcritical of your faith. I know I am, and I have to constantly remind myself of what nice people Mormons tend to be.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I have an honest question here and since I don’t have time to read through all six pages to try and find out if it has been answered, have any of our Mormon friends given us a date for the alleged apostacy? I’ll even accept a “circa 200 AD” if that is easier. Thanks.

 

[Allweather]

I got to wondering what Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary about Exodus 24:9-11, and here it is:

““The people having, besides their submission to the ceremony of the sprinkling of blood, declared their well-pleasedness in their God and his law, again and again, God here gives to their representatives some special tokens of his favour to them (for God meets him that rejoices and works righteousness), and admits them nearer to him than they could have expected. Thus, in the New-Testament church, we find the four living creatures, and the four and twenty elders, honoured with places round the throne, being redeemed unto God by the blood of the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne, Rev. iv. 4, 6; v. 8, 9. Observe, 1. They saw the God of Israel (v. 10), that is, they had some glimpse of his glory, in light and fire, though they saw no manner of similitude, and his being no man hath seen nor can see, 1 Tim. vi. 16. They saw the place where the God of Israel stood (so the LXX.), something that came near a similitude, but was not; whatever they saw, it was certainly something of which no image nor picture could be made, and yet enough to satisfy them that God was with them of a truth. Nothing is described but that which was under his feet; for our conceptions of God are all below him, and fall infinitely short of being adequate. They saw not so much as God’s feet; but at the bottom of the brightness, and as the footstool or pedestal of it, they saw a most rich and splendid pavement, such as they never saw before nor after, as it had been of sapphires, azure or sky-coloured. The heavens themselves are the pavement of God’s palace, and his throne is above the firmament. See how much better wisdom is than the precious onyx or the sapphires, for wisdom was from eternity God’s delight (Prov. viii. 30), and lay in his bosom, but the sapphires are the pavement under his feet; there let us put all the wealth of this world, and not in our hearts. 2. Upon the nobles (or elders) of Israel, he laid not his hand, v. 11. Though they were men, the dazzling splendour of his glory did not overwhelm them; but it was so moderated (Job xxvi. 9), and they were so strengthened (Dan. x. 19), that they were able to bear it. Nay, though they were sinful men, and obnoxious to God’s justice, yet he did not lay his punishing avenging hand upon them, as they feared he would. When we consider what a consuming fire God is, and what stubble we are before him, we shall have reason to say, in all our approaches to him, It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed. 3. They saw God, and did eat and drink. They had not only their lives preserved, but their vigour, courage, and comfort; it cast no damp upon their joy, but rather increased and elevated it. They feasted upon the sacrifice, before God, in token of their cheerful consent to the covenant now made, their grateful acceptance of the benefits of it, and their communion with God, in pursuance of that covenant. Thus believers eat and drink with Christ at his table, Luke xxii. 30. Blessed are those that shall eat bread in the kingdom of our Father, and drink of the wine new there.””

 

[majick275]

Allweather, you hit the nail on the head. there is no question the RC grew directly out of the Early Church, though it is very difficult to trace back due to the exact reasons you and every Catholic Theologian give, there is a lack of authentic original manuscripts to ‘prove’ this.

I find the available evidence sufficient. The RCC did not “grow” OUT of the early church it WAS the early church and STILL teaches the same doctrines.

However, I believe this is of God’s doing. Let’s get crazy and call the Catholic Church the direct apostalic succession and has the fullness of the Gospel. A clearly documented line of succession would require relatively little faith. This is a double edged sword that cuts my argument as well. That is exactly where I have been attempting to get this discussion to. While Majik and others are trying to recreate their doctrine from a complex and weak form of solo scriptura,

whoa… I am NOT a sola scriptura person and I have relied heavily on sacred tradition in my showing that the early church and the modern church are doctrinally the same.you have yet to prove any straying from the truth.

it will always fail because God does not want us to find proof. Discussions about the Apostasy are polemic. And they can never be proved because there is simply an insufficient amount of evidence one way or another.

giving up so easily? God DOES want us to find his true word. this isn’t a test of faith to see who is right. God came to earth and told us directly what he wanted us to know. he called the apostles to go and teach it. it was written down as scripture. tradition shows how it was understood and applied. we still have it.

Remember, AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION SEEKS AFTER A SIGN!

yet Jesus turned water to wine, raised the dead, healed the sick, etc. he sent his disciples out to cast out demons and heal as well as preach and teach. the signs are freely given. they always have been. (manna, parting the sea, birth of isaac, burning up the priests of baal, etc.) even joseph smith claimed angelic visitations on multiple occasions. the DHC in the LDS church is full of claims of such signs. for that matter most copies of the ensign have some “faith promoting” story with signs that cured unbelief.

There is no question the Catholic Church fell away from the teachings of Christ.

yes there is. you have given us an unfounded assertion as if it were established fact. give an example of this with proof.

The only question is did the RC recover from this or was it necessary to restart the Church. I get from your writings your prayers have been answered, and you believe the RC has corrected the evil ways of its past masters and is now on the path it needs to be a rightoues branch of Christ.

interesting approach. you attack bad members of the catholic church, specifically leaders as a sweeping generality and somehow expect that means that the doctrine was corrupt. read the history. the doctrines didn’t change even when we had bad popes. why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to the LDS? oliver cowdery, sidney rigdon, david whitmer, martin harris, lyman white, the list goes on of the early first presidency members and apostles in the LDs church who were either excommunicated or left to start their own churches. their conduct is just as bad as anyone you will find in catholic history. the modern LDs church has even denounced some of brigham young’s, orson pratt’s and even Bruce R. Mconkie’s teachings as false doctrine. have they recovered? are they now under Gordon B hinkley on a righteous path? i mean there was institutional racism, adam god, polygamy, kirtland anti-bank and all kinds of problems that had to be corrected. this smacks of a double standard and the argument that members, even leaders being corrupt equates to the church being corrupt is questionable at best. what was the official doctrine of the church when these folks were present? even when catholic popes did bad things everyone knew those acts were wrong. the church taught it consistently. the MEN tried to hide their acts. Joseph smith tried that originally and when found out changed the doctrine of the LDS church to call previously forbidden acts righteous now.

 

[majick275]

(continued)

I feel a restitution was necessary, hence the LDS Church.

well said. your personal beliefs stated as such. I can respect that.

That gets to the second point. You have clearly a strong belief in Christ as Lord and Savior. Your faith bursts from your writings, and when not making polemic arguments against my faith , your faith precedes your argument and is very convincing. As you may be able to tell, I am ashamed to say somewhat of an ‘intellectual’. This is a sever weakness on my behalf. It clouds my faith with doubt. I have often in the past proclaimed to any who would listen my befuddlement over Ex 24:9-11. I proudly proclaimed that anyone who could see God and then in such a short time worship a false god (the Golden Calf) must certainly be weak. Now I know. Do not tempt God. I started another thread on faith. Anyway, my point is that the ‘learned’ are not whom God calls, but rather the unlearned.

God calls EVERYONE to him.

I don’t figure you would ever convert, but I still would suggest not to place you trust in vain histories, but in the Living God. Assuming your belief to be true, there is nothing wrong with taking to God to expand your comprehension of the RC mysteries. I am reminded of Paul saying, we must all work out our salvation with fear and trembling, fear and trembling because a mistake here is eternal. I have started another thread on faith. Sure hope ya’ll can help with this.

I would have you consider these same words for yourself from the Catholic point of view. God calls YOU out of love. Catholics WORSHIP the living God, the ONLY God. I invite you to try it at your nearest Catholic mass.

 

[jediliz]

I have an honest question here and since I don’t have time to read through all six pages to try and find out if it has been answered, have any of our Mormon friends given us a date for the alleged apostacy? I’ll even accept a “circa 200 AD” if that is easier. Thanks.

I think the claim is “when the last apostle died”. I still need an exact answer as well.

We need a date, year and month preferred.

 

[zerinus]

I think the claim is “when the last apostle died”. I still need an exact answer as well.

We need a date, year and month preferred.

You can’t even give an exact date when Jesus was born (or died) that you celebrate! But the date is unimportant. The important thing is that the Apostasy occurred, because all the signs of it are too aparent. You don’t refuse to celebrate Christmas because you don’t know the exact date of His birth, do you? Likewise, we don’t deny the Apostasy just because we can’t put an exact date on it, when all the signs of it are too obvious.

zerinus