Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[TOmNossor]

Non-Clement continuation.
oat soda:

the evidence of this is not there. our earliest manuscripts of the new testament date from the frist and second centuries, during the lifetime of the apostles! no distinct mormon teachings were ever found in the new testament

I can point to a number of Mormon teachings in the New Testament. Baptism for the dead is mentioned and the belief that men may become divine through Jesus Christ is pretty solid. A number of hints of other things are present. But of course you cannot show your doctrine from the New Testament either. You should not try to apply tests to my beliefs that your beliefs cannot pass. Were is purgatory (in the New Testament)?
oat soda:

why does the mormon church accept the authenticity of the new testament? The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

TOm:

The Bible is sufficient. I have suggested this before. The Catholic Church could have done a better job by including the Pastor of Hermas (more used in the early church than Jude and probably other books), but they did not want to because this document demonstrates that the Apostasy was happening and would be a TOTAL APOSTASY (at least of authority). The Catholic Church chose to remove plain and precious truths when they allowed their desire for common ground with the Jews to result in the removal of 1st Enoch. This was one of the most important Old Testament documents to Christians (it is quoted in the New Testament), but it too clearly pointed to Christ and the Jews stopped using it. Christians followed suit in order to have a common set of texts with the Jews.

And LDS do accept other texts as canonical. In fact we have an open cannon. I believe that for essentially the same reason given by the early church we have chosen to use the KJV of the Bible. It is a good common starting point and it is sufficient.
oat soda:
You put yourself in an illogical impossible position. On one hand, you assume that the church fell into apostasy and lost the fullness of the mormon faith and reject the doctrines of the trinity defined during the 4th century (381). On the other, you accept the NT which is a product of the catholic church during the 4th century.

TOm:

I have used this argument on Biblical Inerranist before, but since I believe the Bible to be God’s word, and not the totality of his word, I just suggest that what the Catholic Church left us with was sufficient.

BTW, you are moving the goal posts. Why are we discussion the Bible and not Clement?

Will you acknowledge that you test was flawed, or will you cease to be Catholic? I do not think it fair that I let you wonder all over the map and not point out were I think you have erred.

I believe the Catholic Church has a solid foundation. I just do not think you are looking at it properly. The foundation of the Catholic Church is probably not as solid as you think it is, but it is strong. Cardinal Newman’s book is a must in my opinion.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

The Catholic Church is Christ given to all people. The Eucharist to sustain us, forgiveness to reconcile us. These arte the keys give to Peter, to the Church. The Mormon Church has set itself up as the One Church that is better than Christ’s Church. And yet the only thing good about the Catholic Church is Christ in us. The Catholic Church is the very body of Christ. Joseph Smith waged war against this body. His statement made is very clear regarding this. Your Church has tried to change the very concept of God and this is a dangerous path. But God does not change so all efforts to change Him into something he is not is futile. The danger here is making God out to be part of what he has made rather than the very essence of it. This kind of thinking, worshipping has the potential to sever you away from Him, but this I believe would have to be done knowingly. My sister who is LDS told me that even if her church was not the true Church, that even if Satan was running it she would still belong because of all the good that it does. This is a dangerous line to draw. I see it as thinking that it is her good, the church’s good that will prevail, my holiness etc…. But thi only brings death. You cannot go under water and live for very long without fresh air to breath. You need the very breath of God, that which enlightens us and gives us life. You cannot separate the Created from the Creator and live. The only thing good in me or you is Christ in us. But then to understand this age old revelation you would need to be baptized into the Trinity, engrafted to Christ.

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:
The Catholic Church is Christ given to all people. The Eucharist to sustain us, forgiveness to reconcile us. These arte the keys give to Peter, to the Church. The Mormon Church has set itself up as the One Church that is better than Christ’s Church

TOm:

Hello.

I would love to believe the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, but I reject the authority of the Catholic Church and therefore do not believe that the priest is able to perform the miracle that would be so amazing.

We agree Peter was given the keys. The question is did Peter pass the keys on to Linus, Cletus, Clement, …. I do not believe he did. I see evidence for this in the writings of Clement. I highlight this in the thread I already linked:

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm63.showMessageRange?topicID=370.topic&start=41&stop=55

And surely you would recognize that the CoJCoLDS does not claim to be a church above Christ’s Church. The question is which church is Christ’s Church.

catholic-rcia:
And yet the only thing good about the Catholic Church is Christ in us. The Catholic Church is the very body of Christ. Joseph Smith waged war against this body. His statement made is very clear regarding this.

Joseph Smith like most of the Christian world believed there were problems so profound within the Catholic Church that it was not the church of Christ on the earth. I believe that the reformation may have been founded upon solid observations, but without AUTHORITY it merely set the stage for the restoration. Joseph Smith did not so much wage war upon the Catholic Church as did he claim to be restoring the authority from Christ and restoring Christ’s Church.

If you look at the way I address Catholicism, I hope you will see that when I “attack” the Catholic Church it is concerning one thing or in response to an “attack” on my church. The one thing is the apostasy. All non-Catholic (non-EO perhaps, but I would not quite agree) religions must establish why the Catholic Church, who can tie itself to the Apostles is not Christ’s Church. A Catholic can chose to take a higher ground, but in this thread my church is “attacked.” I have responded and frequently showed where the attacks levied by Catholics (Oat Soda’s Clement argument) will decimate Catholicism.

catholic-rcia:
Your Church has tried to change the very concept of God and this is a dangerous path. But God does not change so all efforts to change Him into something he is not is futile.

TOm:

God does not change but our understanding of Him can.

If the Catholic Church or almost any non-LDS church is the church of Christ, then the CHANGE during the council of Nicea was a gaining of greater understanding. Before Nicea not one person embraced the kind of co-equality among the persons (the modalist necessarily embraced a pure equality because they only believed in one person) of the Godhead that was espoused by Athanasius. There was a change at Nicea.

The CoJCoLDS has subordination within its concept of the Trinity. Christ is eternal and fully divine, but He is subordinate to God the Father. There is a oneness (you call it one being-ness but LDS would generally not use this term) and there is a threeness (you call it three person-ness and LDS would be fine with this). But when you say “being” and “person” you do not mean what humans typically think.

St. Justin Martyr used the term “duetros theos” or “second god” to describe Jesus. Is this the orthodoxy that emerged from Nicea? Who changed God?

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:
The danger here is making God out to be part of what he has made rather than the very essence of it. This kind of thinking, worshipping has the potential to sever you away from Him, but this I believe would have to be done knowingly.

TOm:

God is the creator of all. LDS believe like early Christians and Jews that God created from eternal matter, but God is not “part of what he has made.” I do not know were you get this.

I agree that to be found in rebellion to God at “judgment” one must knowingly rebel. It is hard to know if our pride prevents us from seeing the truth, but it is my observation that neither side of the isle (myself included) is immune from pride.

catholic-rcia:

My sister who is LDS told me that even if her church was not the true Church, that even if Satan was running it she would still belong because of all the good that it does. This is a dangerous line to draw. I see it as thinking that it is her good, the church’s good that will prevail, my holiness etc…. But thi only brings death. You cannot go under water and live for very long without fresh air to breath. You need the very breath of God, that which enlightens us and gives us life.

TOm:

I would never make such a statement. I always pray to know the will of God. I have in the past prayed to know if I was to become Catholic (again) and/or leave the CoJCoLDS. I have received that answer, but I still always ask to be a better Christian and to know and do the will of God. It seems to me that God will need to lead me out of the CoJCoLDS if it be His will. My intellect has been generally convinced for a long time, and my attempts at childlike following of God have also led me to the CoJCoLDS.

As a Catholic you believe that God will hear and answer my prayers. It would not be unreasonable for you to believe that I have build walls like you claim for your sister, but I have surely done the best I think I can to not do this.

catholic-rcia:

You cannot separate the Created from the Creator and live. The only thing good in me or you is Christ in us. But then to understand this age old revelation you would need to be baptized into the Trinity, engrafted to Christ.

TOm:

I will agree that it is the uniting with Christ that justifies/sanctifies. It is the uniting with Christ that produces good within us and good works. It is the uniting with Christ that brings us to the Eternal Father. It is the uniting with Christ that brings us into at-one-ment with God and can lead us to the perfect unity which is exaltation.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

I consider Clement to be a properly ordained Bishop of Rome with local authority. He was not prime and did not write as if he was at the head of the entire church.

Tom, if Clement’s writing doesn’t convince you that he was the head of the whole church, it should at least convince you he had more than local authority. After all, he was the bishop of Rome writing to the church in Corinth, chastising them for revolting against their priests. Here you have a very early example of the bishop of Rome exercising his authority over the church in another location. In fact, Clement gives us some of the earliest evidence for the idea of Apostolic sucession passing through the office of bishop. I quote from Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written around A.D. 80)
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry…

TOmNossor:

And I believe that the authority of Peter was not passed to Linus, Cletus, or Clement. This was the beginning of the apostasy. Heretical beliefs crept into the church as a group of local authorities (Bishops) tried to make decisions for the entire church.

So you’re saying that Clement was wrong about succession as he stated above. What is your evidence, and what heretical beliefs are you talking about?

 

[MaggieOH]

TOmNossor:

Again, I claim no proof. I claim that intellectually the supernatural explanation accounts for the data much better than a naturalistic explanation.

Charity, TOm

However, what are your qualifications to make such a claim? Can you tell me how much research or discernment took place to even allow that what took place was “supernatural”?

So far I have seen no proof at all that Joseph Smith had any visions that were of supernatural origin, unless that origin was something unholy. There are too many holes in Smith’s story. There are too many holes in the testimony of the “witnesses” who just happened to be family. Nothing is verifiable either. There are no “plates” and the claim that they were taken and returned to the earth is in my view nonsense.

I have no doubt that there are thousands, if not millions who have been ignorant enough to be taken in by the story of how the BOM came into being. These are the people who lack discernment and they will believe such things as the “burning in the bosom”, yet that is a very subjective thing, and it amounts to nothing in the long run.

The claim for Jesus as the Messiah is a far stronger claim than that of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Jesus performed miracles that were witnessed by thousands. I cannot imagine Joseph Smith having the ability to turn water into wine, let alone feed 5000 with seven loaves of bread and five small pieces of fish. Then there is the testimony of the apostles, including the testimony of St. Paul. We do not rely upon the Bible alone for this testimony for there are other secular sources that support the witnesses for everything that is recorded in the Gospels, including that of the Roman Pliny and of Tacitus. The men who were chosen to be witnesses were ordinary people, for the majority were fishermen. When Jesus ascended into Heaven and the Holy Spirit came upon them they finally had the courage to go and speak and spread the Good News. As a further witness that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, we only have to look at His life. He did not have sexual liaisons with the wives of other men, and in fact he spoke against such behaviour. This was something condoned by Joseph Smith. He did not marry but remained in the pure state. He did the Will of the Father, and He laid down His Life so that we would not perish for our sins.

The behaviour of Joseph Smith with the wives of other men speaks against him, just as such behaviour speaks against Mohammed as a true prophet.

MaggieOH

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:
Tom, if Clement’s writing doesn’t convince you that he was the head of the whole church, it should at least convince you he had more than local authority. After all, he was the bishop of Rome writing to the church in Corinth, chastising them for revolting against their priests. Here you have a very early example of the bishop of Rome exercising his authority over the church in another location.

TOm:

Specifically in response to the assertion that Clement was exercising more than local authority by exhorting Corinth to behave better, I suggest that Ignatius councils more churches than did Clement. In fact Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch writes to the Church of Rome. He tells them that he is not delivering commandments to them as if he was an Apostle. This would be a peculiar clarification if Ignatius recognized the Bishop of Rome as the Pope.

It is beyond dispute that Clement and Ignatius are willing to council churches other than Rome or Antioch. It also seems that Clement does not think this is to be thought of as a one way (not one way in that it is not to be thought unacceptable that others council Clement). The title of Chapter 56 is, “Let us admonish and correct one another.”

I deal with a few other things that Clement (and Ignatius) say that are inconsistent with the belief that Clement is the head of the church in the link I posted above.

As I said before, it is obvious that the authority of the Pope developed. Were Clement’s epistle to stand by itself, I would not have any idea that through him would develop the Papacy. That the Papacy developed through Clement gives us some reason to search for his exercise of authority. Some can be found, but the majority of what we have is either neutral or suggestive of no global authority. Some scholars have sited the virtue of humility to explain this, but again that is only necessary if you assume what developed existed.

Chris-WA:
In fact, Clement gives us some of the earliest evidence for the idea of Apostolic sucession passing through the office of bishop. I quote from Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written around A.D. 80)

Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry…

So you’re saying that Clement was wrong about succession as he stated above.

TOm:

No. I am saying that the Apostles ordained Bishops. I am saying that the Bishops did not have global authority over the entire church. Peter is at the head of the chain of Bishops for at least two churches. I suggest Clement spoke well of the Apostles ordaining Bishops and the Bishops ordaining new Bishops. I just say that until Irenaeus there was no evidence that the Peterine authority was present in the Roman Bishop (and not in the other Bishops with Peter at the head of their ordination chain either). Shortly after Irenaeus began to use Peterine authority to claim special importance for the Roman Bishop, Tertullian called this usurpation. I agree with Tertullian who was a contemporary witness and most like was a number of years from his Montanist departure.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:
What is your evidence, and what heretical beliefs are you talking about?

TOm:

I will list a few.

• Creation ex Nihilo is a 2nd century invention. It is embraced by all of Christianity (except LDS). Justin Martyr very clearly states that he believes in Creation ex Materia (and that he believes this is what Moses taught).
• Baptism by those without proper authority was a 3rd century change. St Cyprian defended (and two African local councils affirmed) the necessity of proper authority and beliefs for baptism, but St. Stephen won this discussion and no longer must one have a priesthood to baptize. In fact some heretical beliefs are fine (but others are not). Martin Luther suggested that if St. Cyprian was correct then there was no valid Christian priesthood/baptized on the earth. How close he was to the truth.
• The lack of subordination within the Godhead is a 4th century invention (as indeed is the formulation of the Trinity, but the lack of subordination is something that was never put forth before Athanasius).
• The presently understood idea of original sin was a 5th century invention from Augustine (the Eastern Orthodox have a belief much more similar to what I would suggest is an original belief).
• The heretical-ness of the statement, “men can become gods” is a development that did not really start until after the 5th century and seemed pretty complete 50-100 years ago, but non-LDS Christianity is back tracking today. The universal-ness of deification in the early church document (becoming increasingly available) is causing folks to search for a way to right these beliefs with monotheism of the Bible. (I embrace a deification that I consider is righted with the monotheism of the Bible too).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

MaggieOH:

However, what are your qualifications to make such a claim? Can you tell me how much research or discernment took place to even allow that what took place was “supernatural”?

So far I have seen no proof at all that Joseph Smith had any visions that were of supernatural origin, unless that origin was something unholy.

TOm:

While it is much easier showing that Oat Soda’s Clement test invalidates Catholicism than it is addressing these things, I will try to address these.

First, I will suggest that you are free to throw a few possibilities against the wall and see what sticks. I am not sure if this is what you are doing, but your post wanders around and I am a little confused at exactly where you are going. Are you saying:

• 1. Naturalistic explanations are the best read of the data. There is nothing so extraordinary that we must look to the supernatural to explain it.
• 1. Supernatural and unholy explanations are the best read of the data because it is extraordinary, but also quite evil and “unholy” or at least ultimately evil/unholy.
• 1. I really do not concern myself with the question of does the data point to supernatural or natural sources, but I know that it is either an evil man or an evil entity who inspired the CoJCoLDS.

I will try to address all three of these and allow you to explain to me what you think is worth further consideration.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

1. I suggest that the journey of Lehi in the old world is amazing. There are 81 points of contact beginning in Jerusalem and journeying to the ocean. Included is a turn at Nahom which has been identified through archeological evidence (there are some disputes about this). There are evidences of ancient Hebrew poetry structures in the BOM. There are a number of multi-component agreements in the BOM and the Mesoamerican history (see post #100). There have been “problems” highlighted by critics that have become evidences as more research has been done (in some cases by non-LDS researchers). Examples are “born in Jerusalem,” Christian teachings in a culture stemming from 600BC exile from Jerusalem, cement in Mesoamerica, Alma a male name, and an oasis in the Arabian dessert.

While there are surely problems, “Where are the bodies?” I believe the problems are better accounted for with a supernatural explanation than are the evidences with a naturalistic explanation.

1. I distinguish 2 from 3 in that 2 means that the devil can create a seemingly God inspired religion to deceive people. Those who subscribed to this theory would acknowledge the stronger position of the supernatural origins based on the things I mentioned in #1, but they would suggest that the devil can create something to fool people. The problems mentioned in number one and at the beginning of this thread become of little concern because the devil could avoid such things, but the evidences are also not evidences of God but evidence of the supernatural. My response to this is that most LDS honestly seek for truth from God. We honestly desire to follow God. We have asked our Father to show us His will so that we might follow Him. If a man will not give his child a rock when asked for bread, how much more will our Father in Heaven bless us? In the end I can only say that if I am deceived, I do not know how I could have avoided it. I may only walk by the light that has been shined into my life. This is why spiritual witness is important.
2. This is intended to say that Joseph Smith and/or Mormonism is such a horror that it could not be from God. It does not matter if it is from Joseph Smith who is a bad man or from Joseph Smith who followed the devil. Joseph Smith could not be following God because of the horrible things he did. I believe this is really where you might place most of your eggs, but I cannot tell for sure. This position is flawed for a few reasons.

First, the characterization of Joseph Smith by his critics is far from unbiased. The reality of Joseph Smith’s life and character is certainly somewhere in between the man the CoJCoLDS would like to present and the man the critics would like to present.

Next, you are Catholic. The Catholic Church has had Popes that stand next to the critic’s Joseph Smith. Benidict IX and Alexander VI come immediately to mind. So while I do not look to the life of Joseph as some kind of pure Christ-like existence I also do not see him as the evil person his critics would have me see. But to be Catholic or a LDS we must recognize that authority can be passed through a bad man. So I can tell you that I do not recognize Joseph Smith as a brawling, carousing, selfish man; but we may never come to an agreement. What you must (in my opinion) agree on is that apostasy is not caused by poor behavior and character.

I will continue and address a few things in the rest of your post. Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

MaggieOH:

However, what are your qualifications to make such a claim?

There are no “plates” and the claim that they were taken…

I am not claiming that we have tapes of supernatural occurrences. I am claiming that the BOM is better explained supernaturally than naturally.

We do have the witness statements you mention. Actually the 8+3 involve about 4 families. They also maintained that they told the truth despite falling out with Joseph Smith.

Were there “verifiable” aspects of the origins of the CoJCoLDS there would be no need for faith. I have not seen evidence of this type of certainty in any religious structure so I do not expect it from the CoJCoLDS. Do you?

MaggieOH:
… been ignorant enough to be taken in by the story of how the BOM came into being. These are the people who lack discernment …

TOm:

You do realize you are calling me ignorant. You are calling millions of others ignorant. Technically ignorant is not really insulting it just refers to an absence of knowledge. I suspect you do not mean it this way, and the truth is there are many who are significantly more knowledgeable about the origins of the BOM than I suspect you are but are in fact “taken in by the story.” I guess I will need to allow you to clarify what you mean before I attempt to show that your reasoning is flawed and/or astronomically biased.

MaggieOH:
The claim for Jesus as the Messiah is a far stronger claim than that of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God… I cannot imagine Joseph Smith having the ability to turn water into wine, let alone feed 5000 with seven loaves of bread and five small pieces of fish. Then there is the testimony of the apostles, including the testimony of St. Paul. We do not rely upon the Bible alone for this testimony for there are other secular sources that support the witnesses for everything that is recorded in the Gospels, including that of the Roman Pliny and of Tacitus. The men who were chosen to be witnesses were ordinary people, for the majority were fishermen. When Jesus ascended into Heaven and the Holy Spirit came upon them they finally had the courage to go and speak and spread the Good News. As a further witness that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, we only have to look at His life. He did not have sexual liaisons with the wives of other men, and in fact he spoke against such behaviour. This was something condoned by Joseph Smith. He did not marry but remained in the pure state. He did the Will of the Father, and He laid down His Life so that we would not perish for our sins
The behaviour of Joseph Smith with the wives of other men speaks against him, just as such behaviour speaks against Mohammed as a true prophet.
The above blurb has a number of problems. Here are two.

You seem to be testing Joseph’s prophethood by the standards of Jesus’ Godhood. This is fundamentally flawed and cannot hope to provide much support for your position.

Next, there are many witnesses of supernatural things that came through Joseph Smith. Healing, communication with Jesus Christ, and a number of other things are recorded by witnesses who saw Joseph Smith doing supernatural things. The secular sources/non-believers that claim Jesus Christ existed do not claim that He was divine or preformed miracles. The secular sources/non-believers are quite willing to tell us that Joseph existed. That really is not debated. Again you are drawing unimportant lines.

Concerning sins: your assessment of history is very debatable, but we do not claim Joseph Smith was the second coming of Jesus Christ. We claim that Joseph had the authority of Peter. If you can accept that a Papal subset of the authority of Peter was passed through Benedict IX, you cannot afford to claim that Peter’s authority could not pass through Joseph because of his behavior. To do so would again undermine your belief structure.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

Tom

I have read the LDS accounts of the Apostasy. At first glance you can see that they place selected writings of the early Church fathers and us them out of context. This is what the Church has fought for 2 centuries. It is the good fight. You have to know this if you are honest with yourself. . If I were to write about your family for say. And only tell about the problems, others might think that your family is not functional. Would it be fair to write this way? This kind of writing is not truthful. It is not honest.

As Catholics we accept good and evil in our Church. We are not built on the fall of another’s Church. It is the Eucharist that I receive that teaches me such things. It is the miracle given spoken of by Jesus himself in Johns Gospel.

I have been given use of the keys. The Catholic faith is very large. It’s not about us, it’s about Jesus. What He gives to us. What he has always had with the Father.
you can read my story here if you wish
catholic-rcia.com/pages/Forgive.html

 

[oat_soda]

BTW, you are moving the goal posts. Why are we discussion the Bible and not Clement?

because the question is how can you have faith without observation? you say truth is based on faith and not observation. i don’t want to get off track with clement, i made my point that no one considered him or any other early church father mormon before joe smith.

. I believe the Bible to be God’s word, and not the totality of his word, I just suggest that what the Catholic Church left us with was sufficient.

more contradictions… why do you believe it is his word? why do you think a church in apostasy could get anything right? if they could, then why aren’t they right about the trinity? it is totally subjective and you base all of your arbitrary conclusions on the testimony of joe smith and not reason based on the historical evidence. you are living in a fantasy. one more example of where joe smith didn’t think this inconsistancy out. you can’t cover up a lie forever.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“and not the totality of his word”

What I know about Jesus is all that I need to know. I am a sinner, he saves me from sin, from my fallen self. He saves me from Satan’s lie. A lie embraced by our first parents. Through forgiveness and reconciliation he brings me home to God. He makes me right again. (pre-fall) He gives me all that he has always had with the Father as an unconditional gift. His Cross shows me my sin and what it does. How it has brought death to the whole human race. To me. We do all die, right? He took on the entire world’s sins, pain and suffering to show me this. By placing Christ above all things, because he is all things, I can come into a relationship with Him and not with my own self center. My center means nothing if not engrafted to His. His center gives life. As a creature I can come to live in this life for eternity. This is a Christian’s goal, to be with God, to come into this relationship of love. Not a love as we know it here. Rather a love that is not measured as humans tend to measure it. We begin to learn about this love here on earth with our families. Through loss mostly. But families are not to be worshipped. Only God. We will find our family in Him.

What more do I need to know? Would you offer me things in heaven? Rewards? Things that might appeal to me as a mere human? If I wanted what the world had to offer me I would become a Mormon today. What was wrong with the things Satan offered Jesus in the dessert? What did Jesus say no to? And why? I said no to Mormonism because Jesus showed me who I am and how to say no. I said yes to Him because he has shown me who he is, who I am. There is a lot of peace to be found in letting Him take the lead into all things that matter.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“you are living in a fantasy”

When you can come to realize this Tom, you can be set free. What you will find is a tremendous amount of very large Christian doors. When you begin to open them you will fall to your knees and cry out, thank you!!! You will feel as if you just won the lottery, but could care less about the money. This Church, with its good and its bad is so awesome. So many stories and lives given up to Christ. You have been taken away by others that are mostly innocent. Maybe it’s time to just let go, attend a Mass, and attend Classes. I am saying this with the love of God. Just a fallen soul that was found. But if you do, you will have to embrace the Cross. It will be the only thing that will keep you looking towards Christ when many others will tell you to turn away.

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

I have read the LDS accounts of the Apostasy. At first glance you can see that they place selected writings of the early Church fathers and us them out of context. …This kind of writing is not truthful. It is not honest.

TOm:

I am not sure the “accounts” of which you speak. Talmage’s is good, but James Barker is better. I believe they both err in suggesting that Popes like Benidict IX indicate apostasy case closed.

How can you say I pulled selective quotes? If there was an apostasy and if we must look for truth among the earliest writings, I suggest the apostasy paradigm I have presented draws from many more early writings than does the Catholic defense of the Papacy. It is people like Oat Soda who claim Clement was a Catholic who have uncritically examined the evidence. He admitted to have not read what Clement wrote, but to only follow the consensus that Clement was Catholic. His test was flawed. Your assertion that I pull quotes neglecting of the totality of evidence is likewise unfounded and unsubstantiated.

If as I propose no global authority was passed to Linus, Cletus, and Clement, if as I propose doctrinal errors began to be part of the church when local authorities tried to define global issues, and if as I propose the global authority was 195AD invention that ultimately took many years and never became the same authority Peter had (despite being totally based upon the authority Peter had); the totality of the evidence would look exactly as it does. You may claim I am selectively attacking your religion with this, but I have yet to see it demonstrated.

What I have suggested is that when MaggieOH points to the possible failings of Joseph Smith she is selectively looking at the life of the man. For a Catholic to do this they open themselves to a highlighting of the sins of Benidict IX. I have not delineated his sins and do not intend to, because I claim it is not necessarily relevant. I just respond when folks “only tell of the problems” with my family.

catholic-rcia:

As Catholics we accept good and evil in our Church. We are not built on the fall of another’s Church.

TOm:

I agree with you that the Catholics must accept the good and evil in their church. LDS must do the same.
The Catholic Church is built upon the fall of the Jewish religion. Ciaphus was the high priest, but Jesus did not submit to his authority. If you are God’s church you are the restoration of the first temple cult Judaism. Evidence would suggest that the Early Church was just this, but that the modern Catholic Church is not. Rather the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of the Early Church (which was a restoration of the 1st Temple Cult).
Now, I agree that for those who embrace Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church is the default winner. You can trace your authority back to Christ. For this reason I feel a logical demonstration of the apostasy is important. In doing this I must address the authority claims of the Catholic Church. One could call this attacking. However, it is telling when Catholic priest feel they must attack the CoJCoLDS. Your position does not necessitate this, but still it is done. And I merely point out the Oat Soda and MaggieOH attack with weapons that decimate the Catholic Church.

catholic-rcia:

I have been given use of the keys. The Catholic faith is very large. It’s not about us, it’s about Jesus. What He gives to us. What he has always had with the Father. you can read my story here if you wish

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Forgive.html

TOm:

I have never dealt with the things you have dealt with. I pray that I will be spared certain horrors, but I always close with, “but thy will be done.” If I am on a damning path and horrors are the only way to correct my travels, I pray that it is exactly those horrors that enter my life. This is but a small moment in our eternity. There is no suffering in this life not worth returning to God in the next. May God give to all us exactly those experiences that lead us back to him.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

because the question is how can you have faith without observation? you say truth is based on faith and not observation.

I have not said that we should have faith without observation. I said that we must make the final leap of faith because observation will not bring us to perfect alignment with God. Faith is critical. I say the leap of faith to believe in the CoJCoLDS after examining all the evidence is much easier than is the leap of faith to the Catholic Church. I am sure you disagree, but you have yet to demonstrate that you have even tried to engage what I have written nor that you have studied your faith with the type of skepticism you expect me to apply to mine. I have made this attempt including reading Clement of Rome. You should stop suggesting that it is I who do not make observations because you demonstrate that it is you.
oat soda:

i don’t want to get off track with clement, i made my point that no one considered him or any other early church father mormon before joe smith.

You made a flawed point that I could not find LDS doctrine in Clement when you cannot find Catholic doctrine in Clement either. I demonstrated that Clement was more supportive of the CoJCoLDS than of the Catholic Church, but you have chosen to abandon you initial test. I can only assume this is because you recognize it was flawed but will not acknowledge this.
oat soda:

why do you believe it is his word? why do you think a church in apostasy could get anything right? if they could, then why aren’t they right about the trinity? it is totally subjective and you base all of your arbitrary conclusions on the testimony of joe smith and not reason based on the historical evidence. you are living in a fantasy. one more example of where joe smith didn’t think this inconsistancy out. you can’t cover up a lie forever.

TOm:

There are two reasons I embrace the Bible as the word of God. One of them is the direct parallel to what you would say. I embrace the Bible as the word of God based on the authority of the CoJCoLDS.

Second, I embrace the Bible as the word of God because of what it does Spiritually and Temporally.

These is the same reasons I embrace the BOM as the word of God. The BOM in addition to this has a supernatural evidences and problems. On the whole, I see the supernatural explanation for the BOM to be much stronger.

So I have shown historical evidences. I have mentioned other indicators that are difficult or impossible to explain with the non-supernatural explanation. You on the other hand do not deal with these things but instead say I have not pointed to any.

I do not mean to focus unduly on what I think are methodological errors, blatant ignoring, and other glaring flaws in how you are dealing with me; but it would be unfair for you to expect me not to point to these. You have set up tests your own religion fails. You have claimed I don’t make observations when it is you who suggest you do not need to read the words of the ECF. You have ignored observations I have made.
The Catholic Church is wonderful and it can serve you well as you move towards God. I hope she serves you well.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

because the question is how can you have faith without observation? you say truth is based on faith and not observation.

I have not said that we should have faith without observation. I said that we must make the final leap of faith because observation will not bring us to perfect alignment with God. Faith is critical. I say the leap of faith to believe in the CoJCoLDS after examining all the evidence is much easier than is the leap of faith to the Catholic Church. I am sure you disagree, but you have yet to demonstrate that you have even tried to engage what I have written nor that you have studied your faith with the type of skepticism you expect me to apply to mine. I have made this attempt including reading Clement of Rome. You should stop suggesting that it is I who do not make observations because you demonstrate that it is you.
oat soda:

i don’t want to get off track with clement, i made my point that no one considered him or any other early church father mormon before joe smith.

You made a flawed point that I could not find LDS doctrine in Clement when you cannot find Catholic doctrine in Clement either. I demonstrated that Clement was more supportive of the CoJCoLDS than of the Catholic Church, but you have chosen to abandon you initial test. I can only assume this is because you recognize it was flawed but will not acknowledge this.
oat soda:

why do you believe it is his word? why do you think a church in apostasy could get anything right? if they could, then why aren’t they right about the trinity? it is totally subjective and you base all of your arbitrary conclusions on the testimony of joe smith and not reason based on the historical evidence. you are living in a fantasy. one more example of where joe smith didn’t think this inconsistancy out. you can’t cover up a lie forever.

TOm:

There are two reasons I embrace the Bible as the word of God. One of them is the direct parallel to what you would say. I embrace the Bible as the word of God based on the authority of the CoJCoLDS.

Second, I embrace the Bible as the word of God because of what it does Spiritually and Temporally.

These is the same reasons I embrace the BOM as the word of God. The BOM in addition to this has a supernatural evidences and problems. On the whole, I see the supernatural explanation for the BOM to be much stronger.

So I have shown historical evidences. I have mentioned other indicators that are difficult or impossible to explain with the non-supernatural explanation. You on the other hand do not deal with these things but instead say I have not pointed to any.

I do not mean to focus unduly on what I think are methodological errors, blatant ignoring, and other glaring flaws in how you are dealing with me; but it would be unfair for you to expect me not to point to these. You have set up tests your own religion fails. You have claimed I don’t make observations when it is you who suggest you do not need to read the words of the ECF. You have ignored observations I have made. The Catholic Church is wonderful and it can serve you well as you move towards God. I hope she does serve you well.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“and not the totality of his word”

What I know about Jesus is all that I need to know. I am a sinner, he saves me from sin, from my fallen self. He saves me from Satan’s lie. A lie embraced by our first parents. Through forgiveness and reconciliation he brings me home to God. He makes me right again. (pre-fall) He gives me all that he has always had with the Father as an unconditional gift. His Cross shows me my sin and what it does. How it has brought death to the whole human race. To me. We do all die, right? He took on the entire world’s sins, pain and suffering to show me this. By placing Christ above all things, because he is all things, I can come into a relationship with Him and not with my own self center. My center means nothing if not engrafted to His. His center gives life. As a creature I can come to live in this life for eternity. This is a Christian’s goal, to be with God, to come into this relationship of love. Not a love as we know it here. Rather a love that is not measured as humans tend to measure it. We begin to learn about this love here on earth with our families. Through loss mostly. But families are not to be worshipped. Only God. We will find our family in Him.

What more do I need to know? Would you offer me things in heaven? Rewards? Things that might appeal to me as a mere human? If I wanted what the world had to offer me I would become a Mormon today. What was wrong with the things Satan offered Jesus in the dessert? What did Jesus say no to? And why? I said no to Mormonism because Jesus showed me who I am and how to say no. I said yes to Him because he has shown me who he is, who I am. There is a lot of peace to be found in letting Him take the lead into all things that matter.

There is much beautiful that you have written. There is much with which I would completely agree.

I am a theist first. I have experienced the divine. I see reasons in science to postulate the divine.

I am a Christian second. My experience of my inner life tells me that I need a Christ. The sins I have been saved from (temporally) tell me there is a Christ. Christ as described in the Bible, BOM, and by LDS and non-LDS writers is very consistent with the divine that I have experienced in my life.

I am a LDS third. I believe that God established an earthly organization to lead us back to Him. I believe it was once the 1st Temple Cult of Judaism. I believe it was once the early Church. I believe it is today the CoJCoLDS. The history of God’s dealing with humans is one of His call our answer and then our falling away. Most clear are the above, Adam/Eve, pre-Noah, and perhaps others. To suggest it cannot happen is to ignore that it has.

I am not sure why being a Mormon is embracing what the world has to offer in your opinion. I do know that being a LDS is glorious. But, I would gladly give it up were I to believe that was God’s will. Being a Catholic and believing in the “real presence” is likewise glorious. I wish I could embrace that, but I do not see the Catholic position as the strongest read of logical or spiritual evidence.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“you are living in a fantasy”
When you can come to realize this Tom, you can be set free. What you will find is a tremendous amount of very large Christian doors. When you begin to open them you will fall to your knees and cry out, thank you!!! You will feel as if you just won the lottery, but could care less about the money. This Church, with its good and its bad is so awesome. So many stories and lives given up to Christ. You have been taken away by others that are mostly innocent. Maybe it’s time to just let go, attend a Mass, and attend Classes. I am saying this with the love of God. Just a fallen soul that was found. But if you do, you will have to embrace the Cross. It will be the only thing that will keep you looking towards Christ when many others will tell you to turn away.

I believe you sincerely believe that you have truths I need. I respect the fact that you love me enough to tell me so. I cannot walk by your light. I can only walk by the light I perceive is shining from Christ. Only Christ can lead me to Christ. You may help, but ultimately it is between Him and me.

I had read your story a long time ago (at least I remember the garden and the grandfather who was “not good enough” from somewhere). I have read a number of exit form Mormonism stories. When these stories tell of a beautiful release from the legalism of trying to earn ones salvation I have very mixed feelings. On the one had I think it is glorious that these ex-Mormons finally know that it is only through Christ and not their own efforts that they can return to God. I believe this is a lesson we must all learn experientially not just intellectually. On the other hand, I am saddened because this is the message I learned within the CoJCoLDS. Why did the realization of this truth result in their departure from the Church.

It is one of the things I consider important for me in my ministry to help LDS realize that we are saved by Grace through faith and works. I embrace the Catholic concept of imputed righteousness almost to the tee. I do not embrace a Calvinistic predestination and I emphasized choosing to subordinate ones will to the will of God, but it is He who saves. I am convinced my beliefs are solidly within the spectrum of Catholic beliefs.

Charity, TOm