The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

I say that Peter was the Rock. The “gates of Hades” did not “prevail” against the keys of the kingdom. But that the keys (for the headship of the church which you call papacy and I call head apostleship) were not passed on to Linus, Cletus, Clement. But instead the “prevailing” occurred when Peter passed Christ’s keys to Joseph Smith. This I believe is a very solid interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I will site two Catholics who say identical and very similar things.

Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18

“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

Instead of doing mental gymnastics to get the verse to fit your belief system, why not just take the verse at face value? Jesus established a church while on earth. He appointed Peter as the head of this new Christian church. The church exists today. Since it exists then it MUST be his church. If at some point it had ceased to exist then Jesus would have been wrong which is impossible. If there had been a total apostasy then the church he established would have failed. Jospeh Smith himself said the early church had failed when he claimed he had done what Christ was unable to do in keeping a church together. So, either Joseph Smith was wrong when he said that the early church had failed or he was wrong because the original church did not fail. Pretty simple. Your argument simply takes too much work to keep itself together.

 

[TOmNossor]

But, I am not a Catholic. I do not agree with Newman in all points. I believe as does Winter and as perhaps did Newman that “prevail” means win in the end. I believe that the CoJCoLDS is Christ Church and it is the fulfillment of the words of Jesus Christ to Peter.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tmaque]

One more thing. Jesus didn’t say “on this Rock I will build my keys to the kingdom and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them”. He said, “on this Rock I will build my **church ** and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

A church is not a key or keys. A church is a body of believers, not some mystical priesthood power. It’s not that complicated unless you’re TRYING to twist it to validate some heretical belief system.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

Instead of doing mental gymnastics to get the verse to fit your belief system, why not just take the verse at face value? Jesus established a church while on earth. He appointed Peter as the head of this new Christian church. The church exists today. Since it exists then it MUST be his church. If at some point it had ceased to exist then Jesus would have been wrong which is impossible. If there had been a total apostasy then the church he established would have failed. Jospeh Smith himself said the early church had failed when he claimed he had done what Christ was unable to do in keeping a church together. So, either Joseph Smith was wrong when he said that the early church had failed or he was wrong because the original church did not fail. Pretty simple. Your argument simply takes too much work to keep itself together.

Not one LDS agrees with your interpretation, but I have shown that two Catholics agree totally in one case and partially in another with mine. I reject your ability to define who does mental gymnastics. I point to two folks who speak against their BIAS. That you cannot speak against yours or I mine puts us at an impasse, but these folks spoke against what they would like to have seen in the Bible and history. They explained what they truly saw, then they explained why the believe as you believe anyway. I say what they truly saw is real and since they spoke against their BIAS we cannot say they are doing “mental gymnastics.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

One more thing. Jesus didn’t say “on this Rock I will build my keys to the kingdom and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them”. He said, “on this Rock I will build my **church **and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

A church is not a key or keys. A church is a body of believers, not some mystical priesthood power. It’s not that complicated unless you’re TRYING to twist it to validate some heretical belief system.

If you are Catholic you recognize the unity of the Church is associated with the authority from Christ. If you are Protestant than your words are in accordance with Protestant beliefs. I have very similar reasons to Catholics for rejecting Protestant non-authority authority. I hope you do not wish for me to discuss this. If you are a Protestant than just put forth in the Apologetic forum that key or keys are not important and a couple of dozen Catholics will discuss this issue with you.
Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

Tom Nossor, of course the mispelling of mormon as moron was a typo, it was very late when I typed in that post … my apologies.

Now to the matter of “authoritative” Catholic Baptisms, while it is true that in very rare instances (danger of death) the Catholic Church does allow anyone to baptise, they are still authorised by the CC to baptise. It is more important to the CC in case of death being near that the individual be baptised, sometimes a Priest or Deacon is not available, however if the person baptised does survive s/he is expected to be taken to church for the rest of the ceremonies of baptism to be supplied. This is the ONLY case of baptism by others than Priests or Deacons that is allowed in the CC, there are no others.

As to the instance on God being always God, you prevaricate Sir. I am sure that you are familiar with the Mormon saying:

“As man is now God once was, As God is now man may become”.
Which was made by Brigham Young, a mormon “prophet”, and is official mormon doctrine.

Why the need to deny to teaching of your own church, if not to attempt to decieve Christians into thinking that your cult is Christian and assist in the proseletyzing efforts of the “elders”.? In fact that is my largest complaint about mormons, their hiding and lieing about thier beleifs until after the mormon baptism, when they make it very difficult to escape, either by a humiliating Bishop’s court, or by resisting name removal.

 

[boppysbud]

The mormons use very deceptive tactics, for example in their twelve articles of faith they use many of the same words and phrases as do Christians, but endow them with extremely different meanings.

No-where do the Articles state that “god, heavenly father” is only one of many “gods” in the vast mormon pantheon.

No-where do they state that they believe that “god” is our literal “father” having conceived our “pre-existent souls” by sexual intercourse with one of “god’s wives”.

No-where do the articles reveal that the mormon “jesus” is the brother of lucifer, concieved by sexual intercourse between “heavenly father” and Mary (not a VIRGIN).

No-where do the articles speak of the mormon “jesus” being “jehovah” instead of God the Father.

No-where is it mentioned in the articles or the “elders” lessons is it mentioned that the mormon “jesus” paid for our sins, not on the cross of Calvary, but instead in the Garden of Gethsemene.

No where is it mentioned that the mormon definintion of Atonement involves ressurection only.

No where is it mentioned that the mormon “jesus” was unable to make satisfaction for all of our sins, but that some sins are so bad that they must be made up for by the sinner shedding his own blood “blood atonement” taught by Brigham Young.

There are many more but I think everyone gets the idea.

Mormons are not Christians.

 

[boppysbud]

So Tom, what you are dealing with here is not a cradle Catholic who knows little of Mormonism (the real mormonism not the sanitised for proseltyzing version).

I actually became a Mormon myself for a while, but the longer I was in the more I found out about the “unusual” teachings of mormonism that are hid until you are already in.

And no, I am not an “anti” just an ex. The facts about mormon belief were not garnered from “anti” web sites or publications, but from official mormon documents and publications and from personal experience.

 

[TOmNossor]

I wrote the below before Boppysbud posted his last three posts. I will see if I have something to say to him or not in a minute.

I am going to wait on my #1 till tomorrow (it is already on my hard-drive ready though).

I want to clarify (more) why I say what I say.

I do not believe there is no salvation outside the CoJCoLDS so I do not fear for the sole of the faithful active Catholic who has never felt the need to question his faith and/or explore the CoJCoLDS. While I believe the fullness of the gospel is contained within the CoJCoLDS, I do not reject the salvic efficacy of the gospel as contained in the Catholic Church. (I am not a Catholic who never felt the need to investigate the CoJCoLDS).

One of the first times I posted some of these ideas, I actually wrote a Catholic response to myself. I BIASEDLY or arrogantly thought that these ideas were very damning to the Catholic Church and I do not want to shake folks unduly.

I have come to realize that try as I might I either see things differently or I cannot get beyond my BIAS. I believe Tom Govern when he said that he thought that Clements epistle was clearly authoritative. When I read Clements epistle I was hit by this thought, “This guy has no idea he is the Pope.” Is it BIAS? Is it a different way of looking at things? I do not know for sure, but it is very real and I respect it.

I no longer fear that I will shake Catholics radically with my words.

My purpose is that I think it is both a demonstration of lack of information and uncharitable to suggest that one who is or becomes a LDS takes leave of their senses. I do not know if I would have been able to embrace the ideas that came through Joseph Smith’s were I alive in the 1830’s. But I find a tremendous amount of reasons to embrace the ideas and what I believe to be Christ’s church today. When I see folks suggest that to be a LDS is to be ignorant of facts or to possess deficient mental processing abilities, I know that this is not an accurate assessment.

I hope that some will recognize that while they find the case for the Catholic Church to be stronger (prolly even much stronger), the case for the CoJCoLDS is not built merely on ignorance and/or stupidity.

Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

BTW Tom, you have failed to indicate how brand new teachings invented by Joseph Smith in the 19th century can be a “restoration” of anything.

In order to be “restored” a teaching had to have existed previously, none of the unique mormon teachings (multiple “gods”, “god” with a body, the mormon “jesus” and Lucifer being brothers) existed before they were invented by J.
Smith and co.

Anxiously awaiting your reply.

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

Tom Nossor, of course the mispelling of mormon as moron was a typo, it was very late when I typed in that post … my apologies.

I am glad sorry for asking.

I am glad sorry for asking.

boppysbud:

Now to the matter of “authoritative” Catholic Baptisms, while it is true that in very rare instances (danger of death) the Catholic Church does allow anyone to baptise, they are still authorised by the CC to baptise. It is more important to the CC in case of death being near that the individual be baptised, sometimes a Priest or Deacon is not available, however if the person baptised does survive s/he is expected to be taken to church for the rest of the ceremonies of baptism to be supplied. This is the ONLY case of baptism by others than Priests or Deacons that is allowed in the CC, there are no others.

I am sorry but you are mistaken. St Cyprian felt that the baptism of those who are heretics and have no authority should not be valid and re-baptism should occur. This was opposed by St. Pope Stephen. The position of the Catholic Church is that those without authority as long as they use the proper matter and form can baptize and re-baptism will not occur.

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

As to the instance on God being always God, you prevaricate Sir. I am sure that you are familiar with the Mormon saying:

“As man is now God once was, As God is now man may become”.

Which was made by Brigham Young, a mormon “prophet”, and is official mormon doctrine.

Actually the statement you quote was from Lorenzo Snow not BY. If it is important to you I will explain why this statement may or may not be truth, but is not binding LDS doctrine. The Catholic Church has popes who have taught heresy. The Catholic Church has methods by which they determine if the pope is teaching binding doctrine. So does the CoJCoLDS. The LDS methods do not raise this statement nor the KFD to binding LDS doctrine. If you send me a PersonalMessage in 2 weeks or when this thread dies down I can explain this to you.

boppysbud:
Why the need to deny to teaching of your own church, if not to attempt to decieve Christians into thinking that your cult is Christian and assist in the proseletyzing efforts of the “elders”.? In fact that is my largest complaint about mormons, their hiding and lieing about thier beleifs until after the mormon baptism, when they make it very difficult to escape, either by a humiliating Bishop’s court, or by resisting name removal.

I merely clarify to you what the truth of LDS binding doctrine is because you do not understand. Why do you feel the need to use the term “cult.” This is inflammatory and provides no support for your position.

The method to “escape” is merely sending a letter requesting name removal. You misrepresent my church in multiple ways. Have you studied under Loraine Boettner?

I have yet to read the rest of what you wrote. I will do so now. I wish to leave you with a request that you help keep this thread on topic. I wish also that you would be significantly less mocking and unkind as you “try” to speak about my church. But mostly I request you do so in another thread.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

The mormons use very deceptive tactics, for example in their twelve articles of faith they use many of the same words and phrases as do Christians, but endow them with extremely different meanings.

No-where do the Articles state that “god, heavenly father” is only one of many “gods” in the vast mormon pantheon.

No-where do they state that they believe that “god” is our literal “father” having conceived our “pre-existent souls” by sexual intercourse with one of “god’s wives”.

No-where do the articles reveal that the mormon “jesus” is the brother of lucifer, concieved by sexual intercourse between “heavenly father” and Mary (not a VIRGIN).

No-where do the articles speak of the mormon “jesus” being “jehovah” instead of God the Father.

No-where is it mentioned in the articles or the “elders” lessons is it mentioned that the mormon “jesus” paid for our sins, not on the cross of Calvary, but instead in the Garden of Gethsemene.

No where is it mentioned that the mormon definintion of Atonement involves ressurection only.

No where is it mentioned that the mormon “jesus” was unable to make satisfaction for all of our sins, but that some sins are so bad that they must be made up for by the sinner shedding his own blood “blood atonement” taught by Brigham Young.

There are many more but I think everyone gets the idea.

Mormons are not Christians.

Some of what you say is wrong and/or flawed. Much of what you say is insufficient to produce proper understanding. And all of what you say is done to make the CoJCoLDS look bad.

Again, post your own thread please. I prolly will not even have time to refute what you say. You may dance upon my religion all you like, but let me try to carry on some semblance of a scholarly discussion on the apostasy.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

TOm,

My biggest issue with most of what you write is that you seem to much to want to be able to make sense of both sides. You just can’t. You say things that I have NEVER heard any faithful member of the LDSs say and I have known many very intelligent and well informed members of that sect.

I am sure in the LDS branch or ward you attend (I am making a huge assumption here) you feel very valuable. You probably hold a calling you like, have friends that respect you, make good points in your Preisthood meeting and gospel doctrine class and feel that everything is great. Such a situation only makes it hard to really want to reason clearly on this issue. Much of what you write seems to wonder endlessly around points that you and you alone see, while the rest of us are here thinking “Gee that is convoluted reasoning.” My suspition is that until you have a reason to leave the social asspect of the LDS church you will never have a intellectual reason to.

I read this “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger” I see someone being told that they are being spoken to with authority and that the speaker is full aware of that authority. Apparently you don’t see it. But I suspect you are HIGHLY motivated not to.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

So Tom, what you are dealing with here is not a cradle Catholic who knows little of Mormonism (the real mormonism not the sanitised for proseltyzing version).

I actually became a Mormon myself for a while, but the longer I was in the more I found out about the “unusual” teachings of mormonism that are hid until you are already in.

And no, I am not an “anti” just an ex. The facts about mormon belief were not garnered from “anti” web sites or publications, but from official mormon documents and publications and from personal experience.

I have merely said you are mistaken not that you are an anti-Mormon.

Please forgive me, but this is worth saying:

You do not understand the Catholic religion with respect to authoritative baptism, despite me specifically pointed you to Cyprian vs. Stephen. I suggest that you left the CoJCoLDS with similar inadequate understanding.

I am a Cradle Catholic and I left ignorant of what my religion had to offer (so I know about this inadequate understanding). I have educated myself since then. You are free to do the same or not. I wish you good fortune and God’s light whatever you choose. But please don’t post off topic.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

BTW Tom, you have failed to indicate how brand new teachings invented by Joseph Smith in the 19th century can be a “restoration” of anything.

In order to be “restored” a teaching had to have existed previously, none of the unique mormon teachings (multiple “gods”, “god” with a body, the mormon “jesus” and Lucifer being brothers) existed before they were invented by J.
Smith and co.

Anxiously awaiting your reply.

I will get to #5 as promised. Thank you for your on topic post.
I can show were Lucifer and Jesus were called brothers by an early Christian, but that was not on my list. If you are interested you can find it yourself or ask in a few days.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

TOm,

My biggest issue with most of what you write is that you seem to much to want to be able to make sense of both sides. You just can’t. You say things that I have NEVER heard any faithful member of the LDSs say and I have known many very intelligent and well informed members of that sect.

I am sure in the LDS branch or ward you attend (I am making a huge assumption here) you feel very valuable. You probably hold a calling you like, have friends that respect you, make good points in your Preisthood meeting and gospel doctrine class and feel that everything is great. Such a situation only makes it hard to really want to reason clearly on this issue. Much of what you write seems to wonder endlessly around points that you and you alone see, while the rest of us are here thinking “Gee that is convoluted reasoning.” My suspition is that until you have a reason to leave the social asspect of the LDS church you will never have a intellectual reason to.

I read this “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger” I see someone being told that they are being spoken to with authority and that the speaker is full aware of that authority. Apparently you don’t see it. But I suspect you are HIGHLY motivated not to.

-D

I hope I really am not so convoluted, but I guess I really would not know.

I know that I am BIASED. I know that to leave would be to give up a number of things. I however know that if I was truly convinced I should that I could and would. I have wrestled with problems with the CoJCoLDS for many long hard days and weeks. I have thought about how it would be to leave. I have told God that I would do so.

I do not deceive in the least when I tell you that as I read Clement for the first time I was hit by the fact that he had no idea he was the Pope.

When I say that were I Catholic I would embrace Newman’s development, I say this because I have wrestled long and hard with what I would/should do. What you see witnessed in my posts is the result of much study and prayer.

I cannot know how much the BIAS that I am still unable to purge effects me. This once scared me to death, but I now trust that God knows me and my BIAS. I know that he loves me and wants me to be with Him for eternity. I can only walk by the light that I see. I may never now how BIASED I am, but I know I follow Him.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

TOmNossor:

I will get to #5 as promised. Thank you for your on topic post.
I can show were Lucifer and Jesus were called brothers by an early Christian, but that was not on my list. If you are interested you can find it yourself or ask in a few days.

Charity, TOm

I am sure you are getting tired or something but when I read the above the first thing that popped into my head was:

:ehh: Thank you teacher. The rest of us plebeians await your enlightening explications.

-D

 

[darcee]

TOmNossor:

I cannot know how much the BIAS that I am still unable to purge effects me. This once scared me to death, but I now trust that God knows me and my BIAS. I know that he loves me and wants me to be with Him for eternity. I can only walk by the light that I see. I may never now how BIASED I am, but I know I follow Him.

Charity, TOm

I can really identify with that. I remember being there. I remember how I basically ended up settling that God loved me and would forgive me if I was in the LDS church and was wrong. I had my mind very well trained at one point to INSTANTLY dismiss anything I read that didn’t fit within the LDS paradigm. The doubts lingered but were well submerged in the back of my mind.

I NEVER had those same issues when I converted to the Catholic Church. I never found myself having to question the teachings or the dogma. While on occasion I might question one or another practice there is not the homogenous cultural belief structure not just on dogma but on everything telling me how wrong it is to question… hold to that iron rod, sustain the priesthood thing.

Maybe being LDS for a women is even harder. When you are male you are part of God’s exalted priesthood. Even in the temple, as a women, you are taught that it is through your husband’s exaltation that you are exalted. Maybe that is why they so strongly discourage women getting their endowments until they are going on a mission or getting married. Who wants to loose future hopes and plans just because they have been completely thrown for a loop in the temple.

I have said it before, but I HOPE and PRAY that some day you find your way OUT of the LDS church.
-D

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

I am sure you are getting tired or something but when I read the above the first thing that popped into my head was:

:ehh: Thank you teacher. The rest of us plebeians await your enlightening explications.

-D

I really apologize. That is not what I intend to suggest. I am certain that many of you know much more about Catholicism than I do. Also I am certain that if there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church that all of you know the most important thing about the Catholic Church that I so totally do not: that it is the one true church.

However, I am also certain that none of you know more about what I think evidences the apostasy than I do.

I truly do want to influence those who would say, “LDS take leave of their senses,” to not do so, but perhaps if my ideas are too convoluted I will only make thing worse.

I am unable to adequately develop what I have to say all at once, and I really do want to limit the topics on the table (first to the apostasy, and then second to one or two of the points at a time).

Have you ever gone to a Protestant board to defend the Catholic Church? I have, no really me to a Protestant board defending the Catholic Church.

I however have never been the only LDS at a board with more than 5-10 active posters.

This is your thread. It would be wonderful if you asked folks to stay on topic. I am weak and I do not like to leave lies and misrepresentations completely alone.

I of necessity am the only one who can explain what I think evidences the apostasy. I am really not trying to be the superior teach educating the plebeians. I am sorry when I come across like this.

Charity, TOm