The Great Apostasy Debate

[tkdnick]

princejeremy_17:

we also know that baptism was not effected to infants. nowhere in the bible does it talk about baptizing infants nor does it say that jesus christ was sprinkled by water at his baptizm.

But because of no revelation, things were changed.

Peter died in 64 A.D and the christians didn’t take on the name of catholic until 311 A.D. The first “Father” was constatine who adapted roman pagan ideas. He wasn’t even baptized but he made himself the head of the church…

Boy have you got some facts wrong. First off, you don’t KNOW that baptism wasn’t done for infants. There are several mentions of baptizing of entire households, which presumably would include infants. Also, Paul makes a very strong relation between baptism and circumcision. Circumcision ocurred on the 8th day after a child was born. So it can be postulated that infants were baptized on the 8th day. (Note I said postulated, not for sure) Yes, it does not say Jesus was sprinkled with water, but it doesn’t say that people were completely immersed in water either. That can be inferred from the account of Jesus’ baptism, but it doesn’t say specifically that His baptism was a full immmersion.

Second, Constantine WAS NOT the first “father” of The Church. He was converted to Christianity and helped to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, but he was a Roman Emporer, NOT an official of The Church. The first “father” of The Church was Peter.

Thirdly, we do still have revelation. We have the Divine Revelation handed down through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of The Church. True, we believe public revelation ceased with the end of the book of Revelation, but we also acknowledge private revelation, which can help us to live our lives in a more holy way or better explain those things that were publically revealed.

You are correct that the term “catholic” was not used until the 3rd or 4th century, but even then it was used as an adjective to describe The Church, NOT to name it. Catholic means “universal” or more literally “of the whole”. So when the term catholic was applied to The Church, it was in reference to the fact that The Church was a universal church.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Can God create a rock that is so massive noone can move it not even Him?

Having created said rock, can God then move it.

Boy did that confuse me! I believe that there is NOTHING God cannot do. That’s my belief and obviously there are those who believe differently, but that is my belief.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Lastly, I wish to mention that most of the more difficult developments that our critics would like for us to take ownership for are not developments of binding doctrine. Nothing in our scriptures suggests that God was once a man. The acceptance by common consent and then canonization is our ultimate seal of truth. It is not infallible, but it is the closest we have. God being once a man does not meet this criterion nor do most of the more troubling (or poorer understood) past teachings of the church.

I will grant you this statement, but you must also grant the same for ECFs when you’re proving your points. The ECFs were not infallible and their teachings/speculation are not binding doctrine (unless of course The Church has made them so).

 

[Tmaque]

tkdnick:

Boy have you got some facts wrong. First off, you don’t KNOW that baptism wasn’t done for infants. There are several mentions of baptizing of entire households, which presumably would include infants. Also, Paul makes a very strong relation between baptism and circumcision. Circumcision ocurred on the 8th day after a child was born. So it can be postulated that infants were baptized on the 8th day. (Note I said postulated, not for sure) Yes, it does not say Jesus was sprinkled with water, but it doesn’t say that people were completely immersed in water either. That can be inferred from the account of Jesus’ baptism, but it doesn’t say specifically that His baptism was a full immmersion.

Second, Constantine WAS NOT the first “father” of The Church. He was converted to Christianity and helped to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, but he was a Roman Emporer, NOT an official of The Church. The first “father” of The Church was Peter.

Thirdly, we do still have revelation. We have the Divine Revelation handed down through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of The Church. True, we believe public revelation ceased with the end of the book of Revelation, but we also acknowledge private revelation, which can help us to live our lives in a more holy way or better explain those things that were publically revealed.

You are correct that the term “catholic” was not used until the 3rd or 4th century, but even then it was used as an adjective to describe The Church, NOT to name it. Catholic means “universal” or more literally “of the whole”. So when the term catholic was applied to The Church, it was in reference to the fact that The Church was a universal church.

The word Catholic was first used in 110 A.D. by St Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch. In his epistle to the Symrnaens he writes: “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”(8:1 A.D. 110).

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

I absolutely agree with you. However, if that is your conviction then you are at odds with the vast majority of Mormons including most of the General Authorities and probably all, but certainly most of the past LDS Prophets. Many can be quoted on this very subject unequivocally supporting, clarifying or expounding on the doctrine. You are the first active LDS I have ever heard that view from. And, I am around LDS people every single day.

I think Pres. Hinckley should give these folks reason to pause. I would be interested in discussing this with a general authority, but alas I know none.
Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

The word Catholic was first used in 110 A.D. by St Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch. In his epistle to the Symrnaens he writes: “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”(8:1 A.D. 110).

I thought this quote was from the 300s…Ooops! Gee, I think having it been first quoted in 110 makes our case a little stronger since most agree that John died somewhere around 100. That means that within 10-20 years people were calling The Church catholic.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I think Pres. Hinckley should give these folks reason to pause. I would be interested in discussing this with a general authority, but alas I know none.
Charity, TOm

There isn’t any way for you to discuss this? Are they not accessible? I mean obviously I wouldn’t expect that you could just drive down to headquarters and sit down with one of them, but I would think you could write a letter and at least get a response.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I will grant you this statement, but you must also grant the same for ECFs when you’re proving your points. The ECFs were not infallible and their teachings/speculation are not binding doctrine (unless of course The Church has made them so).

I do grant the ECF such things.

I have read Cardinal Newman’s book An Essay on the Development of Christian doctrine. The preservation of Tradition is not as simple as many Catholic’s think it is, but Newman’s view is reasonable.

I point to the writings of the ECF to show that LDS doctrine is there and that in many instances developments moved the Early Church away from LDS doctrine.

I do point out flaws in things like the “Clement Test” that was suggested by a Catholic, but that does not mean the “Newman Test” is not a good read on the data.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I have read Cardinal Newman’s book An Essay on the Development of Christian doctrine. The preservation of Tradition is not as simple as many Catholic’s think it is, but Newman’s view is reasonable.

I haven’t read that book. Maybe I’ll have to grab it and check it out.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

I do not dispute that many LDS hold this belief.

I have been a member for 10 years and I have not heard much about it in Church. I have however not made it through a month on the internet without having a non-LDS remind me of it. This is fine, but I do not think this is quite as central to our theology as many would like to suggest it is. I spoke with a 60 something lifetime member and he agreed we do not know much about it. I do not doubt that you thought you knew a lot about it, but since you believe it is untrue I hardly think I need to place much weight upon what you thought you knew (that shouldn’t sound ugly just reasonable).

The only time I ever remember it being mentioned in church was when I taught a lesson to the young men (about 2 years ago) with the Bishop and the former Bishop (current YM’s president) present. I brought up the Snow couplet in connection with 2 Cor 8:9 and said that whatever the Snow couplet does mean we know Jesus Christ was once a man and this is certainly true. That was all that was said.

Now, LDS believe in continued revelation. We do not believe in a Newman understood preservation of Tradition. That being said, I can show many developments within the Catholic Church. I think it best that we allow our traditions to develop. When the Catholic Church develops toward the CoJCoLDS I will rejoice for you (and you did at Vatican II concerning a number of things most interestingly Extreme Unction). When the CoJCoLDS develops toward the Catholic Church you can rejoice for me.

An exception to this would be things such as extending the priesthood to woman. This could be done in the CoJCoLDS, but if it were done in the Catholic Church it would mean that Tradition had not been preserved and infallibility was not a true doctrine.

Lastly, I wish to mention that most of the more difficult developments that our critics would like for us to take ownership for are not developments of binding doctrine. Nothing in our scriptures suggests that God was once a man. The acceptance by common consent and then canonization is our ultimate seal of truth. It is not infallible, but it is the closest we have. God being once a man does not meet this criterion nor do most of the more troubling (or poorer understood) past teachings of the church.

Charity, TOm

When Lorenzo Snow “coined his couplet” he was not referring to Jesus Christ. He was referring to God the Father. Indeed, Mormons do not refer to Jesus as God. If you ask a Mormon if Jesus is God they will say “No, he is A God, but he is not OUR God. We do not pray to Jesus, we do not worship Jesus. We worship God.”

In my office there are 2 active Catholics, 2 inactive Catholics, 1 inactive Episcopalian, 1 semi-active Methodist and 6 active Mormons. I just went around and asked this question to each LDS and they all said basically the same thing. Jesus is not God, he is A God. I know my Mother and siblings believe this same thing because I had a discussion with my Mother about “eternal progression” just last Friday. Now, maybe these Mormons are the exception. I sincerely doubt that however. To say that Lorenzo Snow was refering to Jesus is at odds with the common active LDS belief.

The simple, common truth is that it has been, since Joseph Smith, LDS doctrine that we can become Gods because God the Father was just like us and he became a God. He was our example. He didn’t become part of God, he didn’t share in God’s power, he didn’t become a God with God. He became a God with his own omnipotence, his own world, his own spirit children. Just like a when became a father to my own children. I didn’t “share” in my fatherhood with my father. I was a child, I became an adult with my father’s help. Now, I am a father all by myself. That is the common understanding. If you are hearing something else it’s because there is now a backing away from the doctrine in some circles because it is unpalatable.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

There isn’t any way for you to discuss this? Are they not accessible? I mean obviously I wouldn’t expect that you could just drive down to headquarters and sit down with one of them, but I would think you could write a letter and at least get a response.

I can look into this. I am not near so concerned as it seems you think I should be. I think I will start with my former Bishop and see what he thinks.

I have sent an email to the curriculum development group and received a response (concerning a different matter), but that seemed like a very important issue.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I haven’t read that book. Maybe I’ll have to grab it and check it out.

Here is a link to the complete text.
Charity, TOm

 

[Exporter]

TomNossor,

You gave 7 or 8 different concepts of God, at least 6 of them are not Catholic. Since you have been discussing Catholic topics I thought you were going to tell us what the Holy Trinity is in Catholic terms.

But thanks for your effort.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

When Lorenzo Snow “coined his couplet” he was not referring to Jesus Christ. He was referring to God the Father. Indeed, Mormons do not refer to Jesus as God. If you ask a Mormon if Jesus is God they will say “No, he is A God, but he is not OUR God. We do not pray to Jesus, we do not worship Jesus. We worship God.”

I have little doubt that Lorenzo Snow was not referring to Jesus Christ. I am merely saying that his statement is clearly true as it relates to Jesus Christ who you and I would call God. Blake Ostler suggests that God the Father could have had a mortality in the same way that Jesus Christ did and He would still be the same “infinite and eternal unchanging God.” I know there are other possibilities, but D&C 20 is binding LDS doctrine and Snow’s couplet is not.

Within the framework of the Social Trinity, I do not think the term “a God” is inappropriate. I do not use this construction, Plantinga does not use this construction, but the unity postulated by the Social Trinity is compatible with this construction.

Tmaque:

In my office there are 2 active Catholics, 2 inactive Catholics, 1 inactive Episcopalian, 1 semi-active Methodist and 6 active Mormons. I just went around and asked this question to each LDS and they all said basically the same thing. Jesus is not God, he is A God. I know my Mother and siblings believe this same thing because I had a discussion with my Mother about “eternal progression” just last Friday. Now, maybe these Mormons are the exception. I sincerely doubt that however. To say that Lorenzo Snow was refering to Jesus is at odds with the common active LDS belief.

Your office is not near so cool as mine. I have a wonderful conservative Catholic lady next door, a very nice very liberal Catholic diagonally across from me (he attends mass at my childhood parish), and a nice but eccentric SSPX Catholic just beyond him (it is good I can look past this mess and still see value in the Catholic Church).

I am not suggesting that Lorenzo Snow referred to Jesus. Nor am I suggesting that this is a common belief among LDS. I am stating that D&C 20 is binding LDS doctrine. Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is not.

In about 340AD there was a very passionate fellow who suffered much persecution. He was part of a church were virtually every bishop (very possibly every bishop) had embraced Arianism, but he would not. His name was Athanasius. Athanasuis made some wonderful brotherhood statements concerning his semi-Arian brothers, but he did hold dogmatically to his view. I embrace my LDS brothers and sisters. Unlike what history tells us of Athanasius I do not know the line between truth and error so clearly. What I do know is that binding LDS doctrine is contained in the scriptures that have been accepted by common consent. What I do know is that whatever truth is contained in the Snow couplet must align with D&C 20. And I also know that I embrace those six fellows in your office as my brothers (as I embrace you as well, but they are active faithful LDS brothers and brothers in Christ you are only the more important of these two).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

The simple, common truth is that it has been, since Joseph Smith, LDS doctrine that we can become Gods because God the Father was just like us and he became a God. He was our example. He didn’t become part of God, he didn’t share in God’s power, he didn’t become a God with God. He became a God with his own omnipotence, his own world, his own spirit children. Just like a when became a father to my own children. I didn’t “share” in my fatherhood with my father. I was a child, I became an adult with my father’s help. Now, I am a father all by myself. That is the common understanding. If you are hearing something else it’s because there is now a backing away from the doctrine in some circles because it is unpalatable.

There was a time when it looked like the Catholic Church might declare Darwin and evolution as heretical through an infallible act. This did not happen. There was a time when it looked like the First Presidency of the CoJCoLDS would declare evolution incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ. This did not happen.

The way of formulating deification as you have formulated it has likewise not been elevated to binding LDS doctrine. When Jordan Vajda a Catholic priest (now former) looked into LDS deification he did not look for the more heretical ways of formulating it. He looked at the more scriptural ways of formulating it and related that to LDS thought. His conclusion was that LDS thought was very similar to ECF thought.

Unlike the Catholic Church we are not constrained by the uncanonized traditional views of the past. We accept things by common consent, canonize them, and they become binding LDS doctrine. We follow the modern prophet and find place for his authoritative interpretation. I am not scandalized by the prevalence of thinking that does not match mine in the earlier years of the CoJCoLDS.

I am well aware that many members and perhaps many past leaders have formulated deification within their minds as you have suggested it is done. LDS have had very few theologians and seldom has there been a leader with formal theological training. This combined with our emphasis upon orthopraxy rather than orthodox allows for a fairly large range of ideas. The Catholic Church is not strictly free from this, but you do do much better. Surely you would not be surprised to find that many little old ladies in Italy worship (latria) the Catholic Saints. My father about 2 years ago tried to describe his ideas concerning the Trinity, but he was incorrect in that he erred toward modalism. Few Catholics and few LDS can express their faith in precise theological terms. I do not think this should be a reason to condemn either of our faiths.

I am the world authority on what I believe. If you think my beliefs are Catholic enough, then perhaps you would like to help me softly and kindly show LDS who are not Catholic enough a more correct way of looking at things. Where I Catholic I would not think that TOm is Catholic enough and I suspect you do not either, but I present what I believe to be true and the best read of LDS doctrine.

So you may see me move from what is unpalatable, but I see that what you call unpalatable has never been accepted and made binding LDS doctrine. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Harold B. Lee, and other leaders have framed how doctrines become binding. This framing was not a process that took 1800 years, but was in place in the first couple of decades. I think the fact that the more difficult (or poorer understood) doctrines were never made binding is a very minor piece of evidence in favor of the CoJCoLDS. I think the fact that the CoJCoLDS from the beginning provided for fallible leaders also is a piece of evidence in favor of the CoJCoLDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Exporter:

TomNossor,

You gave 7 or 8 different concepts of God, at least 6 of them are not Catholic. Since you have been discussing Catholic topics I thought you were going to tell us what the Holy Trinity is in Catholic terms.

But thanks for your effort.

I would suggest to you that only one of the ways I mentioned was the Holy Trinity in Catholic terms. I thought I made that clear when I said, "4. Augustinian Trinitarianism: While there is some wiggle room in what a Catholic can believe about the Trinity, if I understand correctly it generally centers around this formulation of the Trinity. "
Was I not clear enough or did you not read close enough?

Also, I embrace #6 not any of the others so I am sure I am not an orthodox Catholic.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

Unlike the Catholic Church we are not constrained by the uncanonized traditional views of the past. We accept things by common consent, canonize them, and they become binding LDS doctrine. We follow the modern prophet and find place for his authoritative interpretation. I am not scandalized by the prevalence of thinking that does not match mine in the earlier years of the CoJCoLDS.

It appears to me that any doctrine of any kind can “become binding” in the CoJCoLDS only temporarily. Since everything is open to further changes through revelation no doctrine can ever really be counted on. Is there an LDS doctrine that will never change? Perhaps. But, I’m not convinced.

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

It appears to me that any doctrine of any kind can “become binding” in the CoJCoLDS only temporarily. Since everything is open to further changes through revelation no doctrine can ever really be counted on. Is there an LDS doctrine that will never change? Perhaps. But, I’m not convinced.

That Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored the Gospel. I can’t ever see that being changed.

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

Can God create a rock that is so massive noone can move it not even Him?

Having created said rock, can God then move it.

Charity, TOm

God did do that. He wouldn’t force movement but appeals to His own image in His creatures.
True Omnipotence is the ability to do what ought to ‘be’ done.
That is what is Good. Evil is that which lacks good and ought not to ‘be’ and will not be once His creature that bears His image stops realizing evil as good.

 

[Tmaque]

tkdnick:

That Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored the Gospel. I can’t ever see that being changed.

As the LDS Church moves further and further from what Joseph Smith taught and practiced it wouldn’t surprise me if, at some point in the future, the common LDS consensus is that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel only in spite of his own misguided thoughts and actions. He would not be considered a great man, just a vessel that God used to do his bidding. This is just my hypothesis based on what has happened and what I see continuing to happen in the LDS Church.

It’s ironic to me that the “Restored Church” has had to evolve so much. Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon and then slowly moved away from it’s doctrines. Now, it appears, the present LDS Church is moving away from Joseph Smith and back toward the Book of Mormon doctrines.