The Many Gods of Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:
So why do you abandon Catholic authority today and remain in a Church whose baptism Rome does not recognize?

I believe that while the Catholic Church presents a consistent read on history and the Bible it does not present the most compelling. I have delineated in another thread why I think the CoJCoLDS presents a better read on history and the Bible. But, the decision was far from final before I received a spiritual witness. This is a difference between Catholicism and the CoJCoLDS. The Catholic Church suggests that logic and knowledge can lead one to the Catholic Church and that this is good and well. The CoJCoLDS says that one should seek a spiritual witness because this is the only way to be sure. I am sure FOR ME due to my spiritual witness. It came after much pain and prayer, but it did come. After this the logic only got stronger (or as you would suggest I was just more confused).

Calvin:
Don’t let my agressive stance put you off – I’m a teddy bear on the inside. I just think like a lawyer!

I am good. I am always happy when I think people care enough about me that they want to save me. I am unconvinced that you need saving and so I just try to dispel misperceptions that I believe others have.

Calvin:
I am investigating Catholocism because I think Catholic history of the early Church is more accurate than the Protestant history of the early Church. Because Her history is more accurate I think “well maybe Her doctrine is more accurate as well.”

As a non-Catholic my somewhat unbiased take is that the Catholics read on history and doctrine is plausible and the Protestant read is not. I do not necessarily believe there is no salvic power within Protestantism, but I believe “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Calvin:
When I look at Mormon history, however, I get the opposite feeling. Mormon history is bogus so I feel in no way compelled to seriously consider Mormon doctrine. I wonder how someone like yourself can trust the Mormon Church when its history is so hopelessly wrong. If I told you I was a Martian and came to Earth with a message from God and you did a little research and found out I was born in California would you say “he’s a liar” or would you say “well maybe his message is true anyway”?

I believe that no group emphasizes the less faith promoting aspects of their history and surely all groups have these apsects. I have study Mormon history quite a bit and I do not see the problems overwhelming the miracles. I see explanations for the issues and no non-supernatural explanations for the miracles/evidences.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

…I reject your interpretation.

I ask what of “their creeds were an abomination” (note the noun/verb plurality disagreement) and what is it that there professors say (or perhaps do) that warrants the label corrupt?

…Instead, I suggest that it is the usage of creeds that is an abomination. Christianity has separated, declared folks heretics, and rejected groups of believers based on uninspired professor (ie intellectual) developed creeds… .

So you say non-LDS “usage” of the Creeds that was the issue, not a lack of truth?

On the LDS website, under the FAQs, there is this statement on “the Restoration”:

“Having been lost because of the Apostasy, Christ’s Church and the fullness of His gospel needed to be restored to the earth. This Restoration would make available the opportunity for all to receive once again all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ… (Jesus) has continued to reveal truths to His prophets and to restore the blessings that were taken from the earth for a time.”

mormon.org/learn/0,8672,942-1,00.html

Under “the Apostacy” link we find:

“A general falling away from the truth occurred after the death of Christ’s Apostles… After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord took the priesthood authority and His Church from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost… the original Church was lost.”

mormon.org/learn/0,8672,844-1,00.html

I’m still a Protestant on paper so I’m obligated to say “you are entitled to your own interpretation.” It just seems to me that the “official” LDS teachings are different than yours.

So a couple of questions:

1. What truths were lost during the Apostacy?
2. What truths were restored during the Restoration?

I’m fascinated with you because every other Mormon I have spoken to tries to show me how different (e.g. better) Mormonism is than “regular” Christianity. Again and again you keep trying to show how similar they are (or at least how similar it is with Catholocism). So I’m confused. My understanding of Mormon doctrine is that truths were lost from Catholic doctrine and they were restored with the founding of the Mormon church. Are you saying the Mormon church has no new truths?

Help me out here.

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:
This is such a cop-out…

Christian apologetics is all about giving people compelling evidence to believe in Christ.

I do not agree. I provided a number of reasons that there are not evidences as one might like. I provided an offer to provide evidences of other aspects. I then suggested that there may be other reasons that evidences are somewhat lacking and to do this I appealed to a need for faith.

When the atheist says that the Trinity is illogical the apologists regularly appeal to the mystery. Plantinga and Barth have been concerned enough about this that they have formulated non-Augustinian Trinity explanations. Few Catholic apologist utilize these and instead leave some to mystery.

I add a component of the need for faith along the same lines as Catholic apologist add a component of mystery.

Calvin:
And, for the record, I happen to think, through the grace of God, that cold hard logic does lead nowhere but to Christ. There is no form of critical thinking – properly applied – that can crush the truth of Catholic doctrine.

As a Calvinist you can recognize that the grace of God is a necessary component and is not pored out on all men. Many Catholics reject this thought. I reject this thought. Instead, I recognize many things that influence belief.

BTW, you give the intellect of the atheist too little credit.

Calvin:
In an act of faith, I confess Jesus as the Christ but that faith is actually based on compelling evidence: history shows that there was a man named Jesus who died around AD 33. He was a wandering rabbi who claimed to be the messiah. History also shows that an early group formed around him and claimed he rose from the dead and worked miracles. So I think to myself, “maybe this early group knows something I don’t” and I read their writings. Those writings make sense to me and, through faith, I too, now claim Jesus as the Christ. History tells me to trust the early Church.

This is wonderful and I would sooner encourage you to reject the BOM than shake your faith and allow you to drift into non-belief. I only wish all apologist recognized the danger of negative apologetics.

Calvin:
The BOM, on the other hand, claims that this same Jesus appeared to two civilizations in the Americas. History shows that no such civilizations existed. Why, then, should I trust Mormon doctrine? History tells me not to trust the Mormon church.

Again, I reject the definitiveness of your statement. I do not think history shows that the BOM people did not exist. I think that Old World geography and history provide some amazing evidence. New World geography and history are explainable at best and troubling at worst, but not negative proof.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Again, I reject the definitiveness of your statement. I do not think history shows that the BOM people did not exist. I think that Old World geography and history provide some amazing evidence. New World geography and history are explainable at best and troubling at worst, but not negative proof.

I want to hear your answers to my questions in post #62.

I would also like to ask you to provide evidence on the New World geography and history as recounted in the BOM so that I can examine it.

Here’s where I’m coming from: if a friend of mine came up to me and told me Jesus appeared to him in a mall and revealed some truths to him. I would listen. If it turned out that the mall he describes does not exist, I would have cause to seriously doubt his story.

The BOM claims (like my hypothetical friend) that Jesus appeared to two New World iron-age civilizations and gave them some new truths. There is no evidence that these New World iron-age civilizations ever existed! Why, then, should I trust the message?

If I told my friend “take me to the mall where this happened” and he was able to, I would re-evaluate his story. So I’m asking you: show me some evidence that these iron-age New World civilizations described in the BOM existed and I’ll reevaluate your story.

And as far as negative proof goes I have to admit this is a negative proof. In my defense, however, I point out that I’m asking you to prove some evidence that TWO ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS existed. I’m not asking for something small! There should be ruins of cities or swords buried in the ground or stone tablets or SOMETHING. Help me out here.

What would you do if I told you I believed Jesus appeared to the people of Gondor and Rohan?

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

What truths were lost during the Apostacy? / What truths were restored during the Restoration?

· Creation ex nihilo was introduced in response to Gnosticism. This lead to the radical creator/creature dichotomy. This lead to modalism then arianism then post Nicea Trinity then Augustinian Trinity. The post Nicea Trinity was prolly the closest to the CoJCoLDS beliefs, but in trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to account for the radical creator/creature dichotomy it has been interpreted as teaching something it did not necessarily teach.

· Deification was largely lost until the more free dissemination of the writings of the ECF. It is my belief that many Catholic scholars are beginning to recognize the universality of deification teachings in the ECF.

· Continued Revelation for the guidance of the Church of Jesus Christ. There is evidence that Bishops relied on revelation to lead their flocks for a few centuries. There surely is evidence that the Apostles lead the entire church based on supernatural revelation. Certainly the Old and the New Testament witness that supernatural communication from God guides the church.

· There is some evidence of esoteric teaching in the early church (lots of evidence if you look to the Gnostics). This has been restored and may have been lost (the evidence for esoteric teaching would likely be among the first to vanish, but the evidence it existed in orthodoxy is scarce).

· Authoritative Baptism not heretical baptism.

That is what I thought of off top of my head.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

What truths were lost during the Apostacy? / What truths were restored during the Restoration?

· Continued Revelation for the guidance of the Church of Jesus Christ. There is evidence that Bishops relied on revelation to lead their flocks for a few centuries. There surely is evidence that the Apostles lead the entire church based on supernatural revelation. Certainly the Old and the New Testament witness that supernatural communication from God guides the church.

· There is some evidence of esoteric teaching in the early church (lots of evidence if you look to the Gnostics). This has been restored and may have been lost (the evidence for esoteric teaching would likely be among the first to vanish, but the evidence it existed in orthodoxy is scarce).

1. What truths have been provided through continued revelation that the Church was missing prior to 1830?

The only two examples of Mormon continued revelation I know of are the ban on polygamy and the declaration that non-whites can become priests. No offense intended, but the Church was already in possession of those truths… What things have been revealed through Mormon continued revelation that I should know about?

1. Can you give examples of these esoteric teachings that have been restored?

Peace,
-C

 

[Katholikos]

TOmNossor:

Jay,

I am not sure exactly how to respond to your post. On the one had you say that Athanasius’ words, “we might become God” means that “we become members of the Body of Christ.” Then you say that, “we are not gods, and will not become gods.”

Method One:

I believe that LDS deification is becoming members of the Body of Christ. It is uniting with God. “We might become God,” in that He reaches down and takes us up to him. We become gods through our uniting with him. In this method I am saying that LDS deification as I understand it is very similar to what you put forth in the first part of your post. I can highlight a few differences if it important to you, but they are not near as large as I once thought.

Method Two:

If Catholics do not believe that men may become gods, what does the consistent witness of the ECF mean? What does CCC460 mean? What does the words of Pope John Paul II and other modern Catholics mean? Here is a link to a fairly neglected thread to find some of these words.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1624

Charity, TOm

You can just take the Church’s word for it. She does not teach that men can become gods. No way, no how, never. NEVER. You don’t have to analyze it or figure it out. Just accept it.

Neither does the other body of Christians that dates from the Apostolic age - the Eastern Orthodox. There was only One Church for the first thousand years of Christianity. I gave you a quote from a book written by an Orthodox scholar.

You are twisting the Church’s words to your own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16). She says what she means and means what she says. AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT MEN BECOME GODS.

Pax et bonum, Jay

 

[darcee]

Tom.

This was one of the key issues for me leaving the LDS church. Jesus Christ himself said in Matt16:16-19

16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

But Joseph Smith taught something entirely different. That there had been a “great apostasy” that the true church of Christ had failed and that the priestly keys did not exist on the earth and had to be “restored”.
Above you try to make it sound like there is a grammatical nuance which saves his statement

“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of the sects was right that I might know which to join… I was answered that I must join none of them for they were all wrong and the Personage who addressed me said that alltheir creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt…”

You seem to think that plural creeds and singular abomination means that some of the creeds were right? I am getting your thoughts correct here? If that is so how do you explain "I must join none of them for they were **all **wrong " The abomination was not in one creed… it was that all the creeds together were one abomination. It is like saying pre-marital sexual relations is a sin. It is grammatically correct for the predicate noun to be singular when the plural subject noun encompasses a single body of action or meaning.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

You can just take the Church’s word for it. She does not teach that men can become gods. No way, no how, never. NEVER. You don’t have to analyze it or figure it out. Just accept it.

Neither does the other body of Christians that dates from the Apostolic age - the Eastern Orthodox. There was only One Church for the first thousand years of Christianity. I gave you a quote from a book written by an Orthodox scholar.

You are twisting the Church’s words to your own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16). She says what she means and means what she says. AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT MEN BECOME GODS.

Pax et bonum, Jay

Who is you Catholic scholar?
I do not suggest that John Paul II spoke infallibly nor was he defining binding Catholic doctrine when he said:
This is the central truth of all Christian soteriology that finds an organic unity with the revealed reality of the God-Man. God became man that man could truly participate in the life of God—so that, indeed, in a certain sense, he could become God. The Fathers of the Church had a clear consciousness of this fact. It is sufficient to recall St. Irenaeus who, in his exhortations to imitate Christ, the only sure teacher, declared: “Through the immense love he bore, he became what we are, thereby affording us the opportunity of becoming what he is.” (John Paul II, Jesus, Son and Savior, 1996, p. 215 - General audience address September 2, 1987.)

TOm:
But, I do suggest that he is Catholic.
So it is not Catholic Dogma to beleive men may become gods, but it is within the spectrum of available beliefs.

Who is your scholar?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Tom.

This was one of the key issues for me leaving the LDS church. Jesus Christ himself said in Matt16:16-19

But Joseph Smith taught something entirely different. That there had been a “great apostasy” that the true church of Christ had failed and that the priestly keys did not exist on the earth and had to be “restored”.
Above you try to make it sound like there is a grammatical nuance which saves his statement

“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of the sects was right that I might know which to join… I was answered that I must join none of them for they were all wrong and the Personage who addressed me said that alltheir creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt…”

You seem to think that plural creeds and singular abomination means that some of the creeds were right? I am getting your thoughts correct here? If that is so how do you explain "I must join none of them for they were **all **wrong " The abomination was not in one creed… it was that all the creeds together were one abomination. It is like saying pre-marital sexual relations is a sin. It is grammatically correct for the predicate noun to be singular when the plural subject noun encompasses a single body of action or meaning.

-D

The plurality disagreement was something that I just noticed as I was posting (which I do not quite see now by the way).

The idea actually hangs on the fact that creedal statements contain much of the same information that LDS believe, that LDS have at least one creedal statement (the Articles of Faith), and that LDS are non-creedal in ways that very few Christians are (and prolly no Christians were in Joseph Smith’s time.

I have shared this idea with Bishops, former Bishops and CES instructors online and in person. It does not seem to raise as many eyebrows as one might think.

We must also remember that Joseph Smith said this long after the first vision,

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.313:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.

TOm:

Concerning Matthew 16:18, even Catholic scholars have commented that prevail generally means to achieve ultimate victory. It in no way demands continued survival.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

1. What truths have been provided through continued revelation that the Church was missing prior to 1830?

The only two examples of Mormon continued revelation I know of are the ban on polygamy and the declaration that non-whites can become priests. No offense intended, but the Church was already in possession of those truths… What things have been revealed through Mormon continued revelation that I should know about?

1. Can you give examples of these esoteric teachings that have been restored?

Peace,

-C

1. Continued Revelation to guide the Church of Christ.

• Revelation is used to guide the church. At all levels calls and messages are prepared using revelation. On any given Sunday any one of thousands of messages can be shared, but only a few are. Revelation guides this in some instances. Two times per year at general conference any one of thousands of messages can be shared, but only a handful are. Revelation guides this in many instances. Reason and logic are used in extending calls, but very frequently there is an unexplained unanimity among 3 or 12 or 15 or some number of people. This is revelation.
• Post 1830 there was a flood of revelations actually impacting doctrine. More than half of the D&C was post 1830. Revelations that have been canonized that came from other than Joseph Smith I think are actually 5 (one of which prolly has little impact upon doctrine).

1. Esoteric teachings.

I seem to recall an article that pointed to the Secret Gospel of Mark and hinted at similarities that existed within this document and within the LDS temple. I cannot find exactly what I was looking for, but here is an article.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=332&table=review

I hope you enjoy.

Charity, TOm

 

[Katholikos]

TOmNossor wrote:
The Catholic Church suggests that logic and knowledge can lead one to the Catholic Church and that this is good and well. The CoJCoLDS says that one should seek a spiritual witness because this is the only way to be sure. I am sure FOR ME due to my spiritual witness. It came after much pain and prayer, but it did come. After this the logic only got stronger (or as you would suggest I was just more confused).

Ah, TOm, is your “spiritual witness” the “burning in the bosom” that one is told to expect to receive as “spiritual proof” of Mormon doctrine? This was explained to me one day as I was enumerating a long list of problems with the Book of Mormon, including the fact that a lot of it is copied out of the KJV. But my friend assured me that he had had a “burning in the bosom” spiritual experience that confirmed that the BOM was, indeed, the word of God as revealed to Joseph Smith Jun. and it didn’t make any difference how many problems there were with it intellectually, he had the “spiritual witness” of its authenticity.

TOm, please consider using a different font. Your font is difficult to read and leaves a lot of empty space between paragraphs. Thanks.

Pace e bene, Jay

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor wrote:
The Catholic Church suggests that logic and knowledge can lead one to the Catholic Church and that this is good and well. The CoJCoLDS says that one should seek a spiritual witness because this is the only way to be sure. I am sure FOR ME due to my spiritual witness. It came after much pain and prayer, but it did come. After this the logic only got stronger (or as you would suggest I was just more confused).

Ah, TOm, is your “spiritual witness” the “burning in the bosom” that one is told to expect to receive as “spiritual proof” of Mormon doctrine? This was explained to me one day as I was enumerating a long list of problems with the Book of Mormon, including the fact that a lot of it is copied out of the KJV. But my friend assured me that he had had a “burning in the bosom” spiritual experience that confirmed that the BOM was, indeed, the word of God as revealed to Joseph Smith Jun. and it didn’t make any difference how many problems there were with it intellectually, he had the “spiritual witness” of its authenticity.

TOm, please consider using a different font. Your font is difficult to read and leaves a lot of empty space between paragraphs. Thanks.

Pace e bene, Jay

I will try this font.

I hope you have seen that it is not JUST my spiritual witness that has resulted in what I believe.

As I said, I believe that the Catholic Church has a solid and internally consistent read on history and the Bible. I cannot say the same for Protestant religions.

I however think that the evidence for the CoJCoLDS is greater and more compelling than that for the Catholic Church. I know knowledgeable intelligent folks who disagree with me, but I cannot believe on their words. I must walk by the light and knowledge afforded to me.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

As I said, I believe that the Catholic Church has a solid and internally consistent read on history and the Bible. I cannot say the same for Protestant religions.

It is amusing how you try to suck up to Catholics by bashing Protestants. Is that the new LDS technique?

I’m not Catholic but I’m sure the knowledgable Catholics here are mildly amused to see you describe LDS and the Catholic Church as so similar. For Catholics without much knowledge about their faith, however, it must be a moderately effective technique – convince folks LDS and Catholicism are similar and then get them to switch.

You should be thankful for Protestants. If it wasn’t for our split with Rome, you wouldn’t have a Mormon religion to beling to.

-C

 

[darcee]

TOmNossor:

I will try this font.

I hope you have seen that it is not JUST my spiritual witness that has resulted in what I believe.

As I said, I believe that the Catholic Church has a solid and internally consistent read on history and the Bible. I cannot say the same for Protestant religions.

I however think that the evidence for the CoJCoLDS is greater and more compelling than that for the Catholic Church. I know knowledgeable intelligent folks who disagree with me, but I cannot believe on their words. I must walk by the light and knowledge afforded to me.

Charity, TOm

Tom, this so confuses me.

That Catholic church has existed for 2000 years. Good bad and in between, but its history is documented and supported by the history of the surrounding culture. The BoM on the other hand has no such support. It is completely without independant historical support. Not to mention that many of its claims, its content, the history of its writing are problematic.

How could you possibly suggest that the LDS church has a stronger claim to authentic history? That makes no sense.

Beware of the trick of coming to a spiritual witness after MUCH prayer and fasting and wrestling with the truth. It is very possible to conjure these sorts of feelings within yourself. Truth is more the a emotional response. Truth has to be both internally consistent and historically consistent.

The LDS church bears NO resemblance to the early Christian Church. Much is drawn from non-Christian sorces. The LDS temple ceremony is based on Masonic rites. (Joseph Smith was a Master Mason as BTW is my father, he was in fact the one who clued me in there) So much of the teaching of the LDS church is found NO WHERE in tradition or scripture.

I find my heart very concerned for you. I can’t help but think that your presence here is God trying to draw you back to His Holy Catholic Church.

-D

 

[AmandaPS]

I was re-reading the thread and noticed that Katholikos’ point in post #1 on Mormon exultation was overlooked. I also was going through St. Irenaeus’ writings, since TOm has referred to him on occasion.

It seems to me that Irenaeus, in Adversus haereses, written against Marcions, provides an excellent refutiation of the Mormon doctrine of Exultation (man can become gods like Heavenly Father and have spirit children whom will have the same relationship to them as they do to Heavenly Father).

Book 2 Chapter 1:
*4. These remarks are, in like manner, applicable against the followers of Marcion. For his two gods will also be contained and circumscribed by an immense interval which separates them from one another. But then there is a necessity to suppose a multitude of gods separated by an immense distance from each other on every side, beginning with one another, and ending in one another. Thus, by that very process of reasoning on which they depend for teaching that there is a certain Pleroma or God above the Creator of heaven and earth, any one who chooses to employ it may maintain that there is another Pleroma above the Pleroma, above that again another, and above Bythus another ocean of Deity, while in like manner the same successions hold with respect to the sides; and thus, their doctrine flowing out into immensity, there will always be a necessity to conceive of other Pleroma, and other Bythi, so as never at any time to stop, but always to continue seeking for others besides those already mentioned. Moreover, it will be uncertain whether these which we conceive of are below, or are, in fact, themselves the things which are above; and, in like manner, will be doubtful] respecting those things which are said by them to be above, whether they are really above or below; and thus our opinions will have no fixed conclusion or certainty, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits, and gods that cannot be numbered. *

*5. **These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety. ***

 

[Calvin]

darcee:

That Catholic church has existed for 2000 years. Good bad and in between, but its history is documented and supported by the history of the surrounding culture. The BoM on the other hand has no such support. It is completely without independant historical support. Not to mention that many of its claims, its content, the history of its writing are problematic.

This is what I don’t get about TOm (and why I accused him of “sucking up” to Catholics). He keeps saying that the Catholic Church and the Mormon church both (in contrast to Protestants) have a “solid” and “consistent” view of history. The problem with that is the LDS says there was a Great Apostacy and the Catholic Church denies it. So one of them is wrong and that means they both can’t be “solid” and “consistent.” It is an illogical statement for a Mormon (or a Catholic) to make since their histories EXPRESSLY disagree with each other.

On the other hand, a Mormon could make this statement to a Protestant (and this is why I told TOm he should be grateful for the Protestants). When I have come across Mormons in the past their pitch (I’m protestant) is: “we both know the Catholic Church fell into serious error” (wink wink). They then proceed to argue that the error was worse than even Luther and Calvin realized and then give their pitch for the Mormon church. So a Protestant and a Mormon could agree on history (to an extent) but a Mormon and a Catholic could not.

Which is why I don’t get TOm at all…

-C

 

[darcee]

Not to put words in TOm’s mouth, but I think he is trying to say that only the Mormons and the Catholics have internally consistent histories. Not that they are consistent with one another.

I argue that while Catholic history is consistent with itself and with secular world history that the BoM basically comes out of no where and has nothing but itself and the word of Joseph Smith and his followers to support it.

-D

 

[Katholikos]

Ezra Taft Benson’s grandson, Steve, created quite a stir in Arizona, Utah, and elsewhere when he left the Mormon faith. Has anyone seen Steve Benson’s cartoons? They’re syndicated nationally. Pulitzer prizewinner. For those who may not know, Ezra Taft Benson is a deceased President (#1 leader and prophet) of the Mormon ‘church’ who received regular ‘revelations.’ Steve said Mormonism is a fraud and he couldn’t in good conscience teach it to his children. Search under Steve Benson Mormon Church and you’ll hit some intriguing articles. His phone was tapped and other interesting things happened after he left. Of course, he did it very publicly .

 

[Katholikos]

**TOmNossor wrote: “**Concerning Matthew 16:18, even Catholic scholars have commented that prevail generally means to achieve ultimate victory. It in no way demands continued survival.”

I’m trying to figure out how a church could achieve ultimate victory if it does not continue to survive?