The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[Stephen168]

1.I was talking about the PRIMACY of Rome.

My understanding was incorrect. I am glad you have read Father Sullivan’s book.
I agree it is about apostolic authority!

The Catholic Church has the Apostolic authority given to it by Christ. Father Sullivan wrote a whole book about it. You wanted Apostolic Authority to be in one place and it was not there. So you concluded Apostolic authority was no where. Then you come to CAF telling Catholics that Apostolic authority was not passed down and Father Sullivan agrees with you. You read a whole book on Apostolic authority and missed the conclusion. You have to be kinda smart to be Catholic.

First,
Second,
Third,

I do not think I am so twisted.

But Peterine primacy for the Bishop of Rome is late and took a long time for people to believe.

Orthodoxy’s truths are not required to prove your claims. Mormonism’s claims are not the same as Orthodoxy’s claims.
Your argument is a straw man due to your lack of understand of Apostolic Authority. Your attempt at an argument from silence is fallacious, and has no bearing on the Catholic claim when Apostolic Authority is properly understood. History is clear that Brigham Young gave what he had, but he did not have Christian Apostolic Authority.

My line of reasoning only opens an assault on Mormonism.

 

[Stephen168]

I am saying that D&C 84 makes it clear that LDS are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. I am suggesting that I think that is a very solid read of what D&C 84 is teaching and this aligns with how Catholic priests claim to be ministers of Christ’s priesthood.

From the Mormon website: The Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned in Ps. 110:4; Her. 2:17-18; 3:1; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; but the Bible does not give many particulars concerning the functions of that priesthood, except that Christ was a high priest after that order. From latter-day revelation we learn…D&C 27, D&C 84, D&C110.

Therefore, it is not Biblical according to the Mormon Church.

While section 84 talks about Melchizedek and claims to be written in 1832, it was not in the 1833 Book of Commandments. It first appeared in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. According to the Mormon Church’s “read” on Section 84, it is nothing like the Catholic priesthood. The Mormon ‘read’ is that it pre-dates Christ and it includes the Aaronic priesthood. The Mormon ‘read’ is that it was restored by Christ, so it could not have been his priesthood. The Mormon claim is that Peter, James, and John literally came to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829 and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood AGAIN. But wait there’s more. Moses and Elijah drop off the keys which made the Melchizedek Priesthood more uber better.

Except, John Whitmer records Joseph Smith being made a high priest by Lyman Wight in 1831. Joseph Smith wrote about receiving a holy priesthood FROM ANGELS, in 1832, was, according Richard Bushman, “a glancing reference at best.” In 1834, Cowdery was the first to talk about the appearance of John. The receiving of the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John, through John the Baptist, was not a fully formed story until 1838.

The receiving of priesthood authority that Mormons claim was required to start the Mormon Church in 1830 was received from Lyman Wight in 1831, Angels in 1832, and John the Baptist in the name of Peter, James and John sometime before 1838 and published in 1842. All of this according to Richard Bushman, the Mormon historian.

 

[gazelam]

Gazaelem is fond of cherry picking this CCC entry, what, 10times at least.

I thought it was more like 20, but who’s counting…

We’ve already shown in at least two threads where this CCC entry is sited, with a Mormon twist intended, that Mormons apply their defintions to Catholic teaching and then say “see!”…doesn’t seem to register that the approach is dishonest.

Not sure who the “we” are that you’re referring to. A poster who said he was new to the thread and Mormonism stated a Catholic belief (i.e., one God - and I’ll go out on a limb and assume he didn’t mean “one in purpose”). CCC 460 seems unique in that on it’s face it seems to contradict the Catholic “one God” dogma and I assume most devout Catholics are unaware of that CCC entry. (I could be wrong.) So, it’s an interesting question to pose when this topic comes up. I’ve been on CAF long enough now to know that the RCC does not believe anyone can become like God in all regards (unlike the LDS view). I didn’t pose it specifically to you because I’ve seen your responses before. There was no “Mormon twist”. I simply asked the question to a Catholic poster who I haven’t seen interacting on LDS topics what he thought of CCC 460.

 

[TOmNossor]

First it would have to be viewed by someone as a problem. No one viewed infant baptism a problem, and the associated doctrine of Limbo of Infants, until Protestantism.

What you saying doesn’t make sense in light of history.

The Limbo for Infants is a Catholic teaching that has roots in Peter Abelard 12th century and later defined around the 14th century. No Protestantism. It is theological speculation (what you would call “not a doctrine,” but really not DOGMA), but this speculation is a product of the UNIVERSALLY taught and believed truth that unbaptized infants went to Hell. From the time of Augustine till the 20th century the only voice that perhaps indicated that unbaptized infants would not be in Hell (Limbo or Hell proper) was Pelagius.

It is not necessary for me to adjudicate if the Hope for Infants can be claimed to be a valid development (I lean negative) or if the 20th century development of the concept of “Baptism of Desire” is a valid development (I lean positive). My point is that LDS have always taught salvation is between the individual and God, we “trust God.” Before the 20th century Catholics always taught that salvation was predicted upon Baptism (Baptism of Desire for Catechumens, Baptism of Blood, or Water Baptism). Without baptism there was Hell. This was classified by a Catholic poster as “not trusting God.” The anti-Mormon stick hit every Catholic who ever put pen to paper before the 20th century and missed all LDS. That is how we got here and that is quite solid.

Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

I am saying that D&C 84 makes it clear that LDS are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. I am suggesting that I think that is a very solid read of what D&C 84 is teaching and this aligns with how Catholic priests claim to be ministers of Christ’s priesthood.

Mormon writings to prove LDS truth…well…as no authority recognizes the truth of LDS except the LDS…means nothing really.

 

[TOmNossor]

“Divinity as such”…oh a new, new definition, repurposed from neopagans, no doubt.

No I haven’t read Ostler, it’s an aversion I have to the oxymoron of “Mormon scholarship”. It takes a certain kind of gullibility to “go there”and I can’t muster it.

Well, numerous religious scholars disagree with you. Two evangelical Christians wrote an essay and then a book because they felt “Mormon Scholarship” was “winning the battle.”

Of course, not reading “Mormon Scholarship” will keep you safely unaware whatever reason you espouse for strictly avoiding it.

I will keep reading the best Catholic Scholarship I can find, then I will be able to judge from reading both. You are welcome to decree my lack of understanding, and I will read carefully your points, but I refuse to decide that perhaps because I am “non-elect” or Mormon or … that I cannot seek God and use reason.

You do not need to read LDS scholarship, but if you don’t you will have no idea.

Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

1. No. If we are to become gods then why would He have made the 1st Commandment.

Since you do not believe that man can become like God, what do you make of CCC 460? Thanks in advance!

CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

 

[TOmNossor]

Didache describes the primacy given to the See in Rome at the time. But you already know this.

No I do not know that. I have read the Didache, but I don’t think it “describes the primacy given to the See in Rome at the time” or at all. Perhaps you can point out what you think you see. Have you read the Didache?

…in addition, Mormonism claims that its first presidency is modeled on the ancient Christian hierarchy. A claim that there was no Primacy in Peter and his successors, then becomes a problem for Mormonism…unless you’re just on an anti-Catholic binge, then OK, we can have some fun with that.

The Primacy of Peter in the Bible is pretty solid. Some Protestant scholars are even coming around to this. It is the idea that the Bishop or Rome possesses Peterine primacy which is not evident in anything for >150 years and when it proclaimed nobody outside of Rome knows what they are talking about.

…as for angels visiting Smith and others, anyone can claim anything. The character of Smith doesn’t convince me that he was ever a truthful man. Writing down a lie doesn’t make it a truth, or let’s use that made up word…give it truthiness.

Concerning lying about authority, what would you call the 4th century Clementine Recognitions? Not written by Clement, not describing events that any historian believes happen, and not even aligning with the MODERN view of Papal succession. There are more positive reports of Joseph Smith’s character than negative and a handful of his fans were not members. But we KNOW that someone in the local Roman church produced a document that lied about Peterine authority being passed to Clement and that this document has been copied and passed along such that we have it today, but it is a lie. By your metric, it would seem that one must reject the idea the Peterine authority is possessed by the Bishop or Rome.
I understand the DEVELOPMENT theory. I think it is possible. I would actually embrace it if I decided the CoJCoLDS was all a lie. But you ask me to see bad character and lies from Joseph Smith. First of all Joseph Smith couldn’t have done it on his own there were multiple witnesses who experiences physical and spiritual things. But if lying is your metric, the Clementine Recognitions are a lie. Maybe you want me to be an atheist. I sure do not want you to be an atheist, but in addition to responding to attacks on my church that might be mis founded, I will point to parallels that are more damaging to Catholic truth claims.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You always worry people aren’t reading your posts. I read, can’t say that whatever you’re trying to convey, is conveyed…you have no restoration but invention. I already knew this, it is usually the Mormon argument that something was restored, but hey, if you’re on board with invention, two thumbs up.

I accused you of not reading because you said that you didn’t believe what I claimed was restored existed in the early church. What I claimed was the restored was the ability to receive revelation and write scripture. That did exist in the early church. I fail to understand how you can defend the idea that you read?
Here is the post:

RebeccaJ:

You haven’t unpainted yourself from your corner. What evidence do you have that what you believe was restored, ever existed as you believe it did, in the first place?

Well, if you even read what I wrote I think you would not argue that what I claimed was restored was not in fact present. No wonder you are not just bowled over by the brilliance of my arguments!!!

In the post to which you are “replying?” I said:

Finally, my claims of restoration are much more modest than you seem to think. The most important thing that was restored was the ability to receive supernatural public revelation and write scripture. It is possible that the early church had structures much more like modern LDS structures than modern Catholic structures, but LDS authority structure has CHANGED through our history as we have grown and organized. I do not need every jot and tittle to have been restored because I believe God leads by supernatural public revelation.

So, it would seem you either didn’t read what I said OR you do not believe the St. Peter (and the others) received revelation and wrote scripture. I would guess not reading, but I will await your thoughts.

Not reading and then not reading but ? I don’t know.

You clam simplicity then engender complication X 10000.
You dodge my question that no Mormon will ever answer. It is a simple question.

I am not sure what either of these refers to precisely? But I read them!

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

(My turn to claim you didn’t read.) if you want it made more simple, restoring public revelation is to me saying you’re Restoring Jesus Christ. Hello, we believe that He restored Himself. Our Lord is not dead, but lives. Mormons claim to believe the same thing but fail to acknowledge the reality of what it means. God’s Perfect Revelation, is unceasing. This is especially made real at Mass. We don’t believe or teach that the public of Revelation of Jesus Christ ceased. Your new compass is a distortion of what a measure of Truth is. It isn’t the quantity of written scripture.

I get and believe that Christ lives. I even understand the idea that Christ is “public revelation.” But when Patrick Madrid claims that the Pope CANNOT receive revelation or write scripture (even contrasting all Popes with Simon Peter) he does not mean that the Pope cannot receive Christ. He means the Pope (other than St. Peter) cannot receive public/corporate revelation.
If you want to tell me that public revelation is Christ again, I will read it, and I will try not to tell you again ….
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

You are mistaken if you do not think Catholic authority was not used to hide sins. There are ancient predecessors to Canon law that explain how laws and penalties are more lax for clergy than laity.

Only a Mormon would think that an uneven enforcement of the law is the same as Joseph Smith declaring a sin not a sin by inventing the non-Christian practice of polygamy. Or to claim that very little adultery (sex) is not really adultery. Joseph Smith was not teaching what Christ and the Apostles taught.
So no, my “attack” on Joseph Smith’s character does nothing to the historical fact of Catholic Christian apostolic authority.

You misunderstood my point and minimized what I claimed about Catholic authority, but to my point.
Critics claim Joseph Smith instituted polygamy for sex. It is not that “a little adultery” is not sinful. It is that if Joseph Smith was the religions genius that he must have been to invent Mormonism and he wanted sex, his declaration of polygamy was one of the dumbest thing he ever did. He had very little sex because of it. It is quite clear to me that he wanted sex, he would have done volumes of other things that would have resulted in way more sex. So, if that is true (and I believe it is) then why did he introduce polygamy. I think because God communicated with him and Joseph Smith tried to follow God’s commands. That is why polygamy existed.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

1.I was talking about the PRIMACY of Rome.

My understanding was incorrect. I am glad you have read Father Sullivan’s book.
I agree it is about apostolic authority!

The Catholic Church has the Apostolic authority given to it by Christ. Father Sullivan wrote a whole book about it. You wanted Apostolic Authority to be in one place and it was not there. So you concluded Apostolic authority was no where. Then you come to CAF telling Catholics that Apostolic authority was not passed down and Father Sullivan agrees with you. You read a whole book on Apostolic authority and missed the conclusion. You have to be kinda smart to be Catholic.

First,
Second,
Third,

I do not think I am so twisted.

But Peterine primacy for the Bishop of Rome is late and took a long time for people to believe.

Orthodoxy’s truths are not required to prove your claims. Mormonism’s claims are not the same as Orthodoxy’s claims.
Your argument is a straw man due to your lack of understand of Apostolic Authority. Your attempt at an argument from silence is fallacious, and has no bearing on the Catholic claim when Apostolic Authority is properly understood. History is clear that Brigham Young gave what he had, but he did not have Christian Apostolic Authority.

My line of reasoning only opens an assault on Mormonism.

I think much of this post is misquoted and the rest has been responded to already.
I said I was wrong to claim that you had not read Father Sullivan’s book, but your quote obscures that.
Anyway, I don’t think you made new arguments here so if folks are interested they can read responses throughout this thread.’
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I am saying that D&C 84 makes it clear that LDS are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. I am suggesting that I think that is a very solid read of what D&C 84 is teaching and this aligns with how Catholic priests claim to be ministers of Christ’s priesthood.

From the Mormon website: The Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned in Ps. 110:4; Her. 2:17-18; 3:1; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; but the Bible does not give many particulars concerning the functions of that priesthood, except that Christ was a high priest after that order. From latter-day revelation we learn…D&C 27, D&C 84, D&C110.

Therefore, it is not Biblical according to the Mormon Church.

While section 84 talks about Melchizedek and claims to be written in 1832, it was not in the 1833 Book of Commandments. It first appeared in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. According to the Mormon Church’s “read” on Section 84, it is nothing like the Catholic priesthood. The Mormon ‘read’ is that it pre-dates Christ and it includes the Aaronic priesthood. The Mormon ‘read’ is that it was restored by Christ, so it could not have been his priesthood. The Mormon claim is that Peter, James, and John literally came to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829 and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood AGAIN. But wait there’s more. Moses and Elijah drop off the keys which made the Melchizedek Priesthood more uber better.

Except, John Whitmer records Joseph Smith being made a high priest by Lyman Wight in 1831. Joseph Smith wrote about receiving a holy priesthood FROM ANGELS, in 1832, was, according Richard Bushman, “a glancing reference at best.” In 1834, Cowdery was the first to talk about the appearance of John. The receiving of the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John, through John the Baptist, was not a fully formed story until 1838.

The receiving of priesthood authority that Mormons claim was required to start the Mormon Church in 1830 was received from Lyman Wight in 1831, Angels in 1832, and John the Baptist in the name of Peter, James and John sometime before 1838 and published in 1842. All of this according to Richard Bushman, the Mormon historian.

TOmNossor:

… same as above …

Mormon writings to prove LDS truth…well…as no authority recognizes the truth of LDS except the LDS…means nothing really.

Again, I don’t think you have offered anything new.
All I offered new (that I was not clear enough about I guess) was that Catholics claim their priests are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. I think D&C 84 (the part we call the oath and covenant of the priesthood) indicates that LDS claim our priests are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. Same claim. I clearly think the LDS position is stronger, just thought I would add this bit as it was something that was important to me.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I am caught up! I will read responses at least for the next few days. I may respond here and there (or maybe not), but I am not going to try to respond to everyone who responds to me. Anyway, thanks!
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

First it would have to be viewed by someone as a problem. No one viewed infant baptism a problem, and the associated doctrine of Limbo of Infants, until Protestantism.

What you saying doesn’t make sense in light of history.

The Limbo for Infants is a Catholic teaching that has roots in Peter Abelard 12th century and later defined around the 14th century. No Protestantism. It is theological speculation (what you would call “not a doctrine,” but really not DOGMA), but this speculation is a product of the UNIVERSALLY taught and believed truth that unbaptized infants went to Hell. From the time of Augustine till the 20th century the only voice that perhaps indicated that unbaptized infants would not be in Hell (Limbo or Hell proper) was Pelagius.

It is not necessary for me to adjudicate if the Hope for Infants can be claimed to be a valid development (I lean negative) or if the 20th century development of the concept of “Baptism of Desire” is a valid development (I lean positive). My point is that LDS have always taught salvation is between the individual and God, we “trust God.” Before the 20th century Catholics always taught that salvation was predicted upon Baptism (Baptism of Desire for Catechumens, Baptism of Blood, or Water Baptism). Without baptism there was Hell. This was classified by a Catholic poster as “not trusting God.” The anti-Mormon stick hit every Catholic who ever put pen to paper before the 20th century and missed all LDS. That is how we got here and that is quite solid.

Charity, TOm

All dogmas are doctrine, so yes, I said what I meant. Otherwise you’re still railing against the development of doctrine…which in this case was not and still is not, developed into doctrine.

Ya know, Catholics think and write a lot about everything. Theology and philosophy are tools, they are not in and of themselves a kind of scholastic magisterium. Theologians can and do write differing opinions, as you cite here, regarding the limbo of infants. The Church is under no obligation to not change theological opinion that was never, ever, doctrine.

I don’t have a problem with it. I hold no view or belief that theological speculations are binding on me in any way. They are useful, for looking at doctrines and applying them. I have no problem with a Christianized society applying an urgency to baptize children.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

“Divinity as such”…oh a new, new definition, repurposed from neopagans, no doubt.

No I haven’t read Ostler, it’s an aversion I have to the oxymoron of “Mormon scholarship”. It takes a certain kind of gullibility to “go there”and I can’t muster it.

Well, numerous religious scholars disagree with you. Two evangelical Christians wrote an essay and then a book because they felt “Mormon Scholarship” was “winning the battle.”

Of course, not reading “Mormon Scholarship” will keep you safely unaware whatever reason you espouse for strictly avoiding it.

I will keep reading the best Catholic Scholarship I can find, then I will be able to judge from reading both. You are welcome to decree my lack of understanding, and I will read carefully your points, but I refuse to decide that perhaps because I am “non-elect” or Mormon or … that I cannot seek God and use reason.

You do not need to read LDS scholarship, but if you don’t you will have no idea.

Charity, TOm

Don’t reall6 care who agrees or disagrees with me. Mormon writings in general give me the heebie jeebies. (Not joking or trying to be flippant.) Plus it’s pointless, as the “scholar” du jour will be denounced within 50 years or less.

I try to keep up with Mormon discussions, among my family and other Mormons. I stopped trying to follow the bouncing ball a few years ago. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to keep up with Mormon apologetics. It has become more like a race to create as much “scholarship” as possible, but none of it is official teachings of the LDS Church and none of it is believed by every Mormon or even most Mormons. In the whole picture, it’s on the fringes, and always has been. Your basic Mormon in the pew is reading the Ensign and listening to conference.

Anyway, I try to stick to what the Mormon Church teaches. It is impossible to address what every individual Mormon believes. As they all, like yourself, believe differently, and often in contradiction to each other.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your condescending tone aside, yes I have read the Didache. My memory isn’t what it once was…,as we age.

Gosh, Catholics doing Bad Things, I could die from that surprise (not). I’m not a clericalism type of gal, JSYK, and have never put any man on a pedestal. Probably why I never made it in Mormonism… could never honestly Praise The Man.

Like you I have convictions of faith. God commanding adultery, has never been one of my convictions.

And yes, I know, in your eyes Smith could never do wrong. IMO he isn’t a god he is more likely in hell. I think it pointless to rehash his numerous lies, but we can if you want to.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You aren’t connecting the dots. I assume you are following along but bad assumption on my part.

As you were. I won’t have time to hang about here any time soon.

 

[Stephen168]

I think much of this post is misquoted and the rest has been responded to already.
I said I was wrong to claim that you had not read Father Sullivan’s book, but your quote obscures that.
Anyway, I don’t think you made new arguments here so if folks are interested they can read responses throughout this thread.’

You either missed or avoided the point.
The claim of Orthodoxy is apostolic authority, which Father Sullivan wrote a book about. It is a historical fact. It is about the Bishops, not a Pope.
Every time you talk about the Pope, primacy of Rome, or ‘Peterine’ authority, you have proven my point. You don’t like the Catholic claim of apostolic authority/succession, it isn’t where you want it to be, therefore, you say it isn’t there. AND by the way, I have had great fun watching you call Petrine authority ‘Peterine.’

You are beating a straw man over and over and over and over and over again. You are trying to refute something authority/succession Christian Orthodoxy/Catholicism doesn’t claim. And you use one logical fallacy after another to try to refute it.

 

[Stephen168]

Again, I don’t think you have offered anything new.
All I offered new (that I was not clear enough about I guess) was that Catholics claim their priests are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. I think D&C 84 (the part we call the oath and covenant of the priesthood) indicates that LDS claim our priests are ministers of Christ’s priesthood. Same claim. I clearly think the LDS position is stronger, just thought I would add this bit as it was something that was important to me.

What I offered new was that the Mormon Church disagrees with you.
The Mormon Church knows the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not biblical. So when you said you couldn’t prove it because it was revelation, you were telling the truth. When you said it was biblical, you were not telling the truth. When you said you had proved it was biblical, you were lying.

Saying the “LDS position is stronger,” you have nothing to base it on. I said the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood was an invention of Joseph Smith. The Mormon Church calls it revelation, I call it ‘making it up.’ Either way it is not biblical and the “LDS position” on the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood existing, anywhere before Joseph Smith, does not exist.

As St. Vincent might say, the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood was believed by nobody, nowhere.

What is not new and which you must ignore are the facts that prove Joseph Smith made it up.