To Mormons: Did the gates of Hell prevail against the 'Church' when your president taught false doctrine?

[PaulDupre1]

If I was not clear enough let me be more clear.
Peter could write scripture, Peter could receive supernatural public revelation, and Peter was the head of the Apostles
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to write scripture. Catholics agree with me here.
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to receive supernatural public revelation. Catholics agree with me here.

Certainly not all Catholics. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was read along with the other (now canonical) epistles during the mass for nearly 400 years, first in Corinth (to whose saints it was addressed) and eventually throughout Christendom.

It was included in several lists of canonical NT books. It is also compelling evidence of a very early date for papal primacy - being written around the same time as St. John’s Apocalypse. I have read it many times. I believe it to be inspired, as I believe Pope Paul VI’s modern encyclical Humanae Vitae is inspired.

Just because the Church, in Her Wisdom, did not include a book in the NT does not mean it is not inspired. And it certainly doesn’t mean that those who produced those writings were not exercising the gift of prophecy. The early Church settled on a policy (no doubt inspired) of including in the NT only those writings produced by apostles as eye-witnesses or those who could be proven to have traveled with the apostles and heard their eye-witness testimonies (as is the case with Mark and Luke). I shall not dispute the decisions of the ecumenical councils of the Church.

Yet the inspired writings of Clement and Paul VI and other inspired Catholic writings are an indelible part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church and have been widely printed and are available in print or on line to anyone who wants to read them. The canon of the bible may be closed, but the Deposit of Faith certainly is not.

I am absolutely certain that His Holiness Paul VI had the gift of prophecy because everything he prophesied in Humanae Vitae has come to pass exactly as he said it would, and even in the exact order that he listed them.

Forgive me for going on and on about this prophetic encyclical, but I have a special fondness for Humanae Vitae because it was very important in bringing me home to the Catholic Church.

BTW, the LDS Church is following the Humanae Vitae prophecy to the letter, as your Protestant forebears have done before you. It is terribly sad (yet strangely fascinating) to watch.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[mayogirl25]

How does one know if the Lord continues to sanction the leaders of his church?

Did not Oliver Cowdry leave the LDS faith? How does this square with him having an angelic visit restoring the priesthood? Seems like the sort of thing that would make you a lifelong believer.

Look the Mormon religion is totally wackadoo. It is science fiction. Jesus Christ did not come down to earth in upstate New York and bestow “golden tablets” to Joseph Smith. Why even continue talking about this since it is nonsense.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If I was not clear enough let me be more clear.
I do not see any evidence that Linus, Cletus or Clement thought they could do the things the Peter did to lead the church. This is the most clear authority that needed to be restored.
Peter could write scripture, Peter could receive supernatural public revelation, and Peter was the head of the Apostles
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to write scripture. Catholics agree with me here.
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to receive supernatural public revelation. Catholics agree with me here.
The Bishop of Rome in the earliest days of the church appeared no different than the other Bishops left behind by the Apostles. Over time certain seas rose to prominence and Rome was one. Over time among these seas, Rome rose to a primacy (called first among equals to this day by some EO Christians). But this was development. The day before the last act of an Apostle we know about the Bishops were local leaders under the authority of Apostles. The day after this, the Bishops were just the same, but over time this developed into something different/new. Informed Catholics agree with me here too, but they consider it a “valid development.” Tertullian and I consider the Roman primacy a “usurpation.”

If Catholics and LDS are correct and there is a human who leads God’s church on earth, then the void left by the Apostles was either validly filled over a few centuries of development or not validly filled until the restoration. So this is the most clear date of the apostasy.

None of this means that Father Serapion or any 4th century (or later or earlier) Christians were not Christians. Just that in God’s time the authority to lead the world wide church was absent until it was restored. To believe that God cannot lead a church without a man who stands at the head of it is to believe there was no God lead church for centuries until the Pope emerged as the one who leads the Catholic Church. To believe that God’s church shouldn’t have a leader is to be Protestant. I choose neither of those paths, and were I to believe the CoJCoLDS was not a restoration, I would believe there was A LOT of development in the early church (and a good deal at Vatican I and Vatican II) to get us to the Catholic Church today. For me the restoration makes a stronger case.
Charity, TOm

You fail to understand or acknowledge that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equal in source and inspiration.

“both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence” Dei Verbum

 

[Janderich]

That does not answer my question. How do you know you have revelation from the Lord that sanctions a church/followers? I believe I have revelation, you believe you have revelation, other folks believe they have revelation, who is right? How are we to know?

Joseph Smith has “revelation” that sending the boys to Canada to sell the rights to the BoM would procure the ability to print the book in the U.S. He was wrong and noted such by saying ‘revelation’ can be from God, Man, or Satan. Did he identify how one would know the difference?

Ah a very important topic. The discerning of truth from error. It is the work of a lifetime.

As long as the earth shall remain in its current state we must discern truth through personal revelation. The spirit whispers truth to the man who is in tune, who seeks with all his heart in true humility. Joseph says such truth is pure intelligence. But many, so many, will not open their hearts.

And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches - yea, they are they whom he desipiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. But the things of the wise and the prudent shall be hid from them forever - yea, that happiness which is prepared for the saints." (2 Ne 9: 42-43)

But to one who will hear the voice of the spirit, that whispers in his heart, such a person gains light and understanding step by step from the Lord. And that light and understanding grows brighter and brighter until the perfect day. All the confusion is simply evidence that the world in general lies in darkness and cannot distinguish the truth.

As Jesus said, “The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one born of the Spirit. …For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:8, 20-21).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah a very important topic. The discerning of truth from error. It is the work of a lifetime.

As long as the earth shall remain in its current state we must discern truth through personal revelation. The spirit whispers truth to the man who is in tune, who seeks with all his heart in true humility. Joseph says such truth is pure intelligence. But many, so many, will not open their hearts.

But to one who will hear the voice of the spirit, that whispers in his heart, such a person gains light and understanding step by step from the Lord. And that light and understanding grows brighter and brighter until the perfect day. All the confusion is simply evidence that the world in general lies in darkness and cannot distinguish the truth.

As Jesus said, “The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one born of the Spirit. …For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:8, 20-21).

John 3 is in reference to being a disciple of Jesus, not Joseph Smith.

 

[TOmNossor]

I agree. You are comfortable making up stuff about the Catholic Church without anything anyone would consider proof. Then when you present the stuff you make up, you present it in a way that you could not be called a liar. For example: You might say, “We could look into Catholic history to find examples of the Pope beating baby seals but it would not prove anything.” Or just as common, “Some say the Pope beats seals, but I don’t believe it.” What is being suggested is false but you have stopped short of saying that the Papacy is known to beat baby seals, so we really can’t say you lied, but it is just as dishonest.

Stephen168,
My thoughts on the bulk of your response was that I was not sure you wanted to understand what I was saying, but that could just be me.
I thought I would pick out the above though so you can provide the proof of what you say.

Concerning the SPECIFIC example, I have surely never said anything about “seals.”

That being said, I have made claims about the Catholic Church that I didn’t choose to document or elaborate upon. Let me offer a few examples.

Well, instead of posting what I was about to post (as it would in fact be an attempt to make Catholicism look ugly in the SAME way that the CoJCoLDS is maligned on this message board), let me offer you this. Prove what you say.

Start a thread and include 2 tomnossor quotes that you do not believe I can back up with evidence. Include the context (because I can think of a few STUPID things I have said for the purpose of likening what is said here about the CoJCoLDS to what is said about Catholics by Protestant anti-cultists).
I will then either prove that my reference has more merit than your “baby seals” for instance OR that you have profoundly misread the context of what I said. In the later case, I will present what I think you have profoundly misread and those who read will be able to decide if I spoke very unclearly (this happens especially when I write on message boards) or you should have/ could have understood.

Anyway, in response to your example, I will go into detail when I get the chance. I promise I will treat whatever ugliness that I see in history with greater respect than I feel you treat the CoJCoLDS, but choose from my comments wisely because you will be requesting elaboration on some Catholic event some of which are ugly (I can back that up if you want to choose that).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;12320543:

If I was not clear enough let me be more clear.

TOmNossor;12320543:

I do not see any evidence that Linus, Cletus or Clement thought they could do the things the Peter did to lead the church. This is the most clear authority that needed to be restored.

Peter could write scripture, Peter could receive supernatural public revelation, and Peter was the head of the Apostles
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to write scripture. Catholics agree with me here.
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to receive supernatural public revelation. Catholics agree with me here.
Certainly not all Catholics. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was read along with the other (now canonical) epistles during the mass for nearly 400 years, first in Corinth (to whose saints it was addressed) and eventually throughout Christendom.

It was included in several lists of canonical NT books. It is also compelling evidence of a very early date for papal primacy - being written around the same time as St. John’s Apocalypse. I have read it many times. I believe it to be inspired, as I believe Pope Paul VI’s modern encyclical Humanae Vitae is inspired.

Just because the Church, in Her Wisdom, did not include a book in the NT does not mean it is not inspired. And it certainly doesn’t mean that those who produced those writings were not exercising the gift of prophecy. The early Church settled on a policy (no doubt inspired) of including in the NT only those writings produced by apostles as eye-witnesses or those who could be proven to have traveled with the apostles and heard their eye-witness testimonies (as is the case with Mark and Luke). I shall not dispute the decisions of the ecumenical councils of the Church.

Yet the inspired writings of Clement and Paul VI and other inspired Catholic writings are an indelible part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church and have been widely printed and are available in print or on line to anyone who wants to read them. The canon of the bible may be closed, but the Deposit of Faith certainly is not.

I am absolutely certain that His Holiness Paul VI had the gift of prophecy because everything he prophesied in Humanae Vitae has come to pass exactly as he said it would, and even in the exact order that he listed them.

Forgive me for going on and on about this prophetic encyclical, but I have a special fondness for Humanae Vitae because it was very important in bringing me home to the Catholic Church.

BTW, the LDS Church is following the Humanae Vitae prophecy to the letter, as your Protestant forebears have done before you. It is terribly sad (yet strangely fascinating) to watch.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

So, are you suggesting that a faithful informed Catholic (yourself included it would seem) believe both of these things:

1. The Pope can write scripture.
2. The Pope can receive public revelation.

I could be wrong, but I do not agree. Anyone agree with Paul? I can quote Catholic apologists who disagree with him, but I thought it was universally accepted that this is not the case. Maybe I am wrong. Can someone correct me with some scholarly writing or Vatican writing or ???
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You fail to understand or acknowledge that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equal in source and inspiration.

“both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence” Dei Verbum
No, that is not my point at all.
My point is that if Peter was in any meaningful way ever the Pope, he is unique in that he is the only Pope ever who could/can write scripture and receive revelation.

I am not sure what I would believe were I Catholic regarding the point you made, but my point is that Peter wrote scripture and received revelation, the Pope does not and cannot.
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

So, are you suggesting that a faithful informed Catholic (yourself included it would seem) believe both of these things:

1. The Pope can write scripture.
2. The Pope can receive public revelation.

I could be wrong, but I do not agree. Anyone agree with Paul? I can quote Catholic apologists who disagree with him, but I thought it was universally accepted that this is not the case. Maybe I am wrong. Can someone correct me with some scholarly writing or Vatican writing or ???
Charity, TOm

1. Define what you mean by scripture. Catholics have many documents outside of the Bible that we believe are binding on the faithful, in the same way as the Bible.
2. Define what you mean by “public revelation”, as it is used by Catholics.

I, as a Catholic, agree with what Paul stated.

 

[Stephen168]

My thoughts on the bulk of your response was that I was not sure you wanted to understand what I was saying, but that could just be me

Yes, it is you.

The main point of my response was that Catholic teaching is consistent and Mormon teaching is not. A modern Mormon must reject the teachings of its founder.

 

[Stephen168]

[My point is that if Peter was in any meaningful way ever the Pope, he is unique in that he is the only Pope ever who could/can write scripture and receive revelation

Your error in reasoning is believing that an Apostle can not also be a Bishop. Apostle (Greek: apostolos, “someone sent out”, e.g. with a message or as a delegate). Jesus sent out the twelve in pairs (Mark 6:7-13, cf. Matthew 10:5-42,Luke 9:1-6), to towns in Galilee.

The Seventy or Seventy-two were also sent out (Luke 10:1-24). Paul was also sent out by the risen Lord (Acts 9:1-22). Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324 records Barnabas, Sosthenes, Joseph Barsabbas, and Matthias as members of the 70. The New Testament records Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and Sosthenes (1 Corinthians 1:1, 2:6) as Apostles. Jesus Christ sent out a total 83 men to spread the Gospel. These 83 men were apostles (sent out). James and Peter were Apostles as well as Bishops.

Only men sent by Christ were Apostles. Only Apostles who had 1) walked the earth with Christ, 2) been in the company of the original twelve, and 3) witnessed the resurrection could be a member of The Twelve. By these requirements described in Acts (2:21-22), we know The Twelve were never to be an on going position in the Church. Paul was never made one of the Twelve because he did not qualify. He was an Apostle but never one of The Twelve.

The Apostle Peter went to Antioch where he started a church. Seven years later he ordained Evodius as Bishop of Antioch and went to Rome. After Evodius died, Ignatius (a student of the Apostle John), was made Bishop of Antioch. The Apostle James of Alphaeus stayed in Jerusalem as the Bishop. When James died, Simeon became Bishop. As those whom Christ sent out died, they were replaced by the Bishops.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Stephen168]

but surely is not shaken by research into the year 570.
The intellectual foundation of my faith does contain evidence associated with the year 67AD or perhaps 100AD.

The reason Mormons have had to reject Joseph Smith’s date of 570 is that we have too much historical evidence that barring blacks from the priesthood, exaltation, polygamy, Melchizedek Priesthood, excommunicating Apostles, blood atonement, or water baptism on behalf of the dead (unique Mormon doctrines) were believed by the early church: nowhere, never, and not by anyone.
By pushing the date back to 67AD, Mormons are free to make up their own history.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Stephen168,
My thoughts on the bulk of your response was that I was not sure you wanted to understand what I was saying, but that could just be me.
I thought I would pick out the above though so you can provide the proof of what you say.

Concerning the SPECIFIC example, I have surely never said anything about “seals.”

That being said, I have made claims about the Catholic Church that I didn’t choose to document or elaborate upon. Let me offer a few examples.

Well, instead of posting what I was about to post (as it would in fact be an attempt to make Catholicism look ugly in the SAME way that the CoJCoLDS is maligned on this message board), let me offer you this. Prove what you say.

Start a thread and include 2 tomnossor quotes that you do not believe I can back up with evidence. Include the context (because I can think of a few STUPID things I have said for the purpose of likening what is said here about the CoJCoLDS to what is said about Catholics by Protestant anti-cultists).
I will then either prove that my reference has more merit than your “baby seals” for instance OR that you have profoundly misread the context of what I said. In the later case, I will present what I think you have profoundly misread and those who read will be able to decide if I spoke very unclearly (this happens especially when I write on message boards) or you should have/ could have understood.

Anyway, in response to your example, I will go into detail when I get the chance. I promise I will treat whatever ugliness that I see in history with greater respect than I feel you treat the CoJCoLDS, but choose from my comments wisely because you will be requesting elaboration on some Catholic event some of which are ugly (I can back that up if you want to choose that).

Charity, TOm

I wouldn’t mind if you posted this argument on this thread.

 

[TOmNossor]

1. Define what you mean by scripture. Catholics have many documents outside of the Bible that we believe are binding on the faithful, in the same way as the Bible.

1. Define what you mean by “public revelation”, as it is used by Catholics.

I, as a Catholic, agree with what Paul stated.

1. Scripture is text in the same class as Biblical autographs. It is text written by men under the inspiration of God binding upon the faithful. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
2. “Public revelation” is revelation received by an individual from inspiration from God for the guiding of Christ’s body (His Church).

I was trying to use largely Catholic terms. Terms that were likely undefined in 70AD, but terms that most Catholics believe could have been consistently defined then and not require any editing or qualification today.

BTW, I acknowledge that Catholics believe that the Pope can receive “private revelation.” I as a non-Catholic even believe the Pope can receive “private revelation.”

And, I quoted Paul of course. But could you explain your reference to Paul?
And, could you elaborate on documents that are binding in the SAME way the Bible is? In dialogue with Protestants such a claim is largely denied in my observations, but I am not sure I could produce such a denial at the moment.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I wouldn’t mind if you posted this argument on this thread.

Please clarify your OP, see post #2

 

[TOmNossor]

I wouldn’t mind if you posted this argument on this thread.

You want me to pick an event in Catholic history that I think is ugly and highlight it?
Why?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, it is you.

The main point of my response was that Catholic teaching is consistent and Mormon teaching is not. A modern Mormon must reject the teachings of its founder.

Catholic teaching as I have researched it is more consistent than is Mormon teaching as I have researched it.
I am of the opinion that anything that BREAKS with Tradition is strong evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be. Such is not the case when Mormonism breaks with past LDS tradition (or past Christian traditions for that matter).

One of the things I have alluded to is that there are a number of things within Catholic teaching that must be explained because reasonable folks believe a break with Tradition occurs. If me saying that causes you to think, … “there he goes again saying something without being able to defend it,” I can give you a list. I probably can give you external sites to read about it. I bet I could find whole books devoted to various instances where Catholicism’s consistency mandate/principle/dogma (I do not know what a good term is) is questioned or addressed. As I said, IRL, the number of Catholics like Jimmy Akin I know is decreasing and the number of Catholics who I would call Ultra-Trads is increasing. Ultra-Trads are fabulous at pointing to innovations in the faith post Vatican II. It is my opinion that they have a point, but they are like Dollinger who couldn’t tolerate Vatican I rather than like Newman who could. My leanings are that there is no divine protection of Tradition within the Catholic Church so I find Dollinger’s, the Ultra-Trads, Orestas Bronson (and at least one of the Bishops he knew) compelling. But, proof is not a term I would use.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Catholic teaching as I have researched it is more consistent than is Mormon teaching as I have researched it.
I am of the opinion that anything that BREAKS with Tradition is strong evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be. Such is not the case when Mormonism breaks with past LDS tradition (or past Christian traditions for that matter).

One of the things I have alluded to is that there are a number of things within Catholic teaching that must be explained because reasonable folks believe a break with Tradition occurs. If me saying that causes you to think, … “there he goes again saying something without being able to defend it,” I can give you a list. I probably can give you external sites to read about it. I bet I could find whole books devoted to various instances where Catholicism’s consistency mandate/principle/dogma (I do not know what a good term is) is questioned or addressed. As I said, IRL, the number of Catholics like Jimmy Akin I know is decreasing and the number of Catholics who I would call Ultra-Trads is increasing. Ultra-Trads are fabulous at pointing to innovations in the faith post Vatican II. It is my opinion that they have a point, but they are like Dollinger who couldn’t tolerate Vatican I rather than like Newman who could. My leanings are that there is no divine protection of Tradition within the Catholic Church so I find Dollinger’s, the Ultra-Trads, Orestas Bronson (and at least one of the Bishops he knew) compelling. But, proof is not a term I would use.

Charity, TOm

To summarize:

-Mormons are OK with the truth claims of Joseph Smith being lies.
-Mormons demanding the Catholic Church be consistent with its truth claims would be the ramblings of a hypocrite

 

[MacQ]

You want me to pick an event in Catholic history that I think is ugly and highlight it?
Why?
Charity, TOm

No thanks…we know them all, as do all our critics.
I’m with you…can’t fathom why he asked,

We share that in common I suppose…misunderstanding of our beliefs and practices by outsiders (intentional in some cases)…a chequered history (but always failing to note when we righted the ship)…

I guess I’m trying to say that we have enough people tearing at both our Churches.
I can’t see the point in doing it to each other…or arguing about which specific year some apostasy occurred.

Every Mormon I’ve ever known was leading a wholesome, Christian life, had charity for all and malice toward none…exemplary by any standard.
That’s what matters to me.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Catholic teaching as I have researched it is more consistent than is Mormon teaching as I have researched it.
I am of the opinion that anything that BREAKS with Tradition is strong evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be. Such is not the case when Mormonism breaks with past LDS tradition (or past Christian traditions for that matter).

One of the things I have alluded to is that there are a number of things within Catholic teaching that must be explained because reasonable folks believe a break with Tradition occurs. If me saying that causes you to think, … “there he goes again saying something without being able to defend it,” I can give you a list. I probably can give you external sites to read about it. I bet I could find whole books devoted to various instances where Catholicism’s consistency mandate/principle/dogma (I do not know what a good term is) is questioned or addressed. As I said, IRL, the number of Catholics like Jimmy Akin I know is decreasing and the number of Catholics who I would call Ultra-Trads is increasing. Ultra-Trads are fabulous at pointing to innovations in the faith post Vatican II. It is my opinion that they have a point, but they are like Dollinger who couldn’t tolerate Vatican I rather than like Newman who could. My leanings are that there is no divine protection of Tradition within the Catholic Church so I find Dollinger’s, the Ultra-Trads, Orestas Bronson (and at least one of the Bishops he knew) compelling. But, proof is not a term I would use.

Charity, TOm

When you say “tradition” do you mean traditional beliefs or traditional practices? Those are two very different topics.

Personally I think ultra-trads often conflate the two, or at least blur the lines of separation.

Paul