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

[PaulDupre1]

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

The way that a LDS uses those terms, the answer to both questions is yes.

But Catholics use those terms much differently. When the Pope, or an ecumenical council in union with the Pope, makes in infallible declaration, it is as binding on the faithful as is scripture. But since the apostolic age, whenever such a declaration is made, it is made to protect, defend and clarify what the Church has always taught and believed, and not to introduce a novel belief.

That I think is why we do not use words like “revelation” and “scripture” to describe the infallible declarations of the magisterium. We don’t want to give the mistaken impression that we are introducing something that has not been held by all the faithful since the apostolic age.

We simply believe that the Holy Spirit reminds the magisterium of all that Jesus said (John 14:26) and thereby leads the Church into all truth (John 16:13) as Jesus promised. Also see 2 Timothy 1:13.

If you wish to call that public revelation you are free to do so.

If you wish to call infallible pronouncements binding on all the faithful “scripture” then you are free to do so.

Just know that we do not use those terms because they give an inaccurate image of what the magisterium does.

There is nothing in the Catholic magisterium akin to the LDS prophet who can introduce novel beliefs and overturn the beliefs taught by earlier prophets.

Paul

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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).

So, you believe in Mormon teaching at this time. Therefore, you reject much of what Mormons taught in the past.

So, when Mormon teaching changes yet again, do you disavow your current beliefs? Were they ever true?

Catholics believe that Truth is, well, Catholic. Universal. Not just in all places, but also for all times. Just as the Truth (Jesus) cannot change, so too His revealed truth cannot change. If it can, it’s not true.

Mormon teaching can change. It is not true.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Please clarify your OP, see post #2

The question I was asking is basically a ‘What do Mormons believe happened when’ scenario. I just don’t get how Mormons can depend on the LDS Church when the Presidents refute each other.

 

[Nanotwerp]

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

I just want to hear your argument; i’m curious.

 

[Janderich]

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

Of course. Just as it is not about being a disciple of Pope Francis.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

That is of course not the Catholic understanding but your personal characterization.

Catholics understand Jesus as God’s Word, fully revealed, with an understanding that the Twelve understood more clearly, than any, the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Peter in particular singled out as having a unique understanding even among his peers, the Twelve.

This is the foundation of Christ’s Church, the Twelve and Paul.

Our view is, the public Revelation of Jesus Christ is perfect, and so we don’t look for innovations that would claim to add to or modify the perfect Revelation of Jesus Christ. The Church is a Christ promised, led unto Truth until His return. It is the gift of,the Holy Spirit, that the Pope is given according to his office.

We hold no belief that in our pilgrimage, human frailty does not effect our path. Our fraility is evidence of our need, and our need is fulfilled by Jesus. God works in and through the frailty of humanity, not around it.

It is the uncharitable view of a schismatic, that Christ’s Church is contaminated and so withdrawing to a self proclaimed “safety”, has the opposite effect. Removing oneself from communion has never been a Tradition of the Church. Never. Controversy is not settled by self proclaimed authorities who have no authority. Those who claim to be “ultra-trad”, whatever that is, have made their own Tradition which is not Catholic Tradition.

We are on a pilgrim journey, and if you perceive wandering, we wander together, with faith that Christ does indeed protect His Church. The evidence is there, to see, but those who don’t want to see, don’t.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course. Just as it is not about being a disciple of Pope Francis.

Of course what? You post Biblical passages but your understanding is colored by the novelties of Joseph Smith, which makes you a disciple of Smith.

Catholicism is adverse to novelties, and rejects them for what they are.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

Thank you very much for your comments. Since Nanotwerp has requested it, I think will link to the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
Charity, TOm

 

[Shinehah]

If the verse says that Peter is the “rock”, where do you get the notion that it really means “revelation”. I don’t see any connection between the verse, and your findings.

When did this “apostasy” occur?

So you admit that the doctrine of the mormon church changes, based upon who the leader is?

I don’t think that I am going to convince you of my view of this scripture by any means I can come up with. Nor do I think that you are going to convince me of the Catholic interpretation, so I think arguing the point is a waste of time. We believe what we believe and you believe what you believe.

As to the exact date and time of the apostasy, I don’t think there is a definitive time. I think that the process was gradual. Here is a good LDS topic page if you want to dig further:

lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

I don’t believe that the doctrine of the church changes because we believe that truth (doctrine) is eternal. Certainly the practices, emphasis, organization, etc of the church have evolved over time.

 

[MacQ]

Thank you very much for your comments. Since Nanotwerp has requested it, I think will link to the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
Charity, TOm

Or refer him to Google.

 

[TOmNossor]

I just want to hear your argument; i’m curious.

Here is an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm

Here is a post in which I referenced John XII (without even explaining why he was such a horror).
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=769194&postcount=6

The post I linked was one of my better moments on this board. I do believe that my church is often given unfair treatment here and almost always given treatment that focuses on the negative. In response sometimes I focus on the negative within Catholicism.

I am of the opinion that one of the ways of defending the CoJCoLDS is to show where the Catholic Church went wrong. IF the Catholic Church was started by Christ through Peter and nothing is amiss, then there is no need for a Restoration. So in addition to looking at the strengths and weaknesses evidenced in this history of the restoration some LDS thinkers have looked through Christian history to determine if there might be anything amiss. Such a search for something wrong within the CoJCoLDS or the JWs is not of the same value for Catholicism.

Three of the methods I have seen for this exploration are:

1. Immoral leaders means apostasy.
2. Heretical teachings means apostasy.
3. Lack/loss of authority means apostasy.
   Note: “Apostasy” in Catholic language typically means departure from Christ and in the past would not be applied to Arians or hardly any heretics at all. Few LDS thinkers use “apostasy” in this way, and I expect fewer still would if they thought more about it.

I find #1 to be a poor avenue for exploration (and distasteful).

To my Catholic Encyclopedia reference, let me offer a short and simple Catholic response. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is infallible in certain specific instances, but it does not teach that the Pope is impeccable (unable to sin). It is true that some Popes have been immoral men and all Popes sin, but that these men unconcerned with the weight of their office didn’t declare heretical things is actually positive evidence for the chrism that Catholic do claim exists within the Pope.

Anyway, hope that answers your question.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t believe that the doctrine of the church changes because we believe that truth (doctrine) is eternal. Certainly the practices, emphasis, organization, etc of the church have evolved over time.

The doctrine of the Mormon Church does change. The black priesthood ban and abortion come to mind in recent history

 

[Stephen168]

I am of the opinion that one of the ways of defending the CoJCoLDS is to show where the Catholic Church went wrong……

It is the foundation of Mormonism. The Catholic Church does not rise or fall on the Mormon Church. Mormon Doctrine includes anti-Catholicism.

Three of the methods I have seen for this exploration are:

1. Immoral leaders means apostasy.

…

I find #1 to be a poor avenue for exploration (and distasteful).

To my Catholic Encyclopedia reference, let me offer a short and simple Catholic response. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is infallible in certain specific instances, but it does not teach that the Pope is impeccable (unable to sin). It is true that some Popes have been immoral men and all Popes sin, but that these men unconcerned with the weight of their office didn’t declare heretical things is actually positive evidence for the chrism that Catholic do claim exists within the Pope.

:whacky:

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons claim their Apostles hold the key of Priesthood Authority which the Catholic Church lost; demonstrated by the fact there are no more Apostles in Orthodox Christianity. The problem with this claim is Mormon history itself.

In 1830, Joseph Smith started the Latter-Day-Saint Movement by making himself First Elder and Oliver Cowdery ‘Second Elder.’ They both claimed to be given the ‘Keys.’ Smith established the First Presidency, Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon, to run the Church in 1832. This High Council was the chief judicial and legislative body of the church supervised by the First Presidency. The Presiding High Council was established in 1834 by the First Presidency. In 1835, Smith told Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, to select the Twelve Apostles to head the missionary work of the Church. The first apostles were: Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Lyman E. Johnson, David W. Patten, Orson Hyde, William E. M’Lellin, Luke S. Johnson, William Smith, John F. Boynton, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Thomas B. Marsh.

By the end of 1835, the Church was run by the Elders in the First Presidency who was over the Elders in the Presiding High Council who was over the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. ‘The Keys’ were held by the First Presidency who were not ‘Apostles.’
In 1837, the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society, a bank founded by church leaders, led to widespread dissent.

In 1838, Thomas Marsh, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, William M’Lellin, and John Boynton were excommunicated. And John Patten was killed. They were replaced by John Page, and John Taylor leaving the church with eight apostles.

In 1839 Wilford Woodruff, and George Smith were added to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles to make the total number ten.

In 1840, Willard Richards made the number of apostles eleven.

In 1841, Lyman Wight was added to restored the number of apostles to twelve.

In 1842 Orson Pratt was excommunicated and replaced by Amasa Lyman.

At the time of Joseph Smith’s death the First Presidency included: Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. The head of the Presiding High Council was William Marks. The head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was Brigham Young. After the Smith’s were killed, only Sidney Rigdon remained in the First Presidency.

As the member of the First Presidency (holder of the keys) Rigdon claimed to be guardian of the church and Apostle John Page and Elder William Marks supported him in that claim.
Brigham Young as the head Apostle claimed Joseph Smith was an Apostle and held the keys. Because Young was the head Apostle he claimed to replace Smith as the holder of the keys. This was the first time any Mormon thought of an Apostle as being a key holder.
The Church membership voted for Young, as leader of the third level church council, to lead the church; and raise the Quorum of Twelve Apostles over the Presiding High Council while taking over the First Presidency.

To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

The list includes the dates when each apostle was ordained. In some cases, the date of the calling is used when the actual date of ordination is unclear.

 

[TOmNossor]

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
It is interesting how you summarize things.

This is what I am saying:
Catholics claim they do not have continuing revelation. They claim that they preserve tradition. They claim to not CHANGE. Evidence that they change is evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be. To weigh potential CHANGES in Catholic doctrine is to investigate if the Catholic authority is in any way what it claims to be.
LDS do not make these claims. They claim to have access to continuing revelation. Changes can and will happen and it will not mean the same thing for CHANGES in Catholic doctrine.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you agree with the above statements?

I tried to offer an olive branch by agreeing with you that my research into Catholic thought suggests there is greater consistency than I can find in LDS thought. But, I refuse to weigh Mormonism with Catholic teachings or Catholicism with LDS teachings. I think this is done frequently by Catholic and LDS. There are ways this can be done with no validity, little validity and some validity; but the absolute conclusions I see drawn by both Catholic and LDS are IMO mistakes.

The LDS teaching that continuing revelation is a mark of the true church is a measuring stick that if applied to Catholicism quite simply proves Catholicism is not God’s church. But, while it is appropriate (and powerful IMO) to point out that the LDS President does many things Peter did and the Catholic Pope doesn’t do these thing; this is not an absolute test of who is the successor of Peter.

I referenced above a “fallacy of fundamentalist assumptions.” Perhaps I should point out that some folks might place so much emphasis upon “consistency” that they do not believe a lack of consistency could exist within anything true. I think such thinking consistently applied results in some form of Judaism, but I can acknowledge it does not result in Mormonism. I also think such things are PART of what modern Sedavacantists suffer from.

Let me briefly mention that I personally reject the radical relativism that exists within some philosophical circles. At the very least I believe past necessity entails. This means that God either created human spirits ex nihilo at conception or spirits pre-existed before we were conceived. Both of these cannot be correct.
Of less import, I might say that either there is reason to hope for the soles of an unbaptized infant or there is no reason to hope for them. Or there is reason to hope for the salvation of Judas Iscariot or there is not. Our church leaders may change their opinions on these positions, but I do not believe God does.
Practices begun by actions of leaders may also change. Like married Roman rite priests or married priests in communion with the Bishop of Rome or no married priests in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Or priesthood to all worthy members instead of restrictions on blacks (or non-Levites).

I of course could multiply the examples in Catholic and LDS circles a great deal, but let me again offer that there is greater consistency within Catholicism per my research than within the CoJCoLDS. And BTW, I can offer the Catholic responses to the changes that I highlighted concerning practices not dogma or …, but you are welcome to offer them if you must.

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre1]

It is interesting how you summarize things.

This is what I am saying:
Catholics claim they do not have continuing revelation. They claim that they preserve tradition. They claim to not CHANGE. Evidence that they change is evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be. To weigh potential CHANGES in Catholic doctrine is to investigate if the Catholic authority is in any way what it claims to be.
LDS do not make these claims. They claim to have access to continuing revelation. Changes can and will happen and it will not mean the same thing for CHANGES in Catholic doctrine.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you agree with the above statements?

I tried to offer an olive branch by agreeing with you that my research into Catholic thought suggests there is greater consistency than I can find in LDS thought. But, I refuse to weigh Mormonism with Catholic teachings or Catholicism with LDS teachings. I think this is done frequently by Catholic and LDS. There are ways this can be done with no validity, little validity and some validity; but the absolute conclusions I see drawn by both Catholic and LDS are IMO mistakes.

The LDS teaching that continuing revelation is a mark of the true church is a measuring stick that if applied to Catholicism quite simply proves Catholicism is not God’s church. But, while it is appropriate (and powerful IMO) to point out that the LDS President does many things Peter did and the Catholic Pope doesn’t do these thing; this is not an absolute test of who is the successor of Peter.

I referenced above a “fallacy of fundamentalist assumptions.” Perhaps I should point out that some folks might place so much emphasis upon “consistency” that they do not believe a lack of consistency could exist within anything true. I think such thinking consistently applied results in some form of Judaism, but I can acknowledge it does not result in Mormonism. I also think such things are PART of what modern Sedavacantists suffer from.

Let me briefly mention that I personally reject the radical relativism that exists within some philosophical circles. At the very least I believe past necessity entails. This means that God either created human spirits ex nihilo at conception or spirits pre-existed before we were conceived. Both of these cannot be correct.
Of less import, I might say that either there is reason to hope for the soles of an unbaptized infant or there is no reason to hope for them. Or there is reason to hope for the salvation of Judas Iscariot or there is not. Our church leaders may change their opinions on these positions, but I do not believe God does.
Practices begun by actions of leaders may also change. Like married Roman rite priests or married priests in communion with the Bishop of Rome or no married priests in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Or priesthood to all worthy members instead of restrictions on blacks (or non-Levites).

I of course could multiply the examples in Catholic and LDS circles a great deal, but let me again offer that there is greater consistency within Catholicism per my research than within the CoJCoLDS. And BTW, I can offer the Catholic responses to the changes that I highlighted concerning practices not dogma or …, but you are welcome to offer them if you must.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

It would serve to move the conversation along if you would offer a specific example of a Catholic doctrine (not a discipline) that you think has changed. So far you have not done so.

Paul

 

[Stephen168]

Mormon Doctrine:

The wisdom of the world is transitory; it will vanish away. But the wisdom of God is eternal; it will endure forever. Scientific theories change with every new discovery, but the wisdom revealed from God is eternal truth.

Mormons believes the Mormon Church is consistent in its truth claims. So I would expect Mormons to defend what appears to be the lies of the Mormon founder, but they don’t.

It is interesting how you summarize things.

I think my summary is accurate. You cannot even start to defend the lies of Joseph Smith and the changes in Mormon doctrine, yet you demand consistency in Catholic truth claims. That is the work of a hypocrite.
Either truth is eternal or it is not. You seem to believe it is not. It seems irrational to demand something you don’t believe in.

But, I refuse to weigh Mormonism with Catholic teachings or Catholicism with LDS teachings.

You cannot defend Mormonism using Mormon teaching, so you reject Mormon teaching and attack the Catholic Church. I believe it is because there is no defense for Mormonism.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I am of the opinion that one of the ways of defending the CoJCoLDS is to show where the Catholic Church went wrong. IF the Catholic Church was started by Christ through Peter and nothing is amiss, then there is no need for a Restoration.
Charity, TOm

I don’t see a connection between the Catholic Church being wrong and the LDS church being correct.

Even if you could show the need for a restoration, it would not follow that the LDS church is that restoration, any more than the JW’s or the SDAs or the INC is that restoration (though they all claim to be). And that doesn’t even touch on all the non-Brighamite Mormon churches who claim to be the true restoration.

I think you’d best stick to defending the indefensible.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I don’t see a connection between the Catholic Church being wrong and the LDS church being correct.

Even if you could show the need for a restoration, it would not follow that the LDS church is that restoration, any more than the JW’s or the SDAs or the INC is that restoration (though they all claim to be). And that doesn’t even touch on all the non-Brighamite Mormon churches who claim to be the true restoration.

I think you’d best stick to defending the indefensible.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

To be fair, there is a connection.
The Total Apostasy of the Catholic Church is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for the LDS beliefs.

You’re right that even if there was a total apostasy it would not prove the LDS correct, but if there was no such apostasy, this necessary condition would not be met and the LDS beliefs would be invalid.

 

[PaulDupre1]

To be fair, there is a connection.
The Total Apostasy of the Catholic Church is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for the LDS beliefs.

You’re right that even if there was a total apostasy it would not prove the LDS correct, but if there was no such apostasy, this necessary condition would not be met and the LDS beliefs would be invalid.

Agreed, but that was not my point. My point is that the Catholic Church being wrong is not evidence that the LDS church is the restoration of the ancient Church. Tom Nosser claimed that it is.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)