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

[TOmNossor]

Let me offer another unsolicited olive branch.
I have posted on why I think the BOM could not possible be produced by Joseph Smith or any other 19th century man. The evidence behind this belief supports a great deal of weight in my journey of reason (attempted reason).
That being said, what I presented (hopefully buried on the 8th page of a dopey thread) is IMO a powerful reason to reject infallibility claims. However, I think the coming forth of the Book of Abraham is a powerful reason to reject the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. I am encouraged by the direction being taken in LDS thought circles concerning this, but without the BOM (or some other stuff that I consider positive), the coming forth of the BOA would tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
I struggle to know if the arguments I offer on this thread that tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the Catholic Church are so related to the arguments against the BOA that I perhaps should not make them.
I tell myself that I am sharing with you how I weight the evidence and it is just true that I find the Catholic truth claims difficult to accept in ways that I do not find the CoJCoLDS truth claims. I tell myself that the posts here by Catholic attacking my church seem to evidence a disconnect between what they have in their closet and what they attack in my closet. So my purpose is to create a consistency. Maybe I am and maybe I am not.

But, it seems that if I do not acknowledge that explaining the coming forth of the BOA is a skeleton in my closet, I am not being consistent. So the coming forth of the BOA is a problem.
Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

They are sedavacantists, but that does not mean their presentation of why “hope for the unbaptized infants” is not theological novum.
They are actually suggesting that Limbo is theological novum because the universal church taught before the middle ages that there was no Limbo like place and that hell proper is the destination for anyone who dies without baptism.
If you thought I was suggesting “here is a good Catholic take on this issue” I was not (I called them ultra-trads).
And of course William Lane Craig is not a good Catholic either so perhaps we cannot accept his description of why Nicea said Father and Son were not multiple hypostasis.
If things posted on RFM were to be removed from Catholic Answer consideration, 90% thread started by Catholics on this message board would need to be deleted.
I find that the ultra-trads I know (and don’t know) argue that something is radically wrong with the post Vatican II church from a position of understanding what Catholicism is (or at least was before Vatican II). Many other arguments are hugely flawed because they don’t have a good understanding of what Catholicism is and don’t seem to care.
The Sedavacantist referenced does IMO extend papal infallibility WAY beyond what the bulk of the Vatican I bishops intended. I have no doubt that one aspect of the thinking of the Sedavacantist today would result in alignment with Dollinger rather than Newman. The near universal Arianism post Nicea would be another example IMO of such things. But it is the denial of continued revelation that produces these “kicking against the pricks” when things change. Orestas Bronson and his bishop took Newman’s theory to task as a remnant of his Protestantism, but they lacked the knowledge of the early church Newman built his theory upon (instead they just knew how preservation of tradition was taught to them). As a non-Catholic I find Newman’s theory necessary for Catholicism’s truth claims, but likely lacking.

BTW, I have no blog. I post here more than elsewhere, but I do post in other spots too. I know that my interactions here inform my thinking, but I do not recall a specific instance where I built non-Catholic Answers posts based on Catholic Answers stuff.
Charity, TOm

Let me put this simply for you.

Using that site for information about the Roman Catholic Church would be like us going to and FLDS site to learn about mormonism.

The views presented by each would be extremely skewed and inaccurate.

If you want to try and prove a point about something, try using a legitimate site.

Also, just to get back on track, this thread is not about the Catholic Church, it is about false doctrine being taught by mormon prophets. Care to address that?

 

[TOmNossor]

Let me put this simply for you.

Using that site for information about the Roman Catholic Church would be like us going to and FLDS site to learn about mormonism.

The views presented by each would be extremely skewed and inaccurate.

If you want to try and prove a point about something, try using a legitimate site.

Also, just to get back on track, this thread is not about the Catholic Church, it is about false doctrine being taught by mormon prophets. Care to address that?

Actually, I do not know precisely what this thread is about as the OP was confusing to me. But, the idea that Pope if not the Vicar of Christ and as such a restoration was necessary is rather directly related to the “gates of hell” comment in the OP.

If you would like to make an argument that the 1890 revelation to end polygamy was invalid. That the Saints continued to practice polygamy for a period of time after 1890. Or any one of a number of things, I would recommend you research this via informed FLDS arguments (that is what I did). Richard Abanas who also deals with it is not as good as the FLDS for the same reason Jack Chick is not as good as the Sedavacantists.

I almost referenced the FLDS arguments as being superior to the anti-Mormon arguments before you brought it up BTW. They are in many instances.

So, ignore anything said by a non-Catholic concerning Catholic truth claims. Or don’t read / think about the info I have put out here. Both are fine with me.

BTW, in case Richard still posts here, he is better than Jack Chick, and I miss him from ZLMB.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Are you saying that you believe Peter was not a prophet?

No, he was one of the Twelve who walked with Jesus Christ. He was also the Bishop of Rome.

I do not believe you can prove that the founder of the CoJCoLDS (meaning secondary founder after Christ and other folks not born in the 1800’s) did not receive revelation.

The founder of the latter-day-saint movement is Joseph Smith. He said the Book of Mormon was a history of ALL the American Indians. This claim is recorded in Mormon scripture and it is a lie. He said he translated the Book of Abraham which is Mormon scripture. This too was a lie. When he was caught in an act of adultery he did not repent, he claimed it was revelation that the other woman was his wife.

I believe there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Joseph Smith received revelation because much of his ‘revelation" were self serving lies.

Anyway, I could explain either change by itself (though that does not mean “there’s nothing to see here”) but together they are more difficult.
TOmNossor;12330096:

They are sedavacantists, but that does not mean their presentation of why “hope for the unbaptized infants” is not theological novum.

The sedavacantists, like you don’t want to conform to the magisterium of the Catholic Church; basically anti-Catholic. They leave out Church teach to feel right while you add teaching to feel right. If you cared about the true teaching of the Catholic Church, you would be more honest. You both have all the pieces of the puzzle, your emotions just won’t let you put them together.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Like the changes in doctrine on:
polygamy; no, then yes, then no
God being triune and then separate
Christ’s atonement being sufficient then not (blood atonement)
mark of Cain
Adam being God

But then there is the invented doctrines that have never been Christian that Mormon leaders have invented, but that would be another thread.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, I referenced the Cappadocia Father’s as those who began to use the term “hypostasis” to mean the three persons of the Trinity. I was hardly trying to suggest that this change in terms with little or no change in means represented something that took 1800 years.

Totally unimportant for this discussion, but you said, “the use of hypostasis was not clear to all the Bishops of the church.” I think hypostasis and much more so homoousian have such colorful linguistic shifts because they became the technical terms used to represent what a Catholic would call a mystery. All language that tries to define precisely how God is one and how God is three in the absence of terms that came to mean ONLY what they mean in their Trinitarian context fail to convey sufficient truth to all inquirers.

More on the other topic in response to Stephen.
Charity, TOm

Ok, I can agree with that, in that, all language falls short in describing God.

But you take that and argue it means a council is not infallible. I’m thinking you ascribe more to infallibility than I do. I understand God as mystery, and even a council of the Church is not going to succeed at describing God in human language. I get that. You seem to color with Mormon ideas, of a God that is not mystery, and so not being able to pin down God, so to speak, means something towards Christ not protecting His Church.

I think you confuse God and man too much perhaps?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Let me offer another unsolicited olive branch.
I have posted on why I think the BOM could not possible be produced by Joseph Smith or any other 19th century man. The evidence behind this belief supports a great deal of weight in my journey of reason (attempted reason).
That being said, what I presented (hopefully buried on the 8th page of a dopey thread) is IMO a powerful reason to reject infallibility claims. However, I think the coming forth of the Book of Abraham is a powerful reason to reject the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. I am encouraged by the direction being taken in LDS thought circles concerning this, but without the BOM (or some other stuff that I consider positive), the coming forth of the BOA would tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
I struggle to know if the arguments I offer on this thread that tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the Catholic Church are so related to the arguments against the BOA that I perhaps should not make them.
I tell myself that I am sharing with you how I weight the evidence and it is just true that I find the Catholic truth claims difficult to accept in ways that I do not find the CoJCoLDS truth claims. I tell myself that the posts here by Catholic attacking my church seem to evidence a disconnect between what they have in their closet and what they attack in my closet. So my purpose is to create a consistency. Maybe I am and maybe I am not.

But, it seems that if I do not acknowledge that explaining the coming forth of the BOA is a skeleton in my closet, I am not being consistent. So the coming forth of the BOA is a problem.
Charity, TOm

How is this an olive branch?

 

[RebeccaJ]

They are sedavacantists, but that does not mean their presentation of why “hope for the unbaptized infants” is not theological novum.
They are actually suggesting that Limbo is theological novum because the universal church taught before the middle ages that there was no Limbo like place and that hell proper is the destination for anyone who dies without baptism.
If you thought I was suggesting “here is a good Catholic take on this issue” I was not (I called them ultra-trads).
And of course William Lane Craig is not a good Catholic either so perhaps we cannot accept his description of why Nicea said Father and Son were not multiple hypostasis.
If things posted on RFM were to be removed from Catholic Answer consideration, 90% thread started by Catholics on this message board would need to be deleted.
I find that the ultra-trads I know (and don’t know) argue that something is radically wrong with the post Vatican II church from a position of understanding what Catholicism is (or at least was before Vatican II). Many other arguments are hugely flawed because they don’t have a good understanding of what Catholicism is and don’t seem to care.
The Sedavacantist referenced does IMO extend papal infallibility WAY beyond what the bulk of the Vatican I bishops intended. I have no doubt that one aspect of the thinking of the Sedavacantist today would result in alignment with Dollinger rather than Newman. The near universal Arianism post Nicea would be another example IMO of such things. But it is the denial of continued revelation that produces these “kicking against the pricks” when things change. Orestas Bronson and his bishop took Newman’s theory to task as a remnant of his Protestantism, but they lacked the knowledge of the early church Newman built his theory upon (instead they just knew how preservation of tradition was taught to them). As a non-Catholic I find Newman’s theory necessary for Catholicism’s truth claims, but likely lacking.

BTW, I have no blog. I post here more than elsewhere, but I do post in other spots too. I know that my interactions here inform my thinking, but I do not recall a specific instance where I built non-Catholic Answers posts based on Catholic Answers stuff.
Charity, TOm

Your posts are chuck full of word processor formatting, which makes me think you catalog your posts, and maybe those of others. Maybe you are just obsessed with your own writing.

The site you posted denies the holocaust, which calls into question their view of everything. At least that is how it is for me. They could be posting baking instructions, and I’d wonder if it were trustworthy.

Also, fwiw, “trads” is considered derogatory in these parts, same for prots.

 

[Stephen168]

How is this an olive branch?

I was wondering that too.
I thought he was going to quote two EC that contradicted each other; or one that said, “without baptism of water you are going to hell.”

or maybe a post that was brief and to the point

I think you might be right about Mormonism having colored his thinking.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was wondering that too.
I thought he was going to quote two EC that contradicted each other; or one that said, “without baptism of water you are going to hell.”

or maybe a post that was brief and to the point

I think you might be right about Mormonism having colored his thinking.

Or maybe ice cream.

 

[Stephen168]

If you do not think Catholicism’s understanding of the Bible is “COLORED” by the novelties of the Catholic Church, I think you have missed a great deal of Catholic and non-Catholic thought on the subject.
The Council of Nicea considered including only phrases from scripture to define Christ, but the Arians were able affirm all of this so the Athanasian party rejected this proposal in favor of something extra-Biblical.

You don’t need to revise it. You need to prove it.

How did the Arian party define Christ by using the Old Testament? What verses did they reference? Who was the secretary at the council that recorded the minutes of the meeting?
What is your source?

Do I still need to support my assertion that at Nicea non-scriptural language was used because the Arians had no problems with scriptural language.

Yes, you need to support your assertion that the Bishops at the Council of Nicea made a decision to reject the Arian case because the Arians case was based on scripture.

 

[Stephen168]

At the Council of Nicea it was declare that those who claimed Christ was a different hypostasis than the Father were anathema. At Nicea the Father’s were clear Christ was the same hypostasis as the Father.
Today, Catholics declare that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three hypostasis. I think this has been said since the initially regional council, Constantinope I (only later raised to the status of EC) deleted the anathema from the Nicene creed.

Today, Catholics declare that the Son and Holy Spirit are constubstantial with Father; three persons of the one God. Have you quoted a Council that says this is not true?

Do Mormons believe this or do they believe that there are three separate Gods and Adam is the Father?

 

[Stephen168]

Also, why do you never research the Catholic response before making such claims?

A single google search and I give you this:

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s5-7

I was googling around and found this interesting:
Hebrews 1:3:

Douay-Rheims:

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance

, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.

KJV:

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person

, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

NASB:

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature

, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
NIV:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being

, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Very interesting. It’s easy to see how a group that had nothing but the KJV could come to erroneous interpretations of that verse, as the Mormons have.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[Stephen168]

Very interesting. It’s easy to see how a group that had nothing but the KJV could come to erroneous interpretations of that verse, as the Mormons have.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

My thinking was that there is confusion over the meaning of the word in the 16th century, but to an anti-catholic, confusion in the 4th century is a change in dogma.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Restoration movements solve all confusions, by claiming to have the restored, non-confused answer.

GOD IS AN ALL MALE COMMITTEE!

There.

No more confusion.



ETA: Obviously the confusion has moved a degree higher. Maybe next we can say GOD IS DEAD!..no more confusion.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Let me offer another unsolicited olive branch.
I have posted on why I think the BOM could not possible be produced by Joseph Smith or any other 19th century man. The evidence behind this belief supports a great deal of weight in my journey of reason (attempted reason).
That being said, what I presented (hopefully buried on the 8th page of a dopey thread) is IMO a powerful reason to reject infallibility claims. However, I think the coming forth of the Book of Abraham is a powerful reason to reject the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. I am encouraged by the direction being taken in LDS thought circles concerning this, but without the BOM (or some other stuff that I consider positive), the coming forth of the BOA would tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
I struggle to know if the arguments I offer on this thread that tip my intellectual scales away from the truth claims of the Catholic Church are so related to the arguments against the BOA that I perhaps should not make them.
I tell myself that I am sharing with you how I weight the evidence and it is just true that I find the Catholic truth claims difficult to accept in ways that I do not find the CoJCoLDS truth claims. I tell myself that the posts here by Catholic attacking my church seem to evidence a disconnect between what they have in their closet and what they attack in my closet. So my purpose is to create a consistency. Maybe I am and maybe I am not.

But, it seems that if I do not acknowledge that explaining the coming forth of the BOA is a skeleton in my closet, I am not being consistent. So the coming forth of the BOA is a problem.
Charity, TOm

First of all, I’ll be the judge of a ‘dopey thread’. Also, Errhm, the Book of Mormon has many, many historical errors in itself. Your ‘Book of Mormon’ is most likely a rough translation of the KJV bible with a few Mormon twists. Familiar with:

“Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

and

“And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”?

Dare I ask, can you show me the proof that the Book of Mormon wasn’t produced by Joseph Smith? Yeah, and I still need an example of any Church teaching changing, because you seem to not have any real proof.

 

[Nanotwerp]

I still don’t get how you can trust a church that changes doctrine every 10 years, or so.

 

[PaulDupre1]

My thinking was that there is confusion over the meaning of the word in the 16th century, but to an anti-catholic, confusion in the 4th century is a change in dogma.

You crack me up, Stephen.

 

[PaulDupre1]

First of all, I’ll be the judge of a ‘dopey thread’. Also, Errhm, the Book of Mormon has many, many historical errors in itself. Your ‘Book of Mormon’ is most likely a rough translation of the KJV bible with a few Mormon twists. Familiar with:

“Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

and

“And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”?

Dare I ask, can you show me the proof that the Book of Mormon wasn’t produced by Joseph Smith? Yeah, and I still need an example of any Church teaching changing, because you seem to not have any real proof.

What really convinced me that the BoM is a fraud was not the obvious and silly anachronisms (horses, steel, sheep, wheat, linen, silk, elephants, etc.) but the things that are not mentioned in the BoM:

Things like maize, beans and squash (the “3 sisters” of native American culture), amaranth and all the other things that native Americans really ate, and the milpa technique of growing all these companion plants together that was the single greatest agricultural innovation of the ancient world, invented at least as early as 3,000 years ago. Any record written by real native Americans would have included mention of these foods that they actually did eat and the farming activities that were the life’s blood of these great civilizations and the center around which their cultures revolved.

Yes, I know that corn is mentioned in the BoM, but not in the proper context. Citing corn along with wheat, barley and sheep make it as anachronistic as the horses and elephants.

You’d almost think the BoM was written by a 19th century guy from New York.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: The BoM tells about silk, but never mentions cotton, which was a major industry during BoM times. I know, I know, the FAIR and FARMS apologists are now saying that when it says silk, it really meant cotton. What, the Mormon god doesn’t know the English word for cotton?