Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

[tkdnick]

Didn’t take the time to read everything and “catch up” on the conversation, but the reason I’m so interested in the LDS faith is that I believe the Spirit has told me that my best friends are not supposed to be LDS. I believe that so strongly that I began to research the LDS faith. It has not been an easy road doing all this research, trying to sort out what’s true LDS beliefs, what’s not, and what’s maybe.

 

[Brad_Haas]

amgid:

An interesting observation Haas. Technically you are quite right. If we accept that the Apostasy is true, it does not logically follow that Mormonism must necessarily be the Restoration. Anybody making that claim could technically be that Restoration. The problem with that argument is that it ignores the fact that Mormonism is currently the only Church in the world that comes anywhere near making a viable claim to being that Restoration. There is no other church in the world that comes even close to competing with the LDS Church in making that claim.

The fact you claim is almost entirely subjective. If the apostasy happened the way the LDS church says it did, then there’s very little we can do to verify any restoration claims, since historical facts (including Scripture) from the first centuries can never be trusted. Restoration claims would pretty much be burning-in-the-bosom contests. The only other way to compare is using logic or other sciences, which of course the LDS church teaches can’t be trusted either. So it comes down to “knowing.”

amgid:

You are a very lucky guy to have a Mormon girlfriend. Not many people get to be that lucky you know.

Indeed, to the endless grief of devout LDS involved, I managed to slip in without being a Returned Missionary or even a Soon To Be Missionary.

amgid:

It is also a dangerous thing to have a Mormon girlfriend. You might end up getting converted!

You sound like her father. But I wouldn’t worry about me.

amgid:

That is a good start! I am glad to hear it. Next you should read the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Then you can say that you have read all the standard world of the LDS Church. After that, if you have any serious questions about them, you can bring them along and we will talk about them.

I’m laying off the LDS scriptures for now, though the rest probably won’t be as difficult to finish as the BoM. I have some other books I want to read. How do I know if my questions are serious? By whether or not you like them?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Jerusha:

Background on BJ:

My mind is working on an explanation for her behavior. Verrrry interesting.

BJ, what kind of work do you do, and for who?

Which behavior are you talking about? I do raise a fuss every once in a while when I get frustrated about posts here that are untrue, but mostly I try to just listen, learn and ask questions.
My profession is Travel Counselor, which I have practiced since June of 1979. In that capacity I have been fortunate enought to have travelled the world and lived in Central America for a year, besides travelling very extensively in Mexico. I have been to Egypt, Oman, Yeman, India, Israel, Greece, Italy, France, Sicily, England, Spain, Morocco, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, China, Borneo, Bali, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, all of the Caribbean Islands.
I have not been to Australia, nor a few other places, as there will always be places to visit and to re-visit, but I feel I have seen more than the average person, except for other travel agents. At present time I am self-employed under a local cruise agency, and work from home so I can care for my husband, who is paralyzed on the right side.
I am not formally educated and that is why some of my posts may seem ignorant of the facts that you may be more familiar with. I studied one year a BYU before getting married when I was 18 and having 6 children.
But, I try to acknowledge when I am wrong and ask questions to find out where these things are found. As I did above about the hymn. The question was answered very graciously by several and a little severely by a couple of persons, who thought I was joking when I asked where they found that song.
I hope this answers your question, but why did you want to know?
BJ

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

The fact you claim is almost entirely subjective. If the apostasy happened the way the LDS church says it did, then there’s very little we can do to verify any restoration claims, since historical facts (including Scripture) from the first centuries can never be trusted. Restoration claims would pretty much be burning-in-the-bosom contests. The only other way to compare is using logic or other sciences, which of course the LDS church teaches can’t be trusted either. So it comes down to “knowing.”

There is an easy answer to that question. If it is indeed true that God has restored His true Church on earth, then I would say that the burden of proof is on Him to make it know to me (if I sincerely inquire), otherwise I have no obligation to accept it. Interestingly, the LDS Church claims that He does, and He will!

How do I know if my questions are serious? By whether or not you like them?

No, I will let you be the judge of that!

amgid

 

[Jehu13]

BJ Colbert:

There are other threads addressing the apostacy, I just wanted to know why Catholics study the LDS religion, and I have had many different answers all pretty interesting. Some not so charitable, but all appreciated.
Now, we are getting off topic and going of on tangents of polygamy, anthropology and etc. Please start new threads for these topics or go to threads that have already been started to discuss them. I am getting so confused I forgot what I asked originally.
Thank you all for your answers,
BJ

BJ the only reason that Istudy the Mormon religion is because Mormons come to me and not the other way around. I also do the same with Evangelical and Muslim religions. I study thier religions because they attack The believes that have been taught from the beginning. The Common thing that I have noticed about Mormans, JW’s, muslims and some Protestant believes is the Apostasy Theory that I saw quite clearly to be wrong as a Evangelical. So the reason I study all those religions is so that I can know where the people are coming from, so I can give them the Answer as to what the Catholic Church teaches. I hope that helps

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

As a Supreme Court Justice (O’Connor?) said - if the constitutionality of polygamy or polyandry were to come before the Court today it would like held to be legal as a legal practice. While this would justify the actions of those who you say are no longer LDS (but who claim to be ‘more’ LDS than those who have repudiated D&C 132) be able to come into communion with the LDS church once again?

Not unless they repented and accepted the authority of the LDS Church (which at the present they don’t). Also, in the early days, the practice of polygamy had to be authorized by the leadership of the Church before it could be entered into. They would probably be deemed unworthy to enter into that relationship, judging by some the things that has already happened among them.

Would a new Manifesto be revealed allowing plural marriage once again?

That depends on the will of the Lord. I wouldn’t presume to read the mind of the Lord on anything.

Or would LDS leaders, who have worked so hard to make the LDS church a mainstream religion …

Now you are making unsubstantiated assertions. You have no justification for that claim.

…remain bound by an updated revealed Manifesto that superseded - for time, at least - the truth of the revelation of D&C 132?

As I said, that depends on the Lord. I wouldn’t presume to read the mind of the Lord on that.

amgid

 

[PaulDupre]

BJ Colbert:

I know that Jesus was conceived by God through the power of the Holy Spirit. God is Jesus father, but he did not actually come to earth to have sex with Mary as some Catholics claim that we believe. If He had done that she would not have been a virgin, and it would not have been immaculate conception(which we believe as well as you do)
BJ

No BJ,
You do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. You are referring to the Virgin Birth (the birth of Jesus). The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who by a singular gift from God through the atonement of Jesus, was preserved from the stain of original sin.
Paul

 

[BJ_Colbert]

PaulDupre:

No BJ,
You do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. You are referring to the Virgin Birth (the birth of Jesus). The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who by a singular gift from God through the atonement of Jesus, was preserved from the stain of original sin.
Paul

Thanks Paul,
See I am getting so confused with all the conceptions I do not know what is Catholic and what is Mormon.
I thought immaculate conception was when a child was conceived without traditional sex. Sorry, again. My husband is also using LDS terms to describe his beliefs so we are both melding into our own version of Catholic-Mormonism. I keep having to tell him “No you don’t believe that, you believe this” Now, I’m doing it too. What I meant is that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary without her having had sex with God, as some here have stated. So please forgive my confusion.
BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Lost&Found:

Could you please make your point about Mormonism, without taking a shot at Northern Ireland. I don’t see what Northern Ireland has to do with Mormonism.
Generally it’s Muslims and Atheists who love to look down on Northern Ireland as an example of “Christianity gone wrong”, so you set off a few alarm bells for sure.
Although it may be feel good for you to see Catholics in that situation, you really really have NO IDEA what you are talking about, so please don’t try to take a kick at the Irish to make your points about Mormonism.
And I see from your last post it’s not part of Mormonism to talk about polygamy, anthropology and I disagree there too.

I was totally serious with the question as regards to the question being answered. I just wanted to know if this was an accurate comparison. I really don’t have any idea, that is why I asked the question. So, someone like yourself who does know could answer in a civil and educated way.
Thanks for your kind reply to my question. I love the Irish, as a matter of fact I am Irish (maiden name Beatty) From Presbyterian roots. But, I truely do not know what the fight is about and have not studied it. Perhaps you could start a thread on that subject.
BJ

 

[majick275]

amgid:

This is a perfect example of your misrepresentation of what LDS believe and teach, not the other way. Allow me to tell you what is wrong with all of these. Firstly, they are all taken out of context, and don’t mean a thing. None of them, if read in proper context, would constitute a deliberate attempt to “spread falsehood” about the Catholic Church or any other church. Secondly, they all come from things that were written or said a long time ago (most of them in fact are more than a century old), and they are not a true representation of the teachings and practices of the LDS Church today. In those days religion was more charismatic than today, and they spoke in more fiery tones than they do nowadays. Thirdly, all of them in fact are merely exaggerated expressions of the LDS belief in the apostasy of the early Christian church. Well, we do believe that the early Christian church apostatized. That is why a restoration was necessary. We make no bones about that, and don’t need to apologize for it. It is a fundamental tenet of our theology. If other people don’t like it, that is too bad, because it is true, and that is what we believe. But it is neither intended as an attack, nor does it constitute spreading falsehood or lies about the Catholic or any other church.

first, what context were these made in if you think they aren’t attacks? The BoM was written a long time ago and I hardly think that you would claim that the LDS church of today is representative of the nephites teachings and practices. If you want to excuse their “excesses in speech” by just saying that thats how they talked back then, I would have a problem with that.

That the great apostasy is a tenet of your faith does not change the fact that it IS an attack on other faiths. How can you say it isn’t intentional? Catholics believe that the Great Apostasy MUST be a lie and therefore a church that teaches this as essential to salvation is spreading a lie about the Catholic church.

Please take a look at Elder Dallin Oaks talk about “lying for the Lord”.

amgid:

The rest of your post is a load of garbled, gibberish nonsense, and does not deserve a reply. Kathryn was right about you. If you can’t take the trouble to put a bit more clarity, order and organization into your post, I am not going to make the effort to reply to them.

amgid

What part didn’t you understand? I would be glad to clarify. I would classify most of JS “revelations” as a load of garbled, gibberish nonsense yet I still made the effort to read it and study an accurate refutation of it.

 

[sara888]

Good BJ, at least you are aware of how Christ was concieved. Some LDS/ mormons do profess to that bizzare theory. I have spoken to many of them with regard to this.

Sara

 

[Chris-WA]

BJ Colbert:

I suppose you know every hymn in the Catholic Hymn book, I really was serious and not saying anyone was crazy. I was telling you I was impressed by the knowledge of these small details. I really am impressed by the knowledge here, and did not mean to start an attack on myself. I was born and raised as a Mormon and lived as such married in the Temple and giving birth to the madatory 6 children, then through divorce and circumstances was out of the church for 20 years. I am like a baby in knowledge, but learning more day by day and certainly some is from these forums.
I did not mean to come across as being facetious, I was sincerely impressed that you knew where to find that silly song. I thought it was indeed a silly song, and had honestly never heard it. Thanks again for pointing out my ignorance with such glee.
BJ

BJ, I think you missed the entire point I was trying to make. It was in no way attacking you after you paid us a compliment. The point is that many LDS dismiss our arguments based on the following statement, “Well, I was never taught that,” or “I never heard that, so it must not be true.” What I’m trying to get across here is that the reason you have never heard of many of these things before in regards to Mormonism is not because they weren’t taught-- it’s because the original teaching was either drastically changed or was de-emphasized so that by the time you came into the church, you never heard about them. When taught history lessons in church, I’m sure these very issues are not brought up, so the membership gets a very rosy picture of the early LDS church–rosy and incomplete.

The song was just a small example of this phenomenon–insignificant in and of itself. But this is a pattern that those of us outside the church readily recognize when dealing with current LDS members while discussing these issues. When we bring up such things, we are often summarily dismissed by “I’ve never been taught that, so it must not be true.” The proper way to handle such criticisms would be to look up the material in question and find out for oneself whether or not what we’re saying is correct.

For example, when I told my own wife that the LDS church allows abortions in certain limited circumstances, she didn’t believe me because “she never heard that taught.” Well, that is church teaching, but somehow the membership has never heard of it, despite going to Sunday school almost every weekend of the year for their whole lives.

So, when we bring these things up, we are often attacked as anti-Mormon and dismissed altogether. The LDS member then builds a wall around themself that no discussion will be rationally considered (I’m speaking in my general dealings with LDS here, not necessarily you), but will be immediately rejected with an emotional persecution response.

So, in conclusion, I would say that if we can point out some things to you that are true, even though you were never taught them in your LDS training, don’t you think there is the possibility that this could apply to many other things as well? Is it possible that many of the things you have been taught all your life as a faithful Mormon are the latest iteration of current church teaching, even perhaps drastically changed since the beginnings of the church? There is no disrespect intended. I am being as rational and unemotional as I can possibly be. So please, when we try to point out something about Mormonism, please don’t say it’s untrue because you have never been taught that. All that means is that you were never taught that. It doesn’t mean it was never taught.

 

[Katzpur]

1.Thanks for taking the time to respond. How do LDS interpret Matthew 16:18?

In the KJV, this verse is stated as follows:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This verse needs to be interpreted according to the understanding that the Apostles (and other Jewish converts to Christianity of that time period) would have had. When most Christians today see the phrase, “the gates of hell,” they immediately assume that it is referring to Satan and/or the forces of evil. Some even assume that it is a hyperbole and is intended to mean something like, “no evil in the world.” When understood in this way, the sentence would be interpreted as meaning something like, “… and upon this rock I will build my church; and no evil in the world shall prevail against it.”

But to Peter and the Apostles, this would have meant something entirely different. In their culture, “the gates of hell” would mean nothing quite so ominous. To a first-century Jew, this phrase would have simply been a reference to the entrance to the underworld, or the abode of departed spirits. It was where the dead were believed to reside. Consequently, Jesus was telling them that His gospel would even be taken to “hell,” which is exactly what happened. During the three days His body lay in the tomb, He visited “hell” or “the spirit prison,” teaching His gospel and setting free the spirits who would accept it.

We don’t believe that this verse, in any way, shape, or form, was denying the possibility of a future Apostasy.

1. We know that Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 5: 23) “as Christ also is the head of the church, He himself being the Savior of the body”. A total apostasy, with Satan overcoming the church, would certainly seem to imply that Christ, as the head of the church, was defeated. Do LDS believe this?

I wouldn’t put it that strongly, simply because the Church (i.e. Christianity) certainly did not cease to exist at any point in time. There have been devout Christians on earth ever since Christ’s time. However, we believe that the authority Jesus gave to Peter was not, in fact, passed on to Linus. We believe that, with the deaths of the Apostles, the line of authority ended. Therefore, revelation ceased, and doctrines evolved over time to be quite different, at least in some cases, from those Jesus and His Apostles had taught.

1. As you can imagine, it’s hardly convincing to say that Jesus did not protect His church the first time around but now He has made a point of saying it won’t happen again. Other than an LDS scripture that you’re referring to, is there any reason someone would believe this? For instance, is there anything in the NT (second time I’ve posed this question, I think) where there is a direct prophecy that the church will be completely overturned and uttterly lost? End time prophecies suggest battles and imposters, no doubt, but ‘total apostasy’?

Well, I believe there are. Undoubtedly, you will disagree. I guess, in the end, it’s a matter of interpretation. Here are four verses which, when looked at together, seem to imply something considerably more universal than most Christians believe took place.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel…

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears…

Paul made it absolutely clear that (1)the flock would not only be attacked, it would not be spared, (2) Christ would not return to the earth until this universal “falling away” or “apostasy” had taken place, (3) these things were already beginning to take place as he spoke, and (4) the doctrines taught by the Savior would, in time, cease to endure.

There are also scriptures describing a “restitution of all things.” If there had been no Apostasy in the first place, such restitution would certainly be unnecessary.

Kathyn

 

[PaulDupre]

Katzpur:

Here are four verses which, when looked at together, seem to imply something considerably more universal than most Christians believe took place.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel…

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears…

Each of these verses depicts apostacy FROM the Church, but none depicts apostacy OF the Church. We Catholics have been battling apostacy for 2000 years, as the Mormons have for 170 years. That is just the fallen human condition.

Paul made it absolutely clear that (1)the flock would not only be attacked, it would not be spared, (2) Christ would not return to the earth until this **universal **“falling away” or “apostasy” had taken place, (3) these things were already beginning to take place as he spoke, and (4) the doctrines taught by the Savior would, in time, cease to endure.

Please show us where St. Paul ever said a falling away would be “Universal”. You interjected that word. It does not occur in the passages you cited.

There are also scriptures describing a “restitution of all things.” If there had been no Apostasy in the first place, such restitution would certainly be unnecessary.
Kathyn

The word “restitution” in the bible denotes the establishment of true justice for all and the paying back (restitution) of the wrongs that were done to the innocent (see Exodus 22:3 and Job 20:18 as two of many examples). This will certainly take place when Jesus returns in glory to judge the world. It has nothing to do with the establishment of a new post-Christian religion.

Respectfully,
Paul

 

[edmondhall]

But to Peter and the Apostles, this would have meant something entirely different. In their culture, “the gates of hell” would mean nothing quite so ominous. To a first-century Jew, this phrase would have simply been a reference to the entrance to the underworld, or the abode of departed spirits. It was where the dead were believed to reside. Consequently, Jesus was telling them that His gospel would even be taken to “hell,” which is exactly what happened. During the three days His body lay in the tomb, He visited “hell” or “the spirit prison,” teaching His gospel and setting free the spirits who would accept it.

this is not how Origen saw it (not an Apostle, but still pretty early in the game–he had to have gotten this interpretation from someone):

“[F]or the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.”
Origen,On Matthew,12:11(A.D. 244),in ANF,X:457

 

[Tmaque]

Katzpur:

In the KJV, this verse is stated as follows:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This verse needs to be interpreted according to the understanding that the Apostles (and other Jewish converts to Christianity of that time period) would have had. When most Christians today see the phrase, “the gates of hell,” they immediately assume that it is referring to Satan and/or the forces of evil. Some even assume that it is a hyperbole and is intended to mean something like, “no evil in the world.” When understood in this way, the sentence would be interpreted as meaning something like, “… and upon this rock I will build my church; and no evil in the world shall prevail against it.”

But to Peter and the Apostles, this would have meant something entirely different. In their culture, “the gates of hell” would mean nothing quite so ominous. To a first-century Jew, this phrase would have simply been a reference to the entrance to the underworld, or the abode of departed spirits. It was where the dead were believed to reside. Consequently, Jesus was telling them that His gospel would even be taken to “hell,” which is exactly what happened. During the three days His body lay in the tomb, He visited “hell” or “the spirit prison,” teaching His gospel and setting free the spirits who would accept it.

We don’t believe that this verse, in any way, shape, or form, was denying the possibility of a future Apostasy.

Kathryn, your exegesis of this passage is frankly, quite a stretch.
Please explain why when Jesus said to Simon Barjonah “thou art Rock and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, he really meant, the gates of hell will not keep me from preaching to the dead??? Why does he suddenly change subjects in mid-sentence? He is telling Peter what he(Christ) is going to do with Peter’s ministry and then suddenly he starts talking about he, himself preaching the Gospel to the dead? What on earth does this have to do with Peter?

The simple fact is that the statement clearly means the church will overcome anything the Devil may raise in defense against it. In other words, it is not merely that the church will endure, but more positively that it will take over what the Devil seeks to keep from it. It simply cannot be more clear. Jesus established Peter as “the rock” upon which his church was to be built. If the church built upon Peter fails then Jesus himself is a false prophet.

I do agree with LDS apologist Hugh Nibley on one issue, I quote:
“If there was one point on which the primitive saints and their Jewish contemporaries saw eye to eye, it was the belief that Satan is “the prince of this world,” nay, “the god of this world.” It is here that man are under his power, and here that he overcomes the Kingdom of God by violence.”

This serves the Catholic view that the “gates” that Satan was going to throw up in defense of his earthly power would “not prevail” against the Church. Thanks Brother Nibley.

Katzpur:

However, we believe that the authority Jesus gave to Peter was not, in fact, passed on to Linus. We believe that, with the deaths of the Apostles, the line of authority ended. Therefore, revelation ceased, and doctrines evolved over time to be quite different, at least in some cases, from those Jesus and His Apostles had taught.

Doctrines evolved to be quite different? Please demonstrate which doctrines and dogmas changed into something different from the time of Peter until now. The fact is, you can’t.

 

[Lost_Found]

BJ Colbert:

I was totally serious with the question as regards to the question being answered. I just wanted to know if this was an accurate comparison. I really don’t have any idea, that is why I asked the question. So, someone like yourself who does know could answer in a civil and educated way.
Thanks for your kind reply to my question. I love the Irish, as a matter of fact I am Irish (maiden name Beatty) From Presbyterian roots. But, I truely do not know what the fight is about and have not studied it. Perhaps you could start a thread on that subject.
BJ

It’s difficult for you to claim now it was a question, when one can simply click page one of the thread and see that you made an assertion not a question.
Rather than calling me/“myself”/my post uncivil, uneducated, and unkind, you should keep to the issues. It’s no secret that none of us are saints, but if you focus on the issues, you will more likely encounter the nineteen hundred and seventy two year old truth about the Church that Christ established.

 

[ben_dy]

I said:
Or would LDS leaders, who have worked so hard to make the LDS church a mainstream religion …

…to which amgid replied…

Now you are making unsubstantiated assertions. You have no justification for that claim.
amgid

…and to which I reply:

The justification that I have for making such claims is self-evident and, to my knowledge, no LDS scholar of history or theology over the age of 60 would deny it. Since the 1950’s, by leaps and bounds, some doctrines have been “put on the shelf”.

Even Gordon Hinckley, when asked, “There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?”, answered, "I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’’ Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else.”

Now surely Hinckley knew that the belief is “more of a couplet than anything else.” What I have read, and in four instances been told, is that some doctrines are “put on the shelf” when first seeking converts because they are not spiritually prepared to receive them. But, more recently, even Church literature approved for the edification of ‘cradle LDS’ adults fails to address the ‘difficult’ doctrine of the LDS church. I can verify this in my own short study of the LDS church by comparing literature that was published in the 1950’s as compared with that distributed today. One quite clear indication to be accepted as “mainstream” is that the LDS church publishes and distributes KJV of the Bible, which is said to be full of error, freely but should you request a JSV - wow! - it’s as if you’re Satan politely asking for the keys to the celestial kingdom.

I’m not certain of your age - I’ll be 68 this December - but I would think that if you are at least, oh, let’s even say 45 or older (so that you would have been 17-18 in 1978) you would see that the LDS church has undergone a tremendous change (and experienced tremendous growth) precisely because of what it “wouldn’t say” (to use Hinckley’s term) in terms of particularly LDS doctrine as opposed to ‘mainstream’ Christian doctrines.

A big difference between the Catholic Church and the LDS church is that we’ve reached the point where we don’t deny a place in some of the more sordid history of the world but we’ve never attempted to proselytize by denying doctrine - if anything we may lose membership by remaining true to doctrine than by “putting it on the shelf”. As Mr. Keating once pointed out, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Eucharist is one of the first ‘doubts’ those who leave the church for churches far removed from Catholicism may have. Has the Church brushed the question aside, then, with an “I wouldn’t say that…”? No - quite the contrary.

So I’ll stick by my statement and offer only the one example. Further ‘proofs’ are multitudinous but you can Google further examples quite easily should you care to do so.

Ben

 

[amgid]

PaulDupre:

Each of these verses depicts apostacy FROM the Church, but none depicts apostacy OF the Church. We Catholics have been battling apostacy for 2000 years, as the Mormons have for 170 years. That is just the fallen human condition.

OK, here is a scripture that depicts Apostasy OF the Church:

2 Timothy 3:

1 This now also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
…

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof…
This is a perfect description of the state of the Christian world (not just Catholic) today. They all have a “form” (i.e. outward appearance) of Godliness, but they all “deny the power thereof.” This “power thereof” is above all else manifested in the ability of the Church (and its ministers) to operate, and lead and guide the Church, by direct revelation from haven, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, and by the ministering of angels, by means of true prophets and Apostles. Whenever God has had a true Church on earth, it has always been led by direct revelation from God in this way. But you people deny this power. You not only do not possess this power yourselves, you even deny any need or necessity for it either. The LDS Church is the only Church in the world that does not. Modern day Christendom is apostate precisely because it “has a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof”.

amgid

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t see that at all in the passage from 2 Tim. Just the opposite, in fact. St. Paul warns that “Men will be lovers of self, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, …having a semblance of piety, but disowning its power.”

He says nothing about any Church, just fallen men being wicked. He described these days perfectly, but is still describing apostacy of wicked men FROM the Church, not apostacy OF the Church.

Also, St. Paul specifically describes these conditions as existing in “the last days”, not at the time of the Early Church.

You have been told all your life that this and other passages describe a universal apostacy of the early church, so now you actually see it that way when it is not that way at all.

Paul