Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

[amgid]

Phaedrus:

In that case, there’s no point in having a discussion, because by framing the argument that way, you preclude any verification or proof.

I never said that!

You have to accept on faith that the divine authority was lost with the death of the apostles. How do you know that the divine authority was lost? Because your church teaches that it was.

No, because we can observe that it was lost. When the Apostles were around, the Church was being led and directed by them by revelation. When they died, that contact was lost. That is something that we can observe. Furthermore, the NT clearly shows that institution of the Twelve Apostles was intended to continue in the church. It was never meant to come to an end.

You may be correct, but the issue cannot be debated in any rational way, because it cannot be verified.

Of course it can be verified. It can be verified by observation. No special mechanism is needed to verify it.

If, however, you could produce a doctrine that was held by the apostles, and that was later perverted by the Church, that would be evidence that would support your conclusion.

I don’t see why that is the only possible test by which that principle can be determined. The whole drift of the church, both in doctrine, procedure, and practice, as well as the lives and personal conduct of the clergy, are the sum total of events that can be used to make that determination. But if you insist that we should resort exclusively to the “doctrinal perversion” test, there are plenty. Many have already been discussed on this board, such as infant baptism, a paid clergy, the doctrine of the deification of man, and many more which one could think of.

amgid

 

[isaac.madsen]

I am certainly not here to debate that one church is right and that the other is wrong, though I of course, do have my beliefs on the subject. I will simply state that the Catholic church and the LDS church are the only two Christian churches on this earth today that can validly state that they can trace their religions to Christ. This doesn’t mean that everyone else is damned. It just means that we have a right to embrace our beliefs, whatever they may be.

Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?
Why are the LDS so interested in Catholicism?

It’s simple. Religion is interesting. Why not research another faith? Religion is fascinating.

 

[majick275]

You might find the Orthodox church making a case for tracing their religion directly to Christ. The LDS position on the other hand would certainly fall into the category of restorationism where you will find a few more making the same claims. Sidney Rigdon’s fellow Cambellites agree on the apostasy but have a different theory about the restoration.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that religion is fascinating and the study and researching of various religions is for many a very enjoyable activity.

I agree that everyone has a right to embrace their beleifs.

 

[isaac.madsen]

You know, you’re also right, but what Religion other than these two Churches have such an extensive historical documentation of the events in their history leading back to Christ? By extensive, I don’t mean long, but I mean detailed. I can trace my Priesthood authority directly back to Christ. I certainly don’t claim to be a prophet. I am a simple man, but having faith that what authority I do have comes from God gives me a lot of comfort.

 

[majick275]

I guess my biggest propblem with LDS Apostolic authority is that approx. 1800 year gap. I just don’t see that as biblical nor do I see it as consistent with anything God has done prior to that.

I would challenge the LDS view of the preisthood restoration on logical grounds as well. JS tells us that John the Baptist restored the Aaronic priesthood and that Peter, James and John collectively restored the Melichizadec. Aside from the biblical evidence that the levitical (Aaronic) preisthood was no longer necessary after Christ, LDS doctrine is very clear that holders of the Melchizadec priesthood also hold the authority of the aaronic. That being the case, John doesn’t seem necessary or even appropriate for this. LDS doctrine is also consistent that all Apostles have the same keys and are able to carry on after the death of any member of that quorum with full Authority. BY succeeded JS by virtue of his position as president of hte apostles. This would make it seem that the last living Apostle(s) should have been the ones to carry this out. What about the Nephite twelve a well? didn’t three of them stay around on the earth? wouldn’t that make more sense? For that matter, wasn’t(isn’t) Moroni a prophet? why wouldn’t he have restored the priesthood?

Elijah has to provide the keys to do vicarious work for the dead but yet LDS turn to a NT passage to claim that baptisms for the dead were performed in the original Christian church? By who? surely peter or any of the other folks i mentioned would have had those keys more recently.

Once again I recomend the book of Hebrews for a good look at why some things such as the Aaronic Priesthood, Temple worship and the calling of prophets are no longer necesary.

In the end it must come down to faith for you. You have only JS word that these events happened. Either you believe him or Mormonism is false. I recognize that you choose to believe what JS has told you. I do not. I look at 2 Peter chapter 2 for what I believe about JS.

i do not seek any authority or “eternal progression”. I humbly submit to Gods will and seek to follow the example of Paul who says to be a “slave of Christ”(eph. 6:6) I reject Satans temptation in the garden that “you will be like God” (Gen 3:5) It is comforting to me to take part in the real presence of the eucharist.

 

[isaac.madsen]

References to an apostacy:

Amos 8:11-12

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine• of bread, nor a thirst• for water, but of hearing the words• of the LORD:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run• to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

2 Timothy 4:2-3

2 Preach the word; be• instant• in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

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;

References to Eternal Life (Note: This is different from Immortality):

John 3:16

16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only• begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting• life•.

John 17:3

3 And this is life eternal•, that they might know• thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 17:21

21 That they all may be one•; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one• in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

This is the reference you speak of for Baptism for the Dead. Paul is speaking to the Corinthians on a practice of the Jews at that time which is not discussed in most scripture because it was such an obvious practice at that time. After the time of Christ, that practice fell into nonexistence for some reason, which is strange because Paul is here trying to explaining to the Corinthians why baptism for the dead was necessary. The Corinthians at that time did not believe in life after death, so baptisms for the dead made absolutely no sense to them.

1 Cor 15:29

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for• the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Your point against the Aaronic Priesthood is one I have never seen before. What are your references?

Also, you believe that there shall be false prophets. What about true prophets? I cannot believe that the forces of evil would be greater than those of good. Thus, I believe that true prophets live upon the earth today.

Amos 3:7

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but• he revealeth• his secret• unto his servants the prophets•.

Ephesians 2:20

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 

[isaac.madsen]

Now I see your point of view about the Melchizedek vs. Aaronic priesthood. As a Latter-Day Saint, I don’t believe the Melchizedek does away with the Aaronic priesthood. It encompasses it. In our church, the Aaronic priesthood is considered a lesser priesthood, a sort of “proving grounds” to show that you are worthy of the greater light and priesthood.

The sons of Levi by right continue to hold the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood to this day because of their lineage. They do not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood because it was never given them. When the sons of Levi again realize their Priesthood power at Christ’s second coming, the Levitical Priesthood will become their responsibility as it was in days of old. The Melchizedek priesthood will become the responsibility of the other tribes. Each tribe adopts into themselves each “Gentile” as directed by the Lord.

The is, in essense, the LDS view on the Melchizedek and Aaronic (Levitical) Priesthoods, as has been defined by Isaiah.

 

[majick275]

First your apostasy scriptures. The O.T. ones could easily be construed as referring to the Jewish “church” at the time of Christ. As for the NT ones the refer only SOME apostates never the whole church.

Eternal life… Okay but I fail to see a significant difference.

as for most of the rst I think the book of Hebrews deals with it perfectly. Those Jews to whom it was written wanted to know why practices that were given to them by God were no longer needed. They felt that new Christians would need to become Jews as well and that the church would continue to live the law of moses. Paul explains why this is not so.

Baptism for the dead seems to be something that Paul sees “others” doing. (thus THEY baptize for the dead instead of WE) It certainly isn’t pointed to as a necessary practice.

Hebrews explains why no more prophets. Amos was before Christ so that falls under the Hebrews scripture. Ephesians mentions prophets as a foundation. (the law and the prophets referred to the whole Torah as it’s major contents were just that) The OT prophets prepared a foundation. CHRIST completed the building. We just decide wether or not we will come inside. Forces of evil can’t win and certainly aren’t greater. Christ trumps all evil. The calling of prophet is no longer needed just as the office of high priest and the temple ceremony. (as practiced by the jews) because Jesus fuflills all of that permanently. Prophecy as a spiritual gift still occurs but as a whole Jesus now speaks to all, brings all of us into the presence of the Father (provided of course we follow him) and is the perpetual sacrifice for all sins.

Isaiah… GREAT prophet! I find his words prophesying of Christ’s deatrh for us excellent for truly understanding the passion. It is there that we see the sacrifice for our sins was on the cross and NOT in the garden.

 

[Phaedrus]

amgid:

No, because we can observe that it was lost. When the Apostles were around, the Church was being led and directed by them by revelation. When they died, that contact was lost. That is something that we can observe… Of course it can be verified. It can be verified by observation. No special mechanism is needed to verify it.
amgid

OK, I’m really not trying to be dense here, but how can we observe that the Church (meaning the Catholic Church in this case) is no longer being led by revelation?

amgid:

I don’t see why that is the only possible test by which that principle can be determined. The whole drift of the church, both in doctrine, procedure, and practice, as well as the lives and personal conduct of the clergy, are the sum total of events that can be used to make that determination. But if you insist that we should resort exclusively to the “doctrinal perversion” test, there are plenty. Many have already been discussed on this board, such as infant baptism, a paid clergy, the doctrine of the deification of man, and many more which one could think of.
amgid

I made that point because I assumed that an apostate Church would pervert doctrine. It seemed like an obvious way for you to prove your case.

The three things you did list are problematic. I don’t see the problem with infant baptism, payment (or not) of clergy is not a doctrine, and I don’t have a clue what you mean about the “doctrine of the deification of man”. Do you have evidence that all of these were proscribed by the early church? I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to be logical, and approach the discussion in a way that avoids the “dueling doctrines” circle that these things sometimes get into. You believe that your religion is true. I’m guessing that you came to that conclusion through a logical process. I’m also sure that there were some non-rational elements to your decision, and that’s OK. But we cannot debate articles of faith. That’s like debating which flavor of ice cream is the best.

Under the Mercy,

Phaedrus

P.S. It’s vanilla, in case you were wondering.

 

[Phaedrus]

isaac.madsen:

I am certainly not here to debate that one church is right and that the other is wrong, though I of course, do have my beliefs on the subject. I will simply state that the Catholic church and the LDS church are the only two Christian churches on this earth today that can validly state that they can trace their religions to Christ. This doesn’t mean that everyone else is damned. It just means that we have a right to embrace our beliefs, whatever they may be.

Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?
Why are the LDS so interested in Catholicism?

It’s simple. Religion is interesting. Why not research another faith? Religion is fascinating.

Isaac, I appreciate the spirit of your comments, but I don’t agree that “the Catholic church and the LDS church are the only two Christian churches on this earth today that can validly state that they can trace their religions to Christ.” I guess the problem I have is the word “validly”, because that seems to imply that both are valid.

I am not really here to increase my knowledge of the LDS faith, although that is happening. I am here to give witness to my faith and defend it as best I can against critics.

As for studying religion because it’s fascinating - if I just wanted intellectual stimulation, I’d play chess. Much less stressful.

But I can tell you where we do agree - that these matters should be discussed with reverence and respect by all parties. I really do believe that we seek the same God. And if we seek him honestly, I believe He will reveal Himself to us. Further, we are fallen, imperfect creatures, and should always approach apologetics with prayer and humility.

Peace be with you, brother. I don’t want you to think I’m picking on you. Especially since you obviously have a charitable heart.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[isaac.madsen]

I guess the problem I have is the word “validly”, because that seems to imply that both are valid.

I could go on for a long time about how I’ve seen that the Catholic church can indeed “validate” their links to Christ. In a similar sense, the LDS can “validate” links to Christ through Joseph Smith, the three witnesses, and the eight witnesses. Many of these men eventually fell away from the Church (with the exception of Joseph Smith of course), but they never denied the things they had seen.

This, of course, does not prove Mormonism right. It only proves that angels do exist, and that the Gold Plates existed, whether or not they were what Joseph Smith said they were. To those who do believe in the Book of Mormon, it is proof, but that is no reason for others to believe. They must find out for themselves, through prayer and the hand of God.

I have done a great deal of research on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that it is a fact that Catholicism grew from the roots of Christ’s early Church, and may have been, at one point, “The True Church.” At his Second Coming, Christ will reveal all things to us, and we would all be foolish to not embrace whichever doctrine is revealed at that time. Until that time, I am rooted in the Doctrine I have always felt to be true.

Again, thank you for your comments Phaedrus. I appreciate your willingness to discuss religion in a calm and mature manner, and I am honored to be called “brother” by those of other faiths. I must also agree on your statement on Chess. If that were the manner in which all men warred, this world would be a much brighter place.

God be with you,

Isaac Madsen

 

[amgid]

Phaedrus:

OK, I’m really not trying to be dense here, but how can we observe that the Church (meaning the Catholic Church in this case) is no longer being led by revelation?

Because it is not even claiming to. The LDS Church makes a clear statement to that effect. We have three volumes of modern scripture to back that claim. You may dispute that our modern scripture is indeed scripture; but you cannot dispute that we make such a claim. The LDS Church claims to be led by a prophet who is able to communicate directly with God. The Catholic Church does not even make such a claim. I don’t think there is any room for misunderstanding as to the difference in our positions in this respect.

I made that point because I assumed that an apostate Church would pervert doctrine. It seemed like an obvious way for you to prove your case.

Yes, you are right. It would, and I believe that it has.

The three things you did list are problematic. I don’t see the problem with infant baptism, payment (or not) of clergy is not a doctrine, and I don’t have a clue what you mean about the “doctrine of the deification of man”. Do you have evidence that all of these were proscribed by the early church?

Yes we do; but strongest evidence we have is one that would not be acceptable to you, although it is convincing enough for us. The greatest evidence we have for these things comes from modern scripture. The Book of Mormon, for example, tells us that infant baptisms is not only incorrect, but even wicked. But to you that would be no evidence because you do not accept the validity of modern LDS scripture. Reasoning from the Bible alone, it is still possible to provide adequate theological justification against infant baptisms; but if you are determined you will always be able to find a way of wriggling out of that theological evidence. So lengthening out the debate unnecessarily would seem futile exercise.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to be logical, and approach the discussion in a way that avoids the “dueling doctrines” circle that these things sometimes get into.

I think that my position is also logical. But it would seem that we are arguing from different parameters.

You believe that your religion is true. I’m guessing that you came to that conclusion through a logical process.

Actually I did not. If I relied on rational arguments alone, I would never be a Mormon. I am a Mormon because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. Having gained that witness, however, I am also able to see the rationality behind it, which enables me to argue forcefully with rational arguments in favor of it. But the ultimate witness behind it is spiritual, not rational

I’m also sure that there were some non-rational elements to your decision, and that’s OK. But we cannot debate articles of faith. That’s like debating which flavor of ice cream is the best.

Agreed, so what do you want us to do?!

amgid

 

[isaac.madsen]

Lol! It seems we are at an impasse, and I find nothing wrong with this. Let the Catholic believe what they believe. Let the LDS believe what they believe. Eventually, the truth will be revealed, and I don’t think that if we are truly trying to be Christlike that such a day will be cause to mourn for those faithful in their beliefs.

May God be with us all,

Isaac Madsen

 

[majick275]

In response to amgid,

Here’s an idea, I will pray for the Lord to bless you. You are welcome to reciprocate if you choose. If we all pray for God to bless each other then surely good things will happen.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

Gross generalization as I am no more interested in the LDS faith than I am in ancient pottery, astrology, Branch Davidians, or the Raelians. (Which is not much at all.)

Scott

 

[isaac.madsen]

I find it strange that Scott mentions ancient pottery amongst these other three subjects. Ancient pottery is almost completely unrelated unless you are speaking of Mayan or Incan pottery, which is closely related to the LDS church in that many of the symbols unearthed across the Americas have significant links to the Book of Mormon.

God bless us - every one,

Isaac Madsen

 

[majick275]

Now let’s not get carried away here. There are no links between mayans, incans and LDS that have been recognized outside of the LDS church. No symbols have been associated with LDS by anyone other than LDS. Let’s not stray off into BoM “archeology” without at least starting a new thread for it.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Sorry. I’ll keep that in mind.

 

[Zakuska]

Ah… Ever heard of Margaret Barker (Methodist minister). She has found several very stricking parallels in the BOM with Several Babylonian texts.

Horse bones have been found that date to BOM times. Give or take a few hundred years.

Nahom has been found.

The Nephite and Jaredite Harbor has been found.

A continually flowing River in Arabia. (US Geo. Soc. oops )

Give it time… its only 200 years old.

nephiproject.com

 

[majick275]

Zakuska:

Ah… Ever heard of Margaret Barker (Methodist minister). She has found several very stricking parallels in the BOM with Several Babylonian texts.

I would hardly call that a qualified person associating the BoM with the mayans or incans as i posted. This also depends on your definition of “striking parallels”. I can find striking parallels between the Hobbit and the babylonian epic gilgamesh. Does that mean tolkein was a prophet?

Zakuska:

Horse bones have been found that date to BOM times. Give or take a few hundred years.

Funny how those “few hundred years” make such a huge difference. Which qualified paleontologists/archeologists tied these horse bones to BoM time and place and what type of peer review did they subject their findings to?

Zakuska:

Nahom has been found.

Really? did they find a sign with Nahom city limits on it? Please, I could pick any ancient ruins in this hemisphere and call it Teancum. I think if you look at a map of the great lakes area you will find the place names that inspired BoM geography. once again, verifiable facts?

Zakuska:

The Nephite and Jaredite Harbor has been found.

Someone found an ancient harbor. Does that make it nephite or jaredite? I could say they found plato’s atlantis or tolkeins hobbits based on recent expeditions findings. Could you cite some non-LDS sources for these claims?

Zakuska:

A continually flowing River in Arabia. (US Geo. Soc. oops )

and this means what? I thought I was talking about links between Incan and Mayan pottery and LDS.

Zakuska:

Give it time… its only 200 years old.

nephiproject.com

But Joseph Smith told us it dates back to the garden of eden. Aren’t LDS prophets also seers and revelators? Funny how nothing surfaces in this realm. Start a new thread for BoM archeology if you must but I would hope that you could spend your time on FARMS if that is what interests you.