C
Chazemataz
Guest
A Scenario. What do you Mormons think? Care to refute?
- Status
P
papist1
Guest
Tim Staples book “nuts and bolts” is where I first read that. I love that guy, he is an incredible convert. have you heard his debates yet? awesome
T
TOmNossor
Guest
"Why would I ever leave the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ and received apostolic authority directly from Him and the Apostles?”
My answer to this is that if you have faith that the above is true then you would not leave. Better yet, if you KNOW the presence of Christ exists in the Eucharist how could you leave? Of course you asked the question and I will try to provide an answer.
So many Catholic treatments of the early church seem to be entirely too confident that the evidence points to just one conclusion. This is just not the case. Whose position is stronger we can certainly debate, but the premise of Mr. Staples article seems to deny faith. The evidence suggests to me, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But I have too much respect for some of our Protestant brother and sisters to not recognize that somehow some of them are both intelligent, informed, and Protestant. Perhaps you and Mr. Staples do not have such respect for Protestants or LDS.
When I read St. Clement of Rome, St, Ignatius, and St. Polycarp; it was quite clear to me that none of them had a clue that St. Clement (or the Bishop of Rome) was Pope. Cardinal Newman’s essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine salvaged for me the possibility that the Catholic Church was God’s church such that I could not say, “To be deep in history is to be a LDS.” But I submit to you that Newman knows much more about history than is evidence in the majority of Catholic who seem to say, “To be deep in history is to be a Catholic.”
To me history clearly teaches that the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles. The Bishops existed side by side with the Apostles in the early church. Then there were no Apostles and no evidence of some central authority. Either divine development (Newman) filled the void by elevating those who occupied an office that they had no idea was prime to the knowledge that they were prime. Or good humans usurped the Peterine authority to become the singular leader of Christ’s Church. Both of these positions can be supported.
Anyway, yes I can refute that and I would enjoy it if Tim Staples knocked on my door. I suspect he, like all of us myself included, sees history, doctrine, and everything through his own lens. Before we get too bold and question the intelligence or reason or worse integrity of those who disagree with us, perhaps we should take inventory of our own prejudices.
His ideas are refutable and have been addressed many times. That a 19 year old missionary did not undercut Mr. Staples at step one does not mean that Mr. Staples made his case.
Charity, TOm
My answer to this is that if you have faith that the above is true then you would not leave. Better yet, if you KNOW the presence of Christ exists in the Eucharist how could you leave? Of course you asked the question and I will try to provide an answer.
So many Catholic treatments of the early church seem to be entirely too confident that the evidence points to just one conclusion. This is just not the case. Whose position is stronger we can certainly debate, but the premise of Mr. Staples article seems to deny faith. The evidence suggests to me, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But I have too much respect for some of our Protestant brother and sisters to not recognize that somehow some of them are both intelligent, informed, and Protestant. Perhaps you and Mr. Staples do not have such respect for Protestants or LDS.
When I read St. Clement of Rome, St, Ignatius, and St. Polycarp; it was quite clear to me that none of them had a clue that St. Clement (or the Bishop of Rome) was Pope. Cardinal Newman’s essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine salvaged for me the possibility that the Catholic Church was God’s church such that I could not say, “To be deep in history is to be a LDS.” But I submit to you that Newman knows much more about history than is evidence in the majority of Catholic who seem to say, “To be deep in history is to be a Catholic.”
To me history clearly teaches that the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles. The Bishops existed side by side with the Apostles in the early church. Then there were no Apostles and no evidence of some central authority. Either divine development (Newman) filled the void by elevating those who occupied an office that they had no idea was prime to the knowledge that they were prime. Or good humans usurped the Peterine authority to become the singular leader of Christ’s Church. Both of these positions can be supported.
Anyway, yes I can refute that and I would enjoy it if Tim Staples knocked on my door. I suspect he, like all of us myself included, sees history, doctrine, and everything through his own lens. Before we get too bold and question the intelligence or reason or worse integrity of those who disagree with us, perhaps we should take inventory of our own prejudices.
His ideas are refutable and have been addressed many times. That a 19 year old missionary did not undercut Mr. Staples at step one does not mean that Mr. Staples made his case.
Charity, TOm
T
TonyYL
Guest
TOm wrote:
“When I read St. Clement of Rome, St, Ignatius, and St. Polycarp; it was quite clear to me that none of them had a clue that St. Clement (or the Bishop of Rome) was Pope.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome:
“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. … Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…” Address, Letter to the Corinthians, ca. 80 A.D.
Why would Corinth ask Rome to settle a dispute? If the early Church was solely a group equal-power bishoprics, then why this request? Because, Corinth was following Jesus’ instruction to ultimately settle disputes with the authority if His Church. Mt 18:15-17. The Church in Corinth was unable to settle the dispute, so a letter was written to Rome (higher authority), to settle it.
Throughout the Letter, Clement sure acts like a Pope: he writes against those rebelling against the priests [47,6], asks those in the dispute to love one another and not make a schism {49,2}, and submit to the priests’ authority in Corinth [57,1]. Clement also asserts his final authority: " Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret" [58,2]
St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“…to the Church also which holds its presidency in the place of the Romans…” Address, Letter to The Romans, ca. 110 A.D.
Sounds like Ignatius also knew where the leader of the Catholic Church was, and is today.
“When I read St. Clement of Rome, St, Ignatius, and St. Polycarp; it was quite clear to me that none of them had a clue that St. Clement (or the Bishop of Rome) was Pope.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome:
“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. … Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…” Address, Letter to the Corinthians, ca. 80 A.D.
Why would Corinth ask Rome to settle a dispute? If the early Church was solely a group equal-power bishoprics, then why this request? Because, Corinth was following Jesus’ instruction to ultimately settle disputes with the authority if His Church. Mt 18:15-17. The Church in Corinth was unable to settle the dispute, so a letter was written to Rome (higher authority), to settle it.
Throughout the Letter, Clement sure acts like a Pope: he writes against those rebelling against the priests [47,6], asks those in the dispute to love one another and not make a schism {49,2}, and submit to the priests’ authority in Corinth [57,1]. Clement also asserts his final authority: " Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret" [58,2]
St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“…to the Church also which holds its presidency in the place of the Romans…” Address, Letter to The Romans, ca. 110 A.D.
Sounds like Ignatius also knew where the leader of the Catholic Church was, and is today.
S
stillsearching
Guest
TOmNossor said:
Deep in history. Yes the Church is deep in history. Most Catholics are simply Jews with a Christian overcoat. Everything about us is drenched in Israel. Starting with our Liturgy of the Hours recited 5 hours per day, our customs, our worship of the One True God, our imitation of Mary the perfect Jew and first disciple of Christ, our Lord and His committment to His people- one could say our identification and retention of Israel is definate proof of being steeped in history- going way back before Christ to Abraham and Elijah. Yes. the Carmelites for instance call Elijah their spiritual father. Hard to find a more Catholic Order in either the East or the West than the Carmelites. Existed as a lay group of hermits in Palestine from the time of the Crucifixion and possibly before with the Essenes, only coming out to the west at around the time of St. Francis of Assisi, a layman from the west. The Carmelite Spiritual home is still in Palestine- Our Lady of Mt. Carmel chapel can still be found in the caves there.
These are only two examples that can be put forth that the Church is deep in history. The mormons have the pioneers of the 1800’s and no one can deny their accomplishments. But still, you are really very, very young upstarts without much experience. That is why your doctrines change with each new Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court only being in existence for the last 250 years or so itself. Young, young, immature and inexperienced.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
TonyYL,
The first thing I wish to state thought is that Newman certainly acknowledges that the authority of the Pope developed. Despite the fact that Newman sees evidence for the seeds of this authority more clearly than I do, it is obvious to both him and me that the authority was not present in any real sense during the first few centuries. The passages you point too are not particularly convincing and I will link to some info where I have addressed these on CA before.
One thing I believe I neglected to mention last time (perhaps because I became aware of it since then) is that Corinth and Rome were very much sister cities. In many political ways Corinth leaned upon Rome to a greater extent than most other cities in the world. While there is nothing to demand that Corinth solely appealed to Rome and not to other places, it would certainly be consistent with Corinth’s secular dealings for Corinth to ask Rome for help and advice.
In these links I present a number of places were Clement does not express his authority when speaking specifically about authority. I mention that two of the places you link to in Clement are questionable concerning authenticity (although I generally accept them). I discuss the fact that Clement is appealing to the church to reinstate and recognize its Bishop/leaders not to recognize him as their leader.
Concerning Ignatius I also address him in these links. First, I admit that Ignatius clearly had greater respect for Rome than for other churches. I might mention that Rome was probably the only place he had not visited and those who could not specifically critique them as he did the other churches. I mention that the translation of Ignatius employed in your quote is far outside the translation used in any other work (that I can find). I am now pretty certain you translation comes from Jurgens who is a Catholic apologist in many way. And again, I show reason to question Ignatius as teaching some type of Bishop or Rome has Peterine authority.
I do not know if you produced your post from some online Catholic page, but I produced my posts/ideas from my own reading of the epistles and my own research. I guess this does not matter too much, but it does not surprise me that CA and other Catholic apologists present just the pro-Catholic points contained in these letters.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409616&postcount=347
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409620&postcount=348
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409620&postcount=349
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409620&postcount=350
Less to the point:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409631&postcount=351
Charity, TOm
The first thing I wish to state thought is that Newman certainly acknowledges that the authority of the Pope developed. Despite the fact that Newman sees evidence for the seeds of this authority more clearly than I do, it is obvious to both him and me that the authority was not present in any real sense during the first few centuries. The passages you point too are not particularly convincing and I will link to some info where I have addressed these on CA before.
One thing I believe I neglected to mention last time (perhaps because I became aware of it since then) is that Corinth and Rome were very much sister cities. In many political ways Corinth leaned upon Rome to a greater extent than most other cities in the world. While there is nothing to demand that Corinth solely appealed to Rome and not to other places, it would certainly be consistent with Corinth’s secular dealings for Corinth to ask Rome for help and advice.
In these links I present a number of places were Clement does not express his authority when speaking specifically about authority. I mention that two of the places you link to in Clement are questionable concerning authenticity (although I generally accept them). I discuss the fact that Clement is appealing to the church to reinstate and recognize its Bishop/leaders not to recognize him as their leader.
Concerning Ignatius I also address him in these links. First, I admit that Ignatius clearly had greater respect for Rome than for other churches. I might mention that Rome was probably the only place he had not visited and those who could not specifically critique them as he did the other churches. I mention that the translation of Ignatius employed in your quote is far outside the translation used in any other work (that I can find). I am now pretty certain you translation comes from Jurgens who is a Catholic apologist in many way. And again, I show reason to question Ignatius as teaching some type of Bishop or Rome has Peterine authority.
I do not know if you produced your post from some online Catholic page, but I produced my posts/ideas from my own reading of the epistles and my own research. I guess this does not matter too much, but it does not surprise me that CA and other Catholic apologists present just the pro-Catholic points contained in these letters.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409616&postcount=347
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409620&postcount=348
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409620&postcount=349
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409620&postcount=350
Less to the point:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=409631&postcount=351
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
In truth I agree with this more than you might expect.
While I believe that we are a Restoration with ancient roots, we are struggling to formulate exactly what our scripture teaches.
The expression, “to be deep in history” as used by Newman, does not refer to what you are discussing unless I misunderstood either of you.
I believe Newman is suggesting that Protestants do not present a consistent picture when historical truths are integrated into there teachings. Things like the presence of authority in the early church and the development of doctrines that Protestants accept as orthodox (not to mention the perfect preservation and definition of the Bible).
Without postulating the supernatural the Catholic Church clearly has more historical roots as you suggest. A few Protestants point to Anabaptists and some mysterious non-Roman survival of Christianity, but I think their arguments are weak.
Charity, TOm
S
stillsearching
Guest
Ancient roots? what ancient roots? show me ancient roots. What you have tom is a bunch of evidence of your roots that has been lost, burned up in fires, never existed, and phony translations of poor egyptian funereal papyri. That is not ancient roots. It is wishful thinking.
One of the things you fail to see, is that your attempts to prove your case will always fall on deaf ears because of intentions. Mormons intend to inherit something material, whether it be earth or planets or galaxies or whatever. We desire to inherit heaven which is not the same thing.
T
TonyYL
Guest
TOm–
I did get my answers from Jurgens, and I just wanted to see if you are aware of them–I now know you are. The interpretation was mine, not from any other source. And from the LDS point of view, even the non-Catholic point of view, your answers are the expected view. I admit that early evidence for the papacy is not overwhelmingly conclusive, but there are seeds of evidence that Roman authority could have been known at that time.
As for Jurgens’ work, sure it is pro-Catholic because it is written by a Catholic, and for the large part, it includes over 2,300 paragraphs from early Christian writers from the first 8 centuries A.D. that agree with Catholic doctrine from yesterday, today and tomorrow. But you should know that, too.
However, from the early centuries of Christianity, we have no “seeds” of a succession of “prophets, seers, and revelators”, first presidencies, temple sealing ceremonies, garments, divinely-approved polygamy, among other LDS practices. We also do not see Protestant sola scriptura, sola fide, and the non-Real Presence. We do see evidence of heresies, such as Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. There is no evidence that Mormonism or Protestantism existed at this time period in any way even resembling what those two religions practice today. Once in a while, a Father may have written on a subject or practice that may resemble some LDS practices–milleniarism, or Protestant --immersion only baptism (also LDS), but these are in the minority. Besides, the Early Fathers aren’t infallible anyway.
Back to the “Apostacy”: everyone knows when exactly Protestanism began. End of story. For the LDS, the Apostacy theory states that at **some time in the early Church, the power given by Christ was removed from the Church because they strayed from the true teaching of Christ. So we are left with only Catholicism and Mormonism as the two answers as to where is Christ’s one true Church.
Unlike many (this is an assumption on my part, based on the threads I have read on this board) who post here, I have read all of the LDS Standard Works cover to cover. My conclusion: there is no way these works are inspired. These books make many mistakes, contradictions, false prophecies, and disagreements with the Bible. I could give you examples, and will if you want, but you appear too knowledgeable not to know them. But the LDS Church has to keep the Apostacy theory alive, because without it, there is no claim that the LDS Church is Christ’s.
So if the early evidence of the Papacy is thin, so be it. The other overwhelming evidence of other Catholic doctrines help me to believe in the ones that aren’t unequivocally supported by the first couple of centuries of Early Fathers’ writing, like the Papacy and the Assumption, and conclude that Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church.
Saude,
TonyYL**
I did get my answers from Jurgens, and I just wanted to see if you are aware of them–I now know you are. The interpretation was mine, not from any other source. And from the LDS point of view, even the non-Catholic point of view, your answers are the expected view. I admit that early evidence for the papacy is not overwhelmingly conclusive, but there are seeds of evidence that Roman authority could have been known at that time.
As for Jurgens’ work, sure it is pro-Catholic because it is written by a Catholic, and for the large part, it includes over 2,300 paragraphs from early Christian writers from the first 8 centuries A.D. that agree with Catholic doctrine from yesterday, today and tomorrow. But you should know that, too.
However, from the early centuries of Christianity, we have no “seeds” of a succession of “prophets, seers, and revelators”, first presidencies, temple sealing ceremonies, garments, divinely-approved polygamy, among other LDS practices. We also do not see Protestant sola scriptura, sola fide, and the non-Real Presence. We do see evidence of heresies, such as Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. There is no evidence that Mormonism or Protestantism existed at this time period in any way even resembling what those two religions practice today. Once in a while, a Father may have written on a subject or practice that may resemble some LDS practices–milleniarism, or Protestant --immersion only baptism (also LDS), but these are in the minority. Besides, the Early Fathers aren’t infallible anyway.
Back to the “Apostacy”: everyone knows when exactly Protestanism began. End of story. For the LDS, the Apostacy theory states that at **some time in the early Church, the power given by Christ was removed from the Church because they strayed from the true teaching of Christ. So we are left with only Catholicism and Mormonism as the two answers as to where is Christ’s one true Church.
Unlike many (this is an assumption on my part, based on the threads I have read on this board) who post here, I have read all of the LDS Standard Works cover to cover. My conclusion: there is no way these works are inspired. These books make many mistakes, contradictions, false prophecies, and disagreements with the Bible. I could give you examples, and will if you want, but you appear too knowledgeable not to know them. But the LDS Church has to keep the Apostacy theory alive, because without it, there is no claim that the LDS Church is Christ’s.
So if the early evidence of the Papacy is thin, so be it. The other overwhelming evidence of other Catholic doctrines help me to believe in the ones that aren’t unequivocally supported by the first couple of centuries of Early Fathers’ writing, like the Papacy and the Assumption, and conclude that Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church.
Saude,
TonyYL**
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
I think it helps put the “Great Apostasy” into perspective when you imagine the state of the world before the time of the “Restoration.” Of course, it’s easy and, generally un-embarrassing, to talk about how the doctrines of salvation/exaltation and valid sacraments were lost for over 1500 years, today, but it isn’t so when you imagine the state of the world before the 19th century.
Can someone really believe that for entire generations nobody could be saved? Now, many Protestants also believe in an “apostasy” of the Church, but then, many of them believe that baptism isn’t essential for salvation either. LDS, however, believe baptism is essential (and rightly so), so this leaves them in a predicament. If baptism is essential for salvation, and no authoritative baptisms were administered for most of Christian history, then nobody was able to experience salvation until the time of Joseph Smith and the “Restoration.” How can this be the message of Christianity, which is about opening the doors of salvation for all men, and for all time?
~
Let’s look at the following scripture:
“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (St. Matthew 28:18-20).
What is the teaching of Christ here? First, He says that He has all power. LDS believe this, so no problem. But, why does Jesus say He has all power? Was He simply feeling like commenting on His power as God? No. To discover why He stresses His power we must read on. The apostles are then sent out to evangelize the world. They are sent out with Christ’s power. Christ has received all power from the Father, and in virtue of that power, He sends the apostles out to preach to all nations. Ergo, the apostles have a divine commission to preach the Gospel. LDS believe this too, so no problem. And since this mission will not be completed in one century, or two, etc. but will last until the end of time, Christ promises to be with them in the execution of their mission, until the end of time. When Jesus says that He will be with them until the end of time, what is He referring to? Well, if context means anything in biblical interpretation and understanding, then it refers to their commission to preach the Gospel to all the world. The apostles were sent out with the power of Christ to preach the Gospel (i.e. “divine commission”), and in the application of this call, Christ promises to be with them. Christ is with them in the preaching of the Gospel for all time.
LDS, please tell me how Christ can be with the Church in the preaching of the Gospel for *all time * and until the end when you believe that divine authority to preach the Gospel unto salvation and the complete teachings of salvation were not taught by the Church for over 1500 years. Thanks.
In Christ,
Adam
Can someone really believe that for entire generations nobody could be saved? Now, many Protestants also believe in an “apostasy” of the Church, but then, many of them believe that baptism isn’t essential for salvation either. LDS, however, believe baptism is essential (and rightly so), so this leaves them in a predicament. If baptism is essential for salvation, and no authoritative baptisms were administered for most of Christian history, then nobody was able to experience salvation until the time of Joseph Smith and the “Restoration.” How can this be the message of Christianity, which is about opening the doors of salvation for all men, and for all time?
~
Let’s look at the following scripture:
“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (St. Matthew 28:18-20).
What is the teaching of Christ here? First, He says that He has all power. LDS believe this, so no problem. But, why does Jesus say He has all power? Was He simply feeling like commenting on His power as God? No. To discover why He stresses His power we must read on. The apostles are then sent out to evangelize the world. They are sent out with Christ’s power. Christ has received all power from the Father, and in virtue of that power, He sends the apostles out to preach to all nations. Ergo, the apostles have a divine commission to preach the Gospel. LDS believe this too, so no problem. And since this mission will not be completed in one century, or two, etc. but will last until the end of time, Christ promises to be with them in the execution of their mission, until the end of time. When Jesus says that He will be with them until the end of time, what is He referring to? Well, if context means anything in biblical interpretation and understanding, then it refers to their commission to preach the Gospel to all the world. The apostles were sent out with the power of Christ to preach the Gospel (i.e. “divine commission”), and in the application of this call, Christ promises to be with them. Christ is with them in the preaching of the Gospel for all time.
LDS, please tell me how Christ can be with the Church in the preaching of the Gospel for *all time * and until the end when you believe that divine authority to preach the Gospel unto salvation and the complete teachings of salvation were not taught by the Church for over 1500 years. Thanks.
In Christ,
Adam
T
TOmNossor
Guest
As I will mention here shortly I do not believe “wishful thinking” is a fair characterization of what I see in history. I can point to some explicit and some shadows of LDS beliefs in the early church. What I point to as explicit beliefs in many instances developed away from what I claim was taught and this can be shown as not only possible but probable. Still, it is powerful to suggest that the 6th century fathers would not have corrupted for fun and they were in a better position to know what the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd century fathers taught.
It should also be noted that my message acknowledged that the Catholic Church has ancient roots traceable without any appeal to the supernatural whereas the CoJCoLDS when it claims apostolic succession must rely on the supernatural. This is an impossible burden for atheists who do not accept the supernatural, but is not such an easy burden even for us theists.
I see much evidence that the things I mention fall on “deaf ears.” Few people desire to step outside the simple perception that everything Mormon is crazy. My intention is not to “prove” my case, but to demonstrate that everything Mormon is not crazy. While I totally respect the Catholic who sees the evidence differently than I do, I do not think the disrespect so often projected at the CoJCoLDS is appropriate. This is especially true coming from a Catholic for two reasons. First, you should be accustomed to such dismissive and inappropriate treatment from Protestants. And second, unlike Protestants (or LDS for that matter) you merely need to support your position not attack the position of others. While showing the flaws in the position of others has its place, it requires incredible diligence to ensure that you represent the others with similar allowances to the ones you require for your beliefs. I seldom see this done.
Here the words of Joseph Smith seem appropriate to repeat:
Joseph Smith:
Again, two things should be noted. First, I would suggest that your characterization of LDS deification is base and significantly less informed than it needs to be in order to engage the best the CoJCoLDS has to offer.
Second, if you serve God, love God, … because you “desire to inherit heaven,” then you really only serve yourself. I strive to love God for no other reason that that He is God. I believe as we more fully know Him we will love Him for who He is not for what He can give us.
Charity, TOm
C
curious2no
Guest
Charity, TOm,
I enjoy reading your posts, but I have to wonder if you don’t routinely end up with headaches. You have to twist and turn your ideas so much before they even come close to making sense. And then, you still frequently have to end up with part of your answer resting on supernaturalness (?word) and “feelings” to keep you beliefs.
If you have not read Pope John Paul II’s encylical on Faith and Reason, I encourage you to do so. It is not long and I “know”
you would enjoy it.
I think (hope) some day you will “come home” and I believe firmly when you do you will find rest and peace of mind.
In Charity, ToYou.
I enjoy reading your posts, but I have to wonder if you don’t routinely end up with headaches. You have to twist and turn your ideas so much before they even come close to making sense. And then, you still frequently have to end up with part of your answer resting on supernaturalness (?word) and “feelings” to keep you beliefs.
If you have not read Pope John Paul II’s encylical on Faith and Reason, I encourage you to do so. It is not long and I “know”
you would enjoy it.I think (hope) some day you will “come home” and I believe firmly when you do you will find rest and peace of mind.
In Charity, ToYou.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
And I will admit that Newman’s development paradigm provided me with something that made sense of what previously did not seem to jive with “Tradition” in my mind.
I would suggest this is overstated. There are some things that LDS can show were in accordance with the Restoration and developed away (Creation ex materia). There are some things that are more neutral (there was an effort to de-secret-ize the gospel did it involve the removal of LDS esoteric rites?). And there are some things that I see the Catholic Church’s position as stronger and more historical (the real presence).
The cause and the timing are in question, but I do believe that authority is important and therefore it is either Catholicism or Mormonism.
If you have read all the standard works and you are convinced that they are not inspired then it is good you are not a LDS.
I know of many things that are called “mistakes, contradictions, false prophecies, and disagreements,” but I have yet to find one that I thought was unsolvable. Surely you have heard that one should “call no man father.” Many Protestants seem content to declare victory with a single passage from Matthew 23. Things are seldom so simple and surely you know this.
Yes and no. For many LDS it is enough that God tells them to be LDS. Some LDS choose to engage our religion with our head and our heart. When I became a LDS I could only point to the restoration and say, “Look at all this there must have been an apostasy.” Now I look at history and the restoration and see evidence of the apostasy, but as I will mention shortly, I would not be a restorationist in waiting if the CoJCoLDS didn’t exist.
So to be God’s church there must have been some type of apostasy and LDS can either implicitly acknowledge it through their separation from the Catholic Church or explicitly point to it with what we see in Early Church and restoration histories.
And I do the same thing with respect to some LDS issues to which we provide acceptable but not convincing answers.
Without Newman’s ideas I do not think I could be a Catholic. My SSPX Catholic friend stands on a foundation that is fatally flawed by my understanding (although sometimes it seems he has approached demonstrating that Newman is inconsistent with the Catholic Church). All this being said, I would not be a restorationist in waiting. I see plenty of problems with the Catholic Church, but not so many that I couldn’t be in full communion. I just see the CoJCoLDS as a better solution (and as the solution I was called to).
Charity, TOm
B
boppysbud
Guest
I prefer to approach this from the “restoration” rather than the “apostacy” side.
In order to “restore” something is had to have existed in the first place to have been “restored”.
None of the unique Mormon doctrines existed before Smith invented them in the 19th century, they were all brand new hence not “restored”.
There is no proof or documentation that anyone beleived in three seperate Gods, that anyone beleived in humans turning into “gods”, that people belived in posthumous baptism for the dead, that “heavenly father” is just one “god” of many who was subservient to other “gods”.
And of course the mormon “sacred temple rites” are not a restoration of anything ancient but were written by Smith based on the Masonic ceremonies.
In order to “restore” something is had to have existed in the first place to have been “restored”.
None of the unique Mormon doctrines existed before Smith invented them in the 19th century, they were all brand new hence not “restored”.
There is no proof or documentation that anyone beleived in three seperate Gods, that anyone beleived in humans turning into “gods”, that people belived in posthumous baptism for the dead, that “heavenly father” is just one “god” of many who was subservient to other “gods”.
And of course the mormon “sacred temple rites” are not a restoration of anything ancient but were written by Smith based on the Masonic ceremonies.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
I know for a fact that some early Christians believed in “creation ex materia”, three degrees of glory, a literal millennium, that God the Father had a body, the pre-existence of the soul, an end to hell, that Christ and the apostles preached to the spirits in prison, that baptism was mystically imparted in the spirit world, and in a multitude of worlds.
The early Gnostics, taking elements out of Christian sacraments (like the symbolic handclasp during weddings and baptisms, new name of baptism, prayer circle during Lord’s prayer, etc.) developed a secret “gnostic” tradition that resembles the LDS temple in many distinctive features. Of course, these Catholic things, borrowed by the Gnostics, ended up, in turn, being borrowed by the Masons in the Holy Royal Arch degree ( the “rite of exaltation” ) of Masonry. And several early LDS leaders were Masons. Make of that what you will.
And, of course, the teaching of deification was taught as it still is in the Christian East and West (more emphasized in the East though). However, this didn’t mean becoming creating planets and populating them with spirits.
How did Joseph Smith gain access to these ancient (even if heretical) beliefs present in early Christianity? Well, from my studies I know that all these teachings were present in various writings and creeds of early America. Smith had more than enough to material to have simply “compiled” them into his own religion. So, he definitely could have started his own religion, and I contend that he did just that. What inspired him to do so? Well, I think it was a catalyst effect. Once Smith borrowed the idea of eternal matter, degrees of glory, etc. that spilled over into other people who taught similar and deeper teachings, and that added to the doctrines of the growing Mormon faith, and this faith continued to be built up as Smith’s sources for doctrine kept expanding into more and more territory. I will post about these issues in the future. It’s really interesting.
However, we shouldn’t view Smith as “restoring the ancient Church”, for he didn’t “restore” the early heresies about Jesus being fully man or fully God, nor the equally ancient Gnostic heresy that worshipped angels and saw matter as evil, nor the Judaizer heresy that taught that the Old Covenant was still in force or the teaching that marriage was evil.
Also, we don’t find in the early Church the belief that God has a wife who, together, are literally the parents of our spirits, that we will become Gods and Goddesses of our own planet, a rejection of the Real Presence and the Mass, a neglect of devotion to Our Lady, believer’s only baptism, that marriage is essential for ultimate salvation (“exaltation”), etc. Of course, LDS say that this was saved for the “last dispensation” (the one Joseph Smith ushered in). But I see this as special pleading that Smith started to give himself breathing room, the same with the belief that the bible isn’t translated correctly. With these two beliefs nothing in Mormonism can be held strictly to the teaching of the Word of God, because, of course, it might not be translated correctly. Neither can its new teachings be held to the teaching of the early Church, because, of course “revelation” can continue (funny that the only substantial additions to this “revelation” was done by Smith himself, showing that like a lot of things in Mormonism, it is used to allow Smith leeway and to save his face, and not much else).
Once we collect all the early Christian heresies that some LDS apologists would have us believe were remnants of the original Church, that Smith reflected in his teaching, the number isn’t that impressive, because as I showed above, there were an equally large amount of ancient heresies, and biblically-founded truths, that Smith ignored in his “restoration.”
In Christ,
Adam
The early Gnostics, taking elements out of Christian sacraments (like the symbolic handclasp during weddings and baptisms, new name of baptism, prayer circle during Lord’s prayer, etc.) developed a secret “gnostic” tradition that resembles the LDS temple in many distinctive features. Of course, these Catholic things, borrowed by the Gnostics, ended up, in turn, being borrowed by the Masons in the Holy Royal Arch degree ( the “rite of exaltation” ) of Masonry. And several early LDS leaders were Masons. Make of that what you will.
And, of course, the teaching of deification was taught as it still is in the Christian East and West (more emphasized in the East though). However, this didn’t mean becoming creating planets and populating them with spirits.
How did Joseph Smith gain access to these ancient (even if heretical) beliefs present in early Christianity? Well, from my studies I know that all these teachings were present in various writings and creeds of early America. Smith had more than enough to material to have simply “compiled” them into his own religion. So, he definitely could have started his own religion, and I contend that he did just that. What inspired him to do so? Well, I think it was a catalyst effect. Once Smith borrowed the idea of eternal matter, degrees of glory, etc. that spilled over into other people who taught similar and deeper teachings, and that added to the doctrines of the growing Mormon faith, and this faith continued to be built up as Smith’s sources for doctrine kept expanding into more and more territory. I will post about these issues in the future. It’s really interesting.
However, we shouldn’t view Smith as “restoring the ancient Church”, for he didn’t “restore” the early heresies about Jesus being fully man or fully God, nor the equally ancient Gnostic heresy that worshipped angels and saw matter as evil, nor the Judaizer heresy that taught that the Old Covenant was still in force or the teaching that marriage was evil.
Also, we don’t find in the early Church the belief that God has a wife who, together, are literally the parents of our spirits, that we will become Gods and Goddesses of our own planet, a rejection of the Real Presence and the Mass, a neglect of devotion to Our Lady, believer’s only baptism, that marriage is essential for ultimate salvation (“exaltation”), etc. Of course, LDS say that this was saved for the “last dispensation” (the one Joseph Smith ushered in). But I see this as special pleading that Smith started to give himself breathing room, the same with the belief that the bible isn’t translated correctly. With these two beliefs nothing in Mormonism can be held strictly to the teaching of the Word of God, because, of course, it might not be translated correctly. Neither can its new teachings be held to the teaching of the early Church, because, of course “revelation” can continue (funny that the only substantial additions to this “revelation” was done by Smith himself, showing that like a lot of things in Mormonism, it is used to allow Smith leeway and to save his face, and not much else).
Once we collect all the early Christian heresies that some LDS apologists would have us believe were remnants of the original Church, that Smith reflected in his teaching, the number isn’t that impressive, because as I showed above, there were an equally large amount of ancient heresies, and biblically-founded truths, that Smith ignored in his “restoration.”
In Christ,
Adam
B
banjo
Guest
TOm,
I’m not sure what you consider the “first few centuries,” but we do have the following quotes which I think help narrow the window on when the bishop of Rome was recognized as having an authority not enjoyed by other bishops.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (born in the first half of the second century and a priest at Lyons in 177) wrote of the Church of Rome, “For with this Church, all other churches must bring themselves into line, on account of its superior authority.”
Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Catholic Church (Macmillan 1953) p.8.
St. Cyprian in the third century stated, “To be in communion with the bishop of Rome is to be in communion with the Catholic Church.” Alan Schreck,* A Compact History of the Catholic Church*(Servant, 1987), p. 19.
God bless you on your journey,
H
honeybear
Guest
It would seem to me that LDS desire to acheive Godhood, therefore placing themselves on an equal level with Christ. Without regard to what I read in the D & C which tells me that LDS hope to acheive for all practical purposes their own planet on which to rule, which would be fairly materialistic, the manner of eternal Progression suggests that all men in LDS are working on becoming co-equal with Jesus in all things. This is also borne out by the concept of Jesus as a “spirit child” as is Lucifer. This lowering of who God and Christ actually are allows the LDS to place themselves on an level playing field with God, something historically all religions have rejected as it is insane. That is not love, Tom. The word for that particular behavior we use is lust.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I do not believe this and neither did Joseph Smith. After reading Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Joseph Smith commented positively about these folks. He didn’t think they were outside of Christ’s love and influence.
For many years Catholics would tell you that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and this means what it sounds like. This of course is no longer true.
Baptism of Desire evolved. Originally it was the explanation for those who had expressed a desire to be baptized, but due to traveling priests and other circumstances they were unable to fulfill this desire (not that the Catholic Church demands that priest baptizes, but this is the common practice).
So when you ask:
The answer is that many Catholics in the past and many folks who call themselves Catholics today believe exactly this.
Of course LDS do not believe this. In fact, we believe that “baptism for the dead” (which is mentioned in the Bible and aligns much better with the necessity of water mentioned in Clementine Recognitions). Through this and other proxy ordinance all may receive valid ordinances. Beyond this, I think it is largely necessary to acknowledge that the proxy ordinances are not something for which we must “wait.”
As Joseph Smith and I have maintained, there were saintly folks who had salvic views of Christ throughout the apostasy.
Christ never abandoned the saintly folks in the church. The apostasy in my opinion was largely confined to the absence of valid authority not the absence of Christ’s influence on folks who sought Him.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
So you are suggesting that I shouldn’t confuse you with what I believe because you would rather stick with what “it would seem” to you. Oh yea and I am “insane.”
Would it be valid if I suggested the only reason you attend church, receive the sacrament, pray, … is because it is hot in hell. What if this is as it seems to me?
And no, LDS do not say we are equal with God or that we will ever be equal with God. God the Father will always be our Father, Christ will always be our savior without Whom we couldn’t become like Him, and the Holy Ghost will always be integrally linked to our understanding of the divine love and gifts provided by God.
Charity, TOm
H
honeybear
Guest
Christ is God, Tom.
- Status