The Oddity of Protestant Apologetics

[JVW]

17 hours ago, 3DOP said:

To your first paragraph...I understand. If I had your background and believed what you seem to believe about the history of the Catholic Church in relation to the world and world governments, I would have a harder time being proud of my Church's history. I see a lot of continuous tension down through the centuries between the temporal authorities and the Church that you might have missed. Besides that disagreement, I also look at continuing miracles, missionaries, and martyrs as a sign that the precepts of the Church are good and holy. We also have the example of Old Testament Israel which the prophets pronounced expressly as adulterous, as bad or worse I suppose than what I think is an unhistorical claim of adultery: "The Catholic Church being in bed with world government for so many centuries", etc.

In israel's case, you would have made a mistake to believe that spiritual adultery in Israel meant that it no longer retained the authority which God gave it. After centuries of unfaithfulness followed by periods of repentance God was merciful to Israel, preserved the priesthood, and even while using a Temple built by King Herod (a worldly government) Jesus could call it His Father's House! He proclaimed that the high priest who was trying to have the Son of God murdered nevertheless "sat in Moses' chair." As for the lesser sons of Aaron, when Jesus healed the lepers, He told them to go and show themselves to the priests as commanded by Moses, "for a testimony unto them". This is why I need more than what you offer, even if I believed it, before I would say that Catholic priests who consecrate the Eucharist today and have modern miracles to prove their validity, are not really true priests.

To your second paragraph, 2 Thess. is in my opinion, best understood as happening immediately before Christ comes. I see no promise of "restoration", however Paul's apostasy should be understood. I do not believe that the protestant reformation was that "falling away", spoken of. Nor the Orthodox. They still have priestly orders and seven valid sacraments as we do. I think apostasy defines a descent into wickedness that is deeply immoral and unholy. I could not describe those who I consider to be separated brethren as being that. There are unholy forces in the world, and be assured that if they loved us for centuries, they hate us now. Catholic churches are being vandalized and destroyed all over the world because of her continuing moral stances which are contrary to the immoral license which is sometimes promoted by media news and our educational systems. All Christians are disturbed by those who hate us for our unworldly beliefs. I do not say that the Catholic Church is alone in being despised. But in Asia and Africa it is thought that there have been more martyrdoms of Catholics and other Christians for their faith than in any century since the time of Christ. This seems to me to be seriously under reported. 

Anyway, JVW, I thank you for your interest in my thoughts! Wow. Believe that you have all my best wishes, and return your benediction saying "cheers". May we all heartily rejoice in the light that we have and the faith that we love. Your new friend in Jesus,

Rory   

Your argument is very compelling. I'll be considering it as I continue moving forward in my faith journey, thank you.

[marineland]

On 12/1/2025 at 2:46 PM, Pyreaux said:

The difference is that when the LDS faith makes this statement, it's to then pivot to the positive work of Restoration. The polemical Protestant makes this statement to then pivot to the negative work of tearing down others, the claim the LDS faith is "hostile" for its foundational exclusionary statements. You are criticizing authority while refusing to positively defend your own authority structure. Ironic.

Many reject the First Vision account so no need for a restoration.

My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would
not prevail.

The Roman Catholic Church and the other groups I mentioned defend their authority
but you don't accept their defense. 

Edited December 2, 2025 by marineland

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 hours ago, marineland said:

My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would
not prevail.

Meaning hell could not stop it from from rising (resurrecting/being restored) from the "dead" (apostasy). Or, in other words, it's "death" (apostasy) wouldn't be forever.

Edited December 3, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 hours ago, marineland said:

The Roman Catholic Church and the other groups I mentioned defend their authority
but you don't accept their defense. 

I assume you are Protestant, so it seems you don't accept their (Catholic) defense as it pertains to their authority either- which places you in a strange predicament.

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, marineland said:

Many reject the First Vision account so no need for a restoration.

My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would
not prevail.

The Roman Catholic Church and the other groups I mentioned defend their authority
but you don't accept their defense. 

marineland, hi.

We used to have long discussions here about apostasy theory years ago now. I always found them unsatisfying. Maybe they did too? I wonder if this is why some apparently spend time concocting ignorantly ludicrous theories about why Catholics believe in a neuter, genderless eternity? It makes one wonder if some of these ideas are more common among LDS "in the pew" than they are here on the better informed internet. (calm, and others from ZLMB days, I refrained from using the expression coined by Dr. Shades so long ago now. Do you think there is no validity to Dr. Shades categorization)?

In any case, I don't like offense, and it has been mostly unnecessary in my case. I always grant all the LDS defensive apologetics without studying them much. I don't trust the anti-apologists, and the answers given by LDS seem fine. My only time for argument these days are those rare times when somebody says something ignorant about my faith. Most of the time now, I am pointing out areas of agreement between Catholics and LDS, which I believe are becoming more and more frequent. We are even closer with Protestants, but in different key ways.

Regards, 

3DOP 

Edited December 3, 2025 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

21 hours ago, marineland said:

Many reject the First Vision account so no need for a restoration.

Why do you think that using the bandwagon logical fallacy automatically proves that there is no need for a restoration?   Many don't believe in God, so there is no need for him too?  (It doesn't work).

21 hours ago, marineland said:

My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would
not prevail.

And the gates of hades haven't prevailed against Christ's church, even given the fact that there was an apostasy.  His church was restored.

21 hours ago, marineland said:

The Roman Catholic Church and the other groups I mentioned defend their authority
but you don't accept their defense. 

Other groups defend their authority the same as you do (as you did above).  Why should we accept yours?

[Pyreaux]

On 12/2/2025 at 3:41 PM, marineland said:

Many reject the First Vision account so no need for a restoration.

My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would
not prevail.

The Roman Catholic Church and the other groups I mentioned defend their authority
but you don't accept their defense. 

Here are the points and how they prove the cost of the polemical method:

First an Argument from Ignorance

It's the claim that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or is false because it has not been proven true. In the context of polemical apologetics, you see a lack of perfect evidence as evidence of fraud. But you do not apply the same skeptical rigor to the origins of your own faith. With no evidence, you assume the premise that there is continuous, unbroken authority in your own tradition to dismiss the LDS claim as unnecessary because you don't accept the evidence for it. You gave no positive argument, so it's a personal preference.

Then Appeal to Continuous Authority in the face of an Ecclesiological deficit

"My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail," is maybe your strongest affirmative statement, but it is deeply insufficient in an interfaith debate. The Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS traditions all agree with the promise of Matthew 16:18. They just fundamentally disagree on how that promise was fulfilled.

When the Catholic poster pointed out the need for a "one true visible church," you needed to point to a specific, unified, visible body that exists today. If its a spiritual, invisible community of believers that is everywhere and yet nowhere, you cannot point to a single, positive, visible institution as "the Church" in Matthew. You must point to an invisible concept defined by a spiritual checklist, one which is easily satisfied by thousands of fragmented denominations. You authority is, therefore, an abstraction, which will force you back into negative polemics to defend your invisible boundaries.

Then Relativism

I'm not saying it wrong to exclude, just the portion of Protestants engaged in the polemic method of exclusion is by nature negative, often ill-informed, and consumed by attacking the opponent, which carries a high cost (a lot of false witnessing or rampant ignorance). It doesn't offer a positive, internal reason to reject the LDS claim, you offered a negative, external observation designed to neutralize a claim of uniqueness.

Crucially, this line was used to rebut the Catholic's point about the Protestant lack of a single, visible church. A Protestant 'positive' defense should have been why a fragmented and invisible authority is superior to visible unity. Instead, you deflected. If the statement truly a justification for rejection, you could follow it up with, "And here is the superior, singular, non-fragmented, authoritative body that Christ promised would never be defeated". Since you cannot do this, you can only claim that all visible authority claims are equally suspect.

This reinforces the idea that your identity is defined by whom you reject. It confirms the original thesis, the Protestant apologetics is often not engaged in affirmation, but a methodology of negation.

Edited December 3, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

alm, and others from ZLMB days, I refrained from using the expression coined by Dr. Shades so long ago now. Do you think there is no validity to Dr. Shades categorization

The categorization is there though it’s overly broad.  It’s the labels he put on the two broad categories and the implications he was trying to attach to them (if internet Mormons are more often found on the internet than in the Chapel, we are less devout for example) that were the problem because the categories existed long before the internet and plenty of Saints who spend enormous time on the internet are the so-called chapel Mormons and those he labeled “internet” would be more likely to be seen in the chapel being highly committed than many other Saints.

He also presented it as some sort of schism, iirc.  And I don’t see that.  It’s more of an interest variation.  My husband would qualify as a chapel Mormons in many ways (he never discusses religion on line and only when I force him to do so offline, lol, but doctrinally speaking we line up pretty well and if he hasn’t speculated in areas I have…which he doesn’t do much, he finds my reasoning rational and grounded even if he feels no obligation to accept it since nothing authoritative about it.  And it’s been the same with every truly chapel Mormon I have discussed things with over the decades.  The only ones who call me out for false doctrine or apostasy (only a few times personally, more my type of apologists in general) are individuals who have joined internet communities to discuss religion.  So his claims for the groups were off along with the implications.

Edited December 3, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

just the Protestant method of exclusion is negative, often ill-informed, and consumed by attacking the opponent

You should at least qualify it with “this sometime Protestant method” because it isn’t used by every Protestant, either individual or denomination (source is personal experience).

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You should at least qualify it with “this sometime Protestant method” because it isn’t used by every Protestant, either individual or denomination (source is personal experience).

Very good, I've edited it. I don't mean to forget to consistently reiterate that I mean a chosen style of many, few among the whole, and not the whole group. I am well aware LDS have also been engaged in it, equally been losing, it is a difficult thing to be expert in two faiths. It has a cost.

[marineland]

On 12/3/2025 at 2:37 PM, InCognitus said:

Other groups defend their authority the same as you do (as you did above).  Why should we accept yours?

One needs to decide and act upon the authority they deem correct.  Choosing
wrong has its consequences.

[marineland]

On 12/3/2025 at 2:23 PM, 3DOP said:

We used to have long discussions here about apostasy theory years ago now. I always found them unsatisfying. Maybe they did too? I wonder if this is why some apparently spend time concocting ignorantly ludicrous theories about why Catholics believe in a neuter, genderless eternity? It makes one wonder if some of these ideas are more common among LDS "in the pew" than they are here on the better informed internet. (calm, and others from ZLMB days, I refrained from using the expression coined by Dr. Shades so long ago now. Do you think there is no validity to Dr. Shades categorization)?

I haven't seen a Catholic teaching where humans will lose their gender in the resurrection so
I can't explain where that theory comes from.

Prior to Adam being created on earth, I don't believe angels were marrying or being given
in marriage in heaven.
 

Edited December 4, 2025 by marineland

[marineland]

On 12/3/2025 at 3:03 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I assume you are Protestant, so it seems you don't accept their (Catholic) defense as it pertains to their authority either- which places you in a strange predicament.

One should pick their authority and deal with the consequences if any.

[marineland]

On 12/3/2025 at 3:00 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Meaning hell could not stop it from from rising (resurrecting/being restored) from the "dead" (apostasy). Or, in other words, it's "death" (apostasy) wouldn't be forever.

No. Meaning Satan could not destroy the church.

[marineland]

On 12/3/2025 at 2:37 PM, InCognitus said:

And the gates of hades haven't prevailed against Christ's church, even given the fact that there was an apostasy.  His church was restored.

Brigham Young taught Christ's church was destroyed, and this idea is still taught.

[3DOP]

39 minutes ago, marineland said:

I haven't seen a Catholic teaching where humans will lose their gender in the resurrection so
I can't explain where that theory comes from.
 

I hope I did not give the impression that you were being thought of as one who had entertained such an ignorant idea. It came to my attention as a desperate attempt to show that Catholicism is anti-sexual. I was referencing another recent thread that you might have missed.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

One should pick their authority and deal with the consequences if any.

If the Catholic Church lacks authority- where does that leave her Protestant daughters?

If there was no apostasy, why the need for the Protestant Reformation?  

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

No. Meaning Satan could not destroy the church.

He didn't "prevail" against it, because it was resurrected/restored to the Earth.

Had the Church never been resurrected/restored, then he would've prevailed.

[poptart]

While I normally don't bother with topics like this for personal reasons, I'll bite because I have to ask, do any of these Protestant apologetics people discuss things like the Augsburg Confessions, Book of Common Prayer, Book of Concord etc.  And the politics and wars that came about during those times?  Why does it seem like Protestant apologists never seem to mention this?  Why folks like the LCMS were and still are huge on the Confessions because of what happened to em in Prussia and even here a few times?  I ask because a lot of these guys seem to conveniently leave out those details.  There are times I wonder if they are leaving things like that out on purpose or if they really aren't as knowledgeable as they claim.

Quick edit, I do have a few friends in the mainline world, mostly Lutheran, Anglican etc.  It is amazing how different things used to be.  I really do think a lot of Protestants here have no idea what was lost.  If the USA still had what it lost, I think it would be a much, much better country.  In Germany and a lot of the Nordic Countries they still have that spirit of working together regardless of differences.  

Edited December 5, 2025 by poptart

[JVW]

16 hours ago, poptart said:

While I normally don't bother with topics like this for personal reasons, I'll bite because I have to ask, do any of these Protestant apologetics people discuss things like the Augsburg Confessions, Book of Common Prayer, Book of Concord etc.  And the politics and wars that came about during those times?  Why does it seem like Protestant apologists never seem to mention this?  Why folks like the LCMS were and still are huge on the Confessions because of what happened to em in Prussia and even here a few times?  I ask because a lot of these guys seem to conveniently leave out those details.  There are times I wonder if they are leaving things like that out on purpose or if they really aren't as knowledgeable as they claim.

Quick edit, I do have a few friends in the mainline world, mostly Lutheran, Anglican etc.  It is amazing how different things used to be.  I really do think a lot of Protestants here have no idea what was lost.  If the USA still had what it lost, I think it would be a much, much better country.  In Germany and a lot of the Nordic Countries they still have that spirit of working together regardless of differences.  

I'm going to venture and say "no" because I have never heard of any of those discussion topics you raised and I've argued with a lot of Christians in my day. I love arguing with people.

[InCognitus]

21 hours ago, marineland said:

On 12/3/2025 at 12:37 PM, InCognitus said:

Other groups defend their authority the same as you do (as you did above).  Why should we accept yours?

One needs to decide and act upon the authority they deem correct.  Choosing
wrong has its consequences.

But you haven't given us any valid reason to accept your opinion of your authority.  That seems to be the wrong choice to me, and it does have consequences indeed.

[InCognitus]

20 hours ago, marineland said:

Brigham Young taught Christ's church was destroyed, and this idea is still taught.

The Bible infers that Christ's church as he had organized it with a leadership of apostles and prophets (established during the time of the Roman empire) would be destroyed.  In Daniel 2, it's only when the stone is cut out of the mountain without hands that it is said that the kingdom shall never be destroyed or left to another people, and Christ's church at the time of the Roman empire [the legs of iron in Daniel 2] was given to another people (see Matthew 21:43).  And the leadership of the church that Christ organized was killed and taken over by the Roman emperors (and they even played a part in establishing the doctrine of the church).  So of course that is still taught. 

[poptart]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

I'm going to venture and say "no" because I have never heard of any of those discussion topics you raised and I've argued with a lot of Christians in my day. I love arguing with people.

What circles of people have you had these discussions with?  Were they mostly non denominational Evangelicals?  Low Church Protestants?

[JVW]

6 minutes ago, poptart said:

What circles of people have you had these discussions with?  Were they mostly non denominational Evangelicals?  Low Church Protestants?

Yeah, hit the nail on the head. I haven't met very many high church protestants, but I feel like high church types of people tend to be less aggressive towards LDS generally because they're also skirting the line of "saved by works/rituals" like LDS are.

What are those three things you referenced? Should I be taking time to look into them?

[The Nehor]

All of Christianity is just Jewish apostates.

We’re all going to burn in hell for our heresy.

That is all.