Great Apostasy revisited

[BlipBlap]

On 8/17/2026 at 9:32 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Do you believe in continuing revelation? or is the primitive Christian Church held to stricter standards than the LDS church when it comes to source material?

Why would that matter when that isn't the topic?  The Catholic church officially denies continued public revelation prior to the Second Coming of Christ according to the Second Vatican Council.  Despite this declaration, they've treated many things as such.  See the Fatima visions, see the determination of canon, etc.

[BlipBlap]

On 8/16/2026 at 8:31 AM, 3DOP said:

No BlipBlap. That does not follow because we reject the absolute materialist precept that if there was a God, God's mind would be material. Your argument begins with a false supposition.

Even our minds are immaterial. Unlike God, we cannot make matter with a word. But like God, our thoughts and words are immaterial. They don't have physical properties. Our rational faculty is unique in creation. Our ability, like God, to entertain immaterial ideas and concepts are Godlike faculties. Thus, we are made in His image, unlike the irrational creation. That is why we, unlike the irrational creation possess the potential by God's grace to partake of His very nature through His Son who is now like us, an amalgam of matter and spirit, the God-Man. What wonderful good news to learn what can become of us!

We cannot help what materialists believe. But we must insist that materialists grant us our own presuppositions if they are trying to disprove our beliefs.

  

It doesn't begin with a false supposition at all.  What you accept or reject is irrelevant when looking at the problems inherent with your doctrine.  God not having a material mind has nothing at all to do with the fact that, if he created all things, those things would still be products of God.  You can use the term "mind", "thoughts", "ideas", "plan", etc. here interchangeably as they'd all functionally mean the same thing.  If I decide to build a house, what do I need to do first?  Make a plan for it, yes?  Are you claiming that God created all things without any kind of planning or forethought?  That it was all just instinct/reflex/randomness?

What does us not being able to make matter with a word have to do with this?  Why would thoughts and word not having physical properties (words kinda do, the sound used to vocalize them as well as the material to visualize them i.e. ink) matter? 

Presuppositions can only be granted if they have a basis.  Mere "rejection" isn't a basis and doesn't make the idea immune to deconstruction.  Why would I need to grant any presuppositions at all?  I don't grant Reformed churches their presuppositions that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and the ultimate authority on doctrine because it is based on bad logic, so why should I do any different for you?

[MiserereNobis]

20 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Why would that matter when that isn't the topic?  The Catholic church officially denies continued public revelation prior to the Second Coming of Christ according to the Second Vatican Council.  Despite this declaration, they've treated many things as such.  See the Fatima visions, see the determination of canon, etc.

You don’t understand what the Catholic Church means by public revelation. Your tone is aggressive and condescending. You are like anti Mormons who try to tell Mormons what they believe and are wrong. 

[3DOP]

On 8/11/2026 at 11:00 AM, BlipBlap said:

As for "God not being a man", that is also difficult to substantiate given that God created man in his image.  "God the Son" becoming a man likewise contradicts the notion that God is unchanging (in the terms of how Nicaeans present the term "unchanging"), uncreated, etc., as God upon becoming incarnate in flesh would be undergoing an objective change. This would directly mean that "God the Son" is created, as God the Son's existence is predicated upon incarnation in flesh and since you deny that God the Father has a physical body, that means that the body was created at a later time.

It then runs into LDS theology of God the Father having a physical body.  Your theology denies this, yet contradicts itself in the very idea of "God the Son" being "God incarnated in flesh".  Either you acknowledge that God the Father always had a physical body, or that the idea of consubstantiality doesn't work due to attributing different natures to one aspect of the Nicene God and not the other.

There are other issues as well.  If "God the Son" is "God becoming man", you would at minimum be agreeing to the idea of God being an "exalted man" upon Jesus' Transfiguration.  The hypostatic union suggests this too.

I have already replied to the first paragraph, and leave it now for context. Maybe someone else that is LDS might want to try to answer the second paragraph for BlipBlap? The Catholics here have obviously gotten off on the wrong foot with this person. Maybe she/he would listen if it was explained by a non-Catholic at least, or better, a Latter-day Saint. I might suggest that you look up the meaning of consubstantial  according to Catholic theology. Then go to the Vatican web page for the Council of Chalcedon and find what it says about who Jesus is consubstantial with. Combine that with what Catholics mean by the hypostatic union and there is our answer. It doesn't prove anything against the LDS position. It just shows that we are consistent with our own beliefs, contrary to what BlipBlap wants to think. No obligations obviously!

I have never seen anything like this around here. In a way it has been fun, but it also brings out the worst in me. I waited almost a week before an earlier post to BlipBlap because my opinion of her/him was so negative that I could feel some malice stirring. But now it is just getting distasteful. Pray for me. I have to love everybody here. I may have mentioned this before. But one of my favorite quotes from our last Council is paraphrased "Through His Incarnation, Christ has, in a certain sense, united Himself with every man." Pray that I may be true to that belief. 

I will reply later if anyone else expresses curiosity about anything she/he has raised. But I will consider myself relieved from any further fruitless interaction with BlipBlap, for the sake of my own soul.  

I am sorry BlipBlap. I should have more love and patience. I truly wish you every grace and heavenly blessing in this world and in the next. I do. God make us be friends in heaven. God love you.

Rory McKenzie

 

Edited 1 hour ago by 3DOP

[BlipBlap]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

You don’t understand what the Catholic Church means by public revelation. Your tone is aggressive and condescending. You are like anti Mormons who try to tell Mormons what they believe and are wrong. 

Where is the misunderstanding, exactly?  Your analogy doesn't really work seeing as how I can actually point out where anti-Mormons are incorrect versus you simply saying "you don't understand X".  You're deliberately mistaking bluntness for aggression and condescension in an attempt to dodge the point.

Here is the English text of the Dei verbum from the Second Vatican Council, straight from the Vatican's archives.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

"Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love. (1)"

This establishes the purpose of the council and confirms that what is contained within is to be considered binding to the members of the Catholic church.

"The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and ***. 2:13)."

In quite plain English, this establishes that your church does not believe that any public revelation will occur before the Second Coming of Christ.

What is the official definition of "public revelation" according to the Catholic church?

According to this site:  https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35908

"The supernatural manifestation of God's wisdom and will for the human race, in order to lead humanity to its heavenly destiny. It is entrusted directly to the Church for preservation and interpretation and is contained in Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition."

Are you going to try to claim that the determination of the Biblical canon wasn't revelation?  It seems that such a thing would be very important and would require something beyond mere "divine inspiration" in order to determine.

[webbles]

35 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

Where is the misunderstanding, exactly?  Your analogy doesn't really work seeing as how I can actually point out where anti-Mormons are incorrect versus you simply saying "you don't understand X".  You're deliberately mistaking bluntness for aggression and condescension in an attempt to dodge the point.

Here is the English text of the Dei verbum from the Second Vatican Council, straight from the Vatican's archives.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

"Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love. (1)"

This establishes the purpose of the council and confirms that what is contained within is to be considered binding to the members of the Catholic church.

"The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and ***. 2:13)."

In quite plain English, this establishes that your church does not believe that any public revelation will occur before the Second Coming of Christ.

What is the official definition of "public revelation" according to the Catholic church?

According to this site:  https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35908

"The supernatural manifestation of God's wisdom and will for the human race, in order to lead humanity to its heavenly destiny. It is entrusted directly to the Church for preservation and interpretation and is contained in Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition."

Are you going to try to claim that the determination of the Biblical canon wasn't revelation?  It seems that such a thing would be very important and would require something beyond mere "divine inspiration" in order to determine.

In the last 70ish years, how is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints any different from the Catholic church with regards to revelation.  We say we have continuous revelation but yet there are no new published revelations.  Just "divine inspiration".  Will we continue doing that?  And when we get to be as old as the Catholic church (thousands of years old), will a new upstart religion be able to say the same thing you are saying here?  That we (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) don't believe in continuous revelation because we only have "divine inspiration".  Revelation means something specific for Catholics and is targeted for very specific things.  But they still believe that God leads them and directs them.  Pretty similar to us.  We just use revelation much more broadly.

Edited 1 hour ago by webbles

[BlipBlap]

9 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I have already replied to the first paragraph, and leave it now for context. Maybe someone else that is LDS might want to try to answer the second paragraph for BlipBlap? The Catholics here have obviously gotten off on the wrong foot with this person. Maybe she/he would listen if it was explained by a non-Catholic at least, or better, a Latter-day Saint. I might suggest that you look up the meaning of consubstantial  according to Catholic theology. Then go to the Vatican web page for the Council of Chalcedon and find what it says about who Jesus is consubstantial with. Combine that with what Catholics mean by the hypostatic union and there is our answer. It doesn't prove anything against the LDS position. It just shows that we are consistent with our own beliefs, contrary to what BlipBlap wants to think. No obligations obviously!

I have never seen anything like this around here. In a way it has been fun, but it also brings out the worst in me. I waited almost a week before an earlier post to BlipBlap because my opinion of her/him was so negative that I could feel some malice stirring. But now it is just getting distasteful. Pray for me. I have to love everybody here. I may have mentioned this before. But one of my favorite quotes from our last Council is paraphrased "Through His Incarnation, Christ has, in a certain sense, united Himself with every man." Pray that I may be true to that belief. 

I will reply later if anyone else expresses curiosity about anything she/he has raised. But I will consider myself relieved from any further fruitless interaction with BlipBlap, for the sake of my own soul.  

I am sorry BlipBlap. I should have more love and patience. I truly wish you every grace and heavenly blessing in this world and in the next. I do. God make us be friends in heaven. God love you.

Rory McKenzie

 

Note that I didn't assert inconsistency, I asserted a contradiction.

Why don't you explain the concept instead of telling me to look it up?  It stands to reason that you should be able to instead of outsourcing to others, correct?

Here, I'll put forth what I believe these to be based on the text of the Nicene Creed:

https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe

Consubstantial:  Being one in essence or substance despite a difference in aspect

Hypostatic union:  The quality of being both fully divine and fully human, we can derive this from the Athanasian Creed:

"Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Now, here's where the contradiction occurs.  If I am "one in essence or substance", that would require them to share all of their natures.  As seen in the Athanasian Creed, Jesus is "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead".  In other words, his divine aspect is equal to that of the Father.  However, the very next statement, "and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood", illustrates that the human nature of Jesus is inferior to the Father and therefore his own divine nature.

How can I be "consubstantial" with something yet have a part of me that is explicitly stated to be inferior?  This is where Nicene Christians had to go to non-Christian philosophy to create their belief.  Jesus distinguishes himself on multiple occasions as being not the same as the Father.  The Father does likewise at least twice.

This is where the difference in thought comes in:  Nicene Christians believe "God" to be a singular being.  The LDS church still believes in "one God", but essentially holds that "God" is a status, office, station, organization, etc.  It's the Occam's Razor approach.

Keep in mind that you chose to continue responding to me.  Instead of quailing over your feelings in what reeks of false piety, you could've simply spared yourself the trouble and just, you know, said nothing.

[manol]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You don’t understand what the Catholic Church means by public revelation. Your tone is aggressive and condescending. You are like anti Mormons who try to tell Mormons what they believe and are wrong. 

@BlipBlap seems to have forgotten that the Latter-day Saints have a scripture specifically instructing them not to attack other religions.  D&C 18:20:

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."

 

 

 

[webbles]

10 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

This is where the difference in thought comes in:  Nicene Christians believe "God" to be a singular being.  The LDS church still believes in "one God", but essentially holds that "God" is a status, office, station, organization, etc.  It's the Occam's Razor approach.

There's a reason that the Trinity is called a "Mystery".  It can't be fully explained with our human understanding.  We (LDS) have similar things with our belief in God.  For example, to say that we believe in "one God" because it is a title, station, etc doesn't really help because we do believe that Heavenly Father is actually a God and the God.  We pray to Him, not to Jesus.  But Jesus is also a God but not the God.  We do have multiple Gods as separate entities.  Redefining it the way you did doesn't help with Occam's Razor approach.