Kingdom With No End or General Apostasy

[MiserereNobis]

If you actually knew both Mormonism and Catholicism you would know that with yes some minor and significant differences they are almost exactly alike.

Informed Catholics and Mormons both know that only one of us can be true, and it's not surprising since we both claim the same source. BTW, I'm actually a convert from Catholicism as well as some other faiths I've attended, and Mormonism didn't "replace" anything. Yes, it corrected some things that the various faiths taught or didn't teach, but Mormonism was a perfect match for the Bible.

There is much more than simply "moral values" that someone of the "Christian" tradition brings to their new faith. We are not as different as you believe, only in the misrepresentations and lies of us do people think we are so different.

My, my, William, a bit fiesty, eh? Mormonism and Catholicism are far from exactly alike. Any in-depth look will show that. We may use similar words, but our understanding of those words differ all the way down and some of those differences are about as important as they come, such as cosmology, nature of God, purpose of life and its end goal, nature of the priesthood, nature of the sacraments, Adam and the fall, the nature of redemption, etc, etc.

I'll state it again: if I were to convert to Mormonism, much of my faith (belief and practice) would be replaced. Since you were once Catholic, you should surely realize that I would not be adding to my faith, but replacing. We could do a comparison of my daily devotions and those of a Mormon, if you'd like. We could also catalog the differences in all the fundamental beliefs.

Saying that conversion just adds to what we've already got doesn't work for someone who is devoted to their current faith.

By the way, I don't go to anti-Mormon sources for my information on the LDS church. I go to the LDS sources. And I know my Catholic faith well enough (though by no means am I an expert) to see some huge glaring differences. Many of those differences are hashed out on this board. Peruse some of the threads involving Catholicism and Mormonism.

Yes, it is a fact to us, just like any belief is to you. That is far different from active bigotry and misrepresentation that our enemies do toward us.

I understand your frustration at the misrepresentation of "your enemies," but you don't need to play the persecution card here. I am doing no such thing to you.

Also, you repeat again that we tell you you are "apostate". We almost never use that word.

What about the Great Apostasy? That is the term used in the missionary discussions, in the Sunday School curriculum, and in the new and upcoming youth curriculum (another thread pointed me to the link for that). I have read many posts here referring to "apostate Christianity" or "post-apostasy Christianity." After the great apostasy, there was Catholicism, Catholicism, therefore, is apostate. I am a Catholic. I therefore am an apostate. Yes?

You ever said something negative or Mormons or anyone else?

We are all fallen humans, so yes, I have spoken ill of my neighbor. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Would it be accurate of you if an enemy of you then took that quote and paraded it around as if it was the "truth" about you? No it wouldn't.

I can see where you are going with this, but I have to say that the apostasy is the foundation of your religion. No apostasy, no restoration, and we're all happy Catholics

Pointing out, from LDS sources, that the LDS church believes there was an apostasy is not parading around something negative, since it is the basis of the restoration. Joseph Smith's First Vision confirms this.

Further evidence that you get your views from our enemies is your "whore of babylon" quote. Pretty much only two men in the entire 180 LDS history Pratt and McConkie had that belief, and then you're going to paint us with that?

First of all, I said that somewhat tongue in cheek. If you read the context of that thread, you will see that there was an LDS poster that said that the beast spoken of in the Apocalypse (Revelation) was the Catholic Church. Context always helps.

Yes, the creeds are abominable for they "exclude" and they were not given by revelation from God. The entire foundation of most Christian religions are founded on some Trinity creed that they define and exclude by.

If you were Christ do you really think he would like them?

Yes, I believe Christ loves the Nicene Creed and He is very pleased when I chant it every Sunday at Mass

But my point was that the LDS church has some negative things to say about other religions. There is nothing wrong with that, except when LDS don't accept it I suppose. I fully accept the Catholic position that there are heretics and schismatics out there.

Yes, abomination is a strong word, but two things.

1. It was Christ saying it.

2. It is a religious belief. A religious belief is far different from a direct attack, misrepresentation and lying about others like our enemy's do toward us.

I don't believe 1, so that means 2 falls apart. If 1 is false, then the statement is a misrepresentation, which makes 2 false. Let me give you an analogy from the Catholic side:

1. To be a Christian, one must be baptized and therefore initiated into the Mystical Body of Christ.

2. The Pope, the Vicar of Christ and the supreme authority of Christianity, has declared that LDS baptisms are invalid -- they are not Christian baptisms.

3. Therefore, no LDS is baptized.

4. Therefore, no LDS is a Christian.

Now, you obviously disagree with this, but I am speaking from the Catholic point-of-view. I, just like you, could say that it is just a religious belief, but wouldn't you take it as an attack? I know that Mormons are sensitive to the charge that they are not Christians. Can't you see how other faiths would be sensitive to the charge that their beliefs are an abomination? That their leaders are corrupt? That's all I'm really trying to get you to see here. So, when we defend our faith and point out what is wrong in other faiths, we are all of us, LDS and Catholics included, doing the same thing. I by no means am advocating not being civil, or lying, or misrepresenting.

Of course we do, that wasn't the point. We teach people the Gospel, we don't teach people to hate other Christians or believers or non believers. Our enemy's however do.

First of all, I never said that you teach people to hate. Second of all, you keep bringing up your enemies. What do you mean by that? Blatant anti-Mormons? If so, that has little to do with this discussion. I am not justifying lying and misrepresentation. I am justifying defense of one's faith and pointing out the errors of anothers.

Sharing the "Good Word" is not "contending" against other faiths.

God said to defend, protect (contend for), and proclaim the Faith. He didn't say contend against faith.

Mormons defend, protect, and proclaim. We don't attack other faiths as God commanded.

Careful with the "we," because there are certainly Mormons who do. Peruse some of the threads here, especially concerning the Trinity. There are attacks on those beliefs. And that is ok, from my point-of-view, when done civilly. If you disagree with another faith, you should have reasons why, and sharing those reasons is fine.

Actually you would be surprised. I would recommend you look around online, you will find many Catholics (primarily former Evangelicals, though also many Catholics) having their "ministry's", classes etc. contending against Mormonism. Even the Catholic Answers website which is the Catholic Church lies and misrepresents LDS Theology, even having a good seal of approval from a Catholic leader actually saying the articles are "free from any moral etc. errors".

Catholic Answers website is not an official organ of the Catholic Church. The "imprimatur" simply means that the book, article, whatever, does not contradict Catholic moral and theological teaching. Someone could publish a book saying that the moon was made of cheese and get an imprimatur, because that idea does not contradict Catholic moral and theological teaching. So a book could be full of falsehoods about the LDS church and get the imprimatur. The point of the imprimatur isn't to affirm the truth of the book or even to agree with it, but to deny contradictions to the Catholic faith.

Ever looked at our "Religions of the World" manual taught in LDS seminary's? You will see nothing in that manual attacking or misrepresenting any religion, it does a basic summary of beliefs just as any respectable college class or scholastic book might.

Don't you mean at LDS institutes? Or do the high school kids in seminary also have a world religions class?

I'll take you word on this, but a class introducing world religions to someone is not the same as a class defending one's unique religious beliefs. I've certainly had discussions with Mormons, misionaries and members, where Catholic views are misrepresented. And I imagine if a Catholic, when taking the missionary discussions, had a problem with the apostasy, the missionaries would point out what they believe are signs of that apostasy. That would go from reporting a faith's beliefs (the manual you mention) to pointing out which beliefs are right and wrong.

Edited October 4, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

Technically, it was those who brought corruption into the gospel, intentionally or not, who threw the first punch.

Heh. Bring it on!

[MiserereNobis]

First, it was Christ throwing the punch, so I would be really careful. You may not believe it, but think for a moment who you are condemning.

I understand where you are coming from with this, but I could easily turn it back around to the LDS church. For example, The Nicene Ecumenical Council was protected from error by the Holy Ghost and ratified and sealed by the Vicar of Christ. The Creed from the Nicene council was declared an abomination by Joseph Smith. Therefore, Joseph Smith is condemning the work of God and His Holy Church.

Second, a statement of belief is not a "punch". It may be negative, but it is passive.

In contrast anti-mormon fruits are in fact actual punches.

I get that you don't like anti-Mormons. I am not one, so we can let that go

Would you consider historical anti-christian hate and fruits against Christianity as "justified" simply because Christ was critical of some Jews and false doctrines and their corrupt teachers as stated in the New Testament? I don't think so, so spare us the "first punch" metaphor.

You can't have it both ways, William. Either you accept that your church teaches negative things about other churches, even if only passively, and therefore those churches can defend themselves by pointing out where you are wrong, or not. I accept that about Catholicism, so I do not complain when people attack the beliefs of my faith. Instead, I defend them. Well, at least I try to. mfbukowski sometimes gets frustrated with me, but hey, I'm one Catholic in a sea of Mormons

[MiserereNobis]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but WS, I don't think MN was being confrontational here. Maybe he was, but I really don't think so.

I really didn't intend to be confrontational. I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Thanks for the post.

[MiserereNobis]

Considering the things the Catholics were saying to/about the Protestants, the things the Protestants were saying to/about the Catholics, and the things the Protestants were saying to/about each other, I think the first punch was thrown long before JS was even born.

Indeed, but the discussion was about the LDS church, not about Catholics and Protestants

[MiserereNobis]

But he didn't say other denominations are corrupt.

Yes, technically he didn't. But I don't think it is a far logical step to say that if the creeds are an abomination (the foundational beliefs) and the professors are corrupt (the leaders/heirarchy) then there is something wrong with the denomination, yes?

[KevinG]

In as much as we teach that other denominations are not complete or fully authorized as the one church of God (as many other denominations do) we do teach a passively negative thing about all other denominations. I don't quibble with that.

I do have an issue with denominations who spend an inordinate amount of time characterizing others as hellbound cultists or some variation on that theme. I do not see the Catholics or Mormons spending an inordinate amount of time condemning others to hell, individual members or authors notwithstanding.

The segment of the Joseph Smith History that deals with God instructing him not to join a contemporary denomination does not justify the sheer volume of vitriol, hatred and lies told by counter-cult ministries about us any more than the misbehavior of the Borges is sufficient to condemn the Catholic church as evil. Those arguments are weak sauce indeed.

Edited October 4, 2012 by KevinG

[Saints Alive]

That is one BIG difference between mormonism and all most all other religions. We may consider them corrupt or incomplete but we don't consign their members to hell. They all still have a chance, even after death.

[MiserereNobis]

In as much as we teach that other denominations are not complete or fully authorized as the one church of God (as many other denominations do) we do teach a passively negative thing about all other denominations. I don't quibble with that.

I do have an issue with denominations who spend an inordinate amount of time characterizing others as hellbound cultists or some variation on that theme. I do not see the Catholics or Mormons spending an inordinate amount of time condemning others to hell, individual members or authors notwithstanding.

The segment of the Joseph Smith History that deals with God instructing him not to join a contemporary denomination does not justify the sheer volume of vitriol, hatred and lies told by counter-cult ministries about us any more than the misbehavior of the Borges is sufficient to condemn the Catholic church as evil. Those arguments are weak sauce indeed.

I agree. I think you succinctly said in three paragraphs what I was trying to say in multiple posts

I will say this, however, about the Borgias Popes -- they make for interesting history! (oh, and they also helped beautify the Vatican and Papal Palace, too)

[bluebell]

Indeed, but the discussion was about the LDS church, not about Catholics and Protestants

Noting that JS did not 'start it' is completely within the parameters of the discussion.

Having made the charge, it is fair for me to address it's merits. I contend that it has little.

IF saying that other religions are wrong and those beliefs uniquely attached to them are not condoned of God is 'starting it', THEN no religion can claim any moral superiority on the issue, since all religions have done so. Either all denominations are justified in such accusations (speaking as they do from their own perspective) or all are equally guilty of the same sin, though the first one to do so would be the one who 'started it' and no other religion could carry that distinction.

Either way, there is no way to reasonably place the initial blame for such words upon the LDS church. Either there is no sin in that kind of speech, or the LDS is just as guilty as all other churches, but, guilty millenium after the first instigators.

[MiserereNobis]

Either way, there is no way to reasonably place the initial blame for such words upon the LDS church. Either there is no sin in that kind of speech, or the LDS is just as guilty as all other churches, but, guilty millenium after the first instigators.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I'll continue on to say that there is no sin in that kind of speech (given the proper attitude, of course), and therefore the LDS shouldn't be overly sensitive when it is directed towards them.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about misrepresentations are lies or whatever. I am as disgusted as all of you at the vitriol leveled towards the LDS church, just as I am disgusted at the vitriol leveled at the Catholic Church.

[bluebell]

Yes, I see what you are saying. I'll continue on to say that there is no sin in that kind of speech (given the proper attitude, of course), and therefore the LDS shouldn't be overly sensitive when it is directed towards them.

I agree.

Often times though what is directed at LDS is not really the same thing that LDS are directing at others. We say 'you guys are wrong,' while other denominations usually say 'you guys are going to hell.' Our beliefs on the subject are just different enough for the conclusions of those beliefs to be miles apart (though i don't pretend that no LDS ever stoops to that level or behaves horribly on the subject).

And typically it's the 'you're going to hell just because you are mormon' that causes the most sensitivity.

[MiserereNobis]

I agree.

Often times though what is directed at LDS is not really the same thing that LDS are directing at others. We say 'you guys are wrong,' while other denominations usually say 'you guys are going to hell.'

I hear you. Mormon cosmology is much "nicer" than traditional Christian cosmology, since there is a chance for repentance after death and also because so few people will end up in outer darkness. I guess I figure if you all are right, then I'll either accept it after I die (when it's pretty dang obvious) or I will end up in the telestial or terrestial kingdoms, which don't sound all that bad.

On the other hand, if Catholicism is right...

I guess this is the LDS variant of Pascal's Wager, but unfortunately it appears as if the wager easily excludes Mormonism. It's safer to be a Catholic than a Mormon, because the consequences of not being Catholic (if Catholicism is true) are much higher than the consequences of not being Mormon (if Mormonism is true).

And typically it's the 'you're going to hell just because you are mormon' that causes the most sensitivity.

Indeed. The "you're going to hell" method of conversion bears little fruit, especially in our modern times.

[bluebell]

I hear you. Mormon cosmology is much "nicer" than traditional Christian cosmology, since there is a chance for repentance after death and also because so few people will end up in outer darkness. I guess I figure if you all are right, then I'll either accept it after I die (when it's pretty dang obvious) or I will end up in the telestial or terrestial kingdoms, which don't sound all that bad.

On the other hand, if Catholicism is right...

I guess this is the LDS variant of Pascal's Wager, but unfortunately it appears as if the wager easily excludes Mormonism. It's safer to be a Catholic than a Mormon, because the consequences of not being Catholic (if Catholicism is true) are much higher than the consequences of not being Mormon (if Mormonism is true).

That's true.

[Bart Burk]

That's true.

Though I would claim that it is even possible within orthodox Catholic thought to believe that most non-Catholics will wind up in purgatory rather than Hell. Only those who radically reject God with complete knowledge (and we don't know for sure that anyone actually does) will go to Hell. Catholics are encouraged to pray for the dead in the hope that all people will be reconciled to God.

[Vance]

Yup. Looks like Joseph Smith threw the first punch

I am not sure what your beef is, since it is most likely that there were no Catholics in that region at that time.

[Vance]

. . . guilty millenium after the first instigators.

I think you mean "millennia" not "millennium".

[bluebell]

I think you mean "millennia" not "millennium".

Yep. I saw that typo but knew that people would be able to figure out what i meant so didn't bother to fix it.

[altersteve]

Yes, technically he didn't. But I don't think it is a far logical step to say that if the creeds are an abomination (the foundational beliefs) and the professors are corrupt (the leaders/heirarchy) then there is something wrong with the denomination, yes?

As I've said before, it's not "the foundational beliefs" that are an abomination to God, it's the creeds themselves, since they do not allow any further revelation. None of these foundational beliefs can be corrected or added to. Joseph Smith himself clarified this later. Second, we don't know what is meant by "the professors." So with all this mind, think that yes, it is a far logical step to conclude that this means that the denominations are an abomination to God as well.

Edited October 5, 2012 by altersteve

[Bart Burk]

As I've said before, it's not "the foundational beliefs" that are an abomination to God, it's the creeds themselves, since they do not allow any further revelation. None of these foundational beliefs can be corrected or added to. Joseph Smith himself clarified this later. Second, we don't know what is meant by "the professors." So with all this mind, think that yes, it is a far logical step to conclude that this means that the denominations are an abomination to God as well.

Where in the creeds is revelation banned? Catholics believe in private revelation. In fact there are numerous examples of Jesus and Mary visiting people in private revelations which the Catholic Church has approved. Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, and the appearance of Christ to Saint Faustina are just a few examples of such revelation which the Catholic Church has accepted as valid, but not binding upon the faithful. The Protestant appeal to the Bible alone isn't based upon the creeds.

[altersteve]

I never said revelation is "banned" in the Christian creeds. What I said was that the doctrines taught in the creeds cannot be changed; they are set in stone.

I agree with what Joseph Smith said on the subject:

"I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to."

Edited October 5, 2012 by altersteve

[coolrok7]

The Biblical teaching found in the "creeds" is set in stone so to speak. One is not to twist what the Bible teaches. There is nothing wrong with a creed if it teaches what the Bible says. A creed is a synopsis of Biblical teaching.

[Vance]

The Biblical teaching found in the "creeds" is set in stone so to speak.

Not much is Biblical about the creeds.

One is not to twist what the Bible teaches.

Then why do you do it?

There is nothing wrong with a creed if it teaches what the Bible says.

And who gets to say what the Bible says? Do you realize that there are different ways to interpret the Bible?

A creed is a synopsis of Biblical teaching.

Nah, they are just a synopsis of the the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

[altersteve]

The Biblical teaching found in the "creeds" is set in stone so to speak. One is not to twist what the Bible teaches. There is nothing wrong with a creed if it teaches what the Bible says. A creed is a synopsis of Biblical teaching.

Well I don't believe everything the creeds say are what the Bible says. They do contain "some truth," as Joseph Smith said, but they're certainly not "a synopsis" of anything, especially since God clearly has a lot more He wants to tell us.

[coolrok7]

Can you clarify by examples how the creeds aren't in agreement with what the Bible says?

Edited October 6, 2012 by coolrok7