Mormonism, Catholicism, Or ???, In The Next Two Thousand Years

[3DOP]

When I started exploring Mormonism twenty-five years ago, I discovered arguments which compared the founding and growth of Salt Lake Mormonism with other churches and realized that compared to almost all other churches, only the LDS and a few others were willing to say that theirs was the one true church. If there wasn't some obligatory one true church for all Christians, I really didn't need to have any concerns about staying in the church that I had started in 1985.

 

After exploring Catholic claims at around the same time, I wasn't interested anymore in churches that admit that they are just one of a menu of choices and options. I became fairly satisfied regarding LDS claims with one exception. As I understood things, one could not be LDS, unless one believes in the corruption of the "Former Day Church". I was and remain satisfied with the way the Catholic Church has always explained its history. I do not mention this to stimulate discussion of the "Great Apostasy". I am raising this question because it appears to me that, increasingly, fewer LDS care if their beliefs can reconciled with an apostasy of all the other churches, or even if they can defend a Restoration of the one true church. 

 

I thought that there used to be an adequate response to the "priesthood ban", as the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood has come to be called, that did not require a concession that it was wrong. Now, it seems like there is almost a tacit admission that this policy was an error, and even perhaps a sinful error on the part of the one true church. To be sure, there are many Catholics today who will not defend our past either. The difference for Catholics and Mormons as against most other churches is that one true church cannot survive an indefensible history.

 

Undoubtedly, the Mormons who are persuaded that there is a dark history of bigotry against blacks, women, and homosexuals are hoping for what they see as positive change now. The same is true for the Catholics who are arguing that the Church has been rigorously unmerciful for all of these centuries against divorced and remarried Catholics. However, these well-meaning souls in both of our churches, whether consciously or not, are pushing for agendas that would gain its goals, if accepted, only at the expense of any claims of being a one true church. Good developments can occur to the one true church without a repudiation of our fathers in the faith. But the way many seem to go about so-called "progress", one becomes embarrassed of church history, even if they like any changes that come about. This is too high of a price to pay.

 

Maybe churches can survive five years, or even a hundred when they fail to identify with their fathers. But faithful fathers want to leave something for those who come after, and faithful children must be able to honor their fathers. I want generations of my children's children to remain Catholic. My best vision tells me, that, two thousand years from now, whether true or not, a successful Restoration will rise on the dead soil of one true churches that allow anyone, well-meaning or not, to teach our children that our past, and our very fathers in the faith are an embarrassment to us. At this point, the Christian truth seeker can still be Catholic with ALL of its history, LDS with ALL of its history, or, what I have called a "Restorationist-In-Waiting". To belong to a church with an embarrassing history and bigoted fathers is intolerable. The unchurched, "waiting" Christians will always increase if the "one true churches" abandon their heritage. 

 

Regards to all camps, and thanks for your consideration.

 

Rory 

Edited August 7, 2015 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

Wonderful post; thank you.

 

In many ways this is an age old problem - there are those with faith and those without faith or weakening faith.  If we put this in a Catholic context, John Paul II, one of my favorite popes, was an idealist.  In many ways he held up the ideal and made reality reflect it.  Then there are those like Francis, a chemist by training, who chooses to minimize faith to a degree in favor of facts.  If there is a conflict or disagreement theory is questioned in favor of what is perceived as facts.  The one looks to God while the other is more willing to shorten their vision to a point no further than their arm of flesh. 

 

We, the collective we, have those who are raised on the milk of today's egalitarianism, feminism, and every other "ism" that is a fad and they sate themselves fully on this telestial teat without ever looking up to see the mystery and majesty of God.  These are the ones that think that history is understood fully by the assembly of facts; their focus is only on what they perceive as facts.  They are completely blind to the Gospel, the righteousness, the holiness of God and his revealed plan for his children. 

 

The faithful accept questions without answers in patience and humility.  Their focus is beyond the arm of flesh and the short-sightedness of humanity and look to God.  They accept that all are called to follow after the Son of God; to seek righteousness and holiness.  They recognize the eternal import of priesthood, Eucharist/Sacrament, and Sacraments/ordinances and with broken heart seek after them.  They recognize that Jesus did not form churches, but a single Church possessing the keys of the kingdom.  In their humility they recognize and proclaim this truth.

 

The fact that there are disagreements between those that claim this one entity is not the issue; the point is that all seek after truth until we come to a unity of the faith.  Too many are concerned about today and fail to see the acts of faith that the Body of Christ performs - the body of all believers.   

 

Gratefully, the Lord is patient with each of us in our faithfulness and our unfaithfulness.  We are all sinners and without the right to judge others.  However, in my weakness I tire of the incessant tinkling of brass, the deafening whining of the few.  This medium of today's world attracts a certain segment of believers and nonbelievers.  It is folly to assume that we are representative of the whole.  I have taken occasion to bring up ideas that I read on this Board during Sunday School and the members just look at me like I had grown horns.  They had no clue. 

 

I believe that the majority of those who self-identify as disciples of Christ are too focused on today; too focused on following Christ to be concerned with the vast majority of issues, though actually few in number, that we discuss ad nauseum on this Board. 

 

I have faith that the chaff will be burned away and the faithful will stand strong awaiting the great day of His return. 

[Avatar4321]

I don't expect things to go on as they did for the next Millennium. Christ will come soon.

[jkwilliams]

I don't have a problem with the one true church being led by all-too-imperfect humans. Everything humans touch becomes messy, whether it's religion or anything else. To believe that there has been no embarrassing history or bigotry in the one true church is to assume that a human institution can be infallible, and I do not believe that. Yes, own the heritage, all of it, good and bad. Learn from the faith and foibles of those who came before us, but don't expect it all to be pretty or to make sense. A flawed, human history does not in any way invalidate the claim to be God's true church. The word of God lives in us as humans, despite our flaws, and maybe because of them. As George Herbert wrote centuries ago, we are brittle crazy glass, through which the light of God shines, and it is our flaws that make the light even more beautiful.

 

The Windows

BY GEORGE HERBERT

Lord, how can man preach thy eternal word?

    He is a brittle crazy glass;

Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford

    This glorious and transcendent place,

    To be a window, through thy grace.

But when thou dost anneal in glass thy story,

    Making thy life to shine within

The holy preachers, then the light and glory

    More reverend grows, and more doth win;

    Which else shows waterish, bleak, and thin.

Doctrine and life, colors and light, in one

    When they combine and mingle, bring

A strong regard and awe; but speech alone

    Doth vanish like a flaring thing,

    And in the ear, not conscience, ring.

 

[Teancum]

I don't expect things to go on as they did for the next Millennium. Christ will come soon.

 

 

I doubt it.  Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years.  Read your NT without a filter.  Jesus thought the end times would be very soon as did Paul. They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times.  Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

They were all wrong.

 

My guess is you are too.

[jkwilliams]

I doubt it.  Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years.  Read your NT without a filter.  Jesus thought the end times would be very soon as did Paul. They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times.  Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

They were all wrong.

 

My guess is you are too.

 

Elder McConkie once told a stake conference I attended that he didn't expect the Second Coming in his grandchildren's grandchildren's lifetimes.

[Storm Rider]

I doubt it.  Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years.  Read your NT without a filter.  Jesus thought the end times would be very soon as did Paul. They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times.  Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

They were all wrong.

 

My guess is you are too.

 

Your doubt is noted, bully for you.  I guess I am infinitely impressed with your unfiltered reading of the scriptures and your self-perceived accurate understanding of Jesus and the apostles.  Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong.

 

What is accurate is that Jesus' second coming has not yet occurred.  Using this fact as a reason to disbelieve is as good a reason as any if one seeks for reasons of unbelief.  Hope it works well for you and that you are happy and at peace.  My guess, as you say, is that eternity is a very long time to disbelieve. 

[pogi]

The one true church is not to say the perfect church.  It is easy to see why many are confused about this distinction when truth is perfect.  3DOP, here is a wonderful article that explains more in-depth about the church being the one true church but not perfect if you are interested:

 

http://mormonomics.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-true-church-cannot-be-perfect.html

 

President Uchtdorf said in Oct 2013 conference:

 

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Edited August 7, 2015 by pogi

[carbon dioxide]

 

The one true church is not to say the one perfect church.

 

President Uchtdorf said in Oct 2013 conference:

 

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

 

3DOP, here is a wonderful article that explains more in-depth about the church being the one true church but not perfect if you are interested:

 

http://mormonomics.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-true-church-cannot-be-perfect.html

 

One perfect church was found upon the earth at one time that we know of.  The people of Enoch were so good that they got taken away.  The fact that we have not been taken up with them means we have a long way to go.

[pogi]

One perfect church was found upon the earth at one time that we know of.  The people of Enoch were so good that they got taken away.  The fact that we have not been taken up with them means we have a long way to go.

 

Indeed, we do have a long way to go.  I would argue however that the church and people of Enoch were progressed enough, but still short of perfection.   

[halconero]

I doubt it.  Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years. 

 

Some did

 

Read your NT without a filter. 

 

I've spent the last 4 years doing that in a non-theistic university setting.

 

Jesus thought the end times would be very soon...

 

Mark's Jesus? John's? Thomas'? Matthew's? Please specify.

 

... as did Paul. 

 

At the first Thessalonian's stage of his life, absolutely. His had changed substantially by the time of Corinthians or Romans.

 

They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times.

 

Incorrect Generalization of Early Christians.

 

Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

 

According to Joseph's own words, he was in the dark on the matter:

 

"I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

 

Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

 

I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.  I believe the coming of the son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."

 

I'll have to go back and find the reference tonight when I get home, but I was reading a sermon of Heber C. Kimball's in 1853 in which expresses the notion that everyone there in the conference will be dead and buried within the next 50 or 60 years.

 

My guess is you are too.

 

Given your track record in the above statements, I don't think your guess is as valid as you believe it to be.

Edited August 7, 2015 by halconero

[3DOP]

Thank you for all the replies. Unfortunately, I don't think I have explained myself very well. 

 

Storm Rider---

Hey thanks for the kind words. Perhaps you understand my thinking a little more than the others.

 

Avatar---

Hi. I am not arguing that Christ is delaying His coming for 2,000 years. But since you raise the question, I don't think we should allow our eschatologies to become so focused on today, that we don't have a vision for possible tomorrows.  

 

jkwilliams---

I don't have a problem with the one true church being led by all-too-imperfect humans. Everything humans touch becomes messy, whether it's religion or anything else. To believe that there has been no embarrassing history or bigotry in the one true church is to assume that a human institution can be infallible, and I do not believe that. Yes, own the heritage, all of it, good and bad. Learn from the faith and foibles of those who came before us, but don't expect it all to be pretty or to make sense. A flawed, human history does not in any way invalidate the claim to be God's true church.

 

3DOP

It is because I am in considerable agreement with this observation, that I am unable to believe in a so-called Great Apostasy. No Apostasy. No Restoration. I believe that the history of the covenants of God with Moses makes clear that we cannot be presumptious about judging God's people to be apostate because of the behavior of its members. Obviously, if one accepts the records of the Gospels, there is an effort on behalf of all the writers to show that the Holy Family was obedient to the Mosaic covenant in Christ's childhood, and that Christ maintained His adherence to the very end. It does not seem to me like the Former Day Church had any event so thunderously conclusive as the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Temple, after the leaders of the Temple religion colluded with a reluctant Roman governor to crucify the Messiah.

 

The events and beliefs that supposedly point to a Great Apostasy on behalf of the Former-day Church as against how it is documented to have happened when the "Former Former-day Church" (Mosaic Judaism) lost its authority to speak for God, seems disproportionate. I am content with your observations, but I believe there needs to be some standard whereby a so-called Restoration can exhibit that a situation is so entirely flawed and messy that God has, as it were, "left the building". When I spoke of historical embarrassment, I meant more than the usual, expected human foibles. I allow for at least as much foibles and more, as God had allowed for the centuries until the birth of Christ in the Old Testament. 

 

I need to go. I hope to develop at a later time why I think it is inconsistent for Mormons if they insist on a concession that the Restored Church can have been wrong about polygamy and the priesthood ban, while maintaining that the Former-day Church was certainly apostate. jk, thanks again for the thoughtful reply. Believe it or not, I am trying to influence Mormons to be closer to becoming Catholic rather than farther away! Thanks for your patience. I also hope to address some of the other replies.

 

Thanks to all. God bless.

 

Rory

[Teancum]

Your doubt is noted, bully for you. I guess I am infinitely impressed with your unfiltered reading of the scriptures and your self-perceived accurate understanding of Jesus and the apostles. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong.

What is accurate is that Jesus' second coming has not yet occurred. Using this fact as a reason to disbelieve is as good a reason as any if one seeks for reasons of unbelief. Hope it works well for you and that you are happy and at peace. My guess, as you say, is that eternity is a very long time to disbelieve.

I don't claim to have an "unfiltered" reading of scripture nor did I claim that. Do you? I could be wrong, But what I wrote is substantiated by more than one NT scholar.

Next, yes Jesus has not yet come. I don't seek reasons to disbelieve. Why do you assume such? I try to examines evidence and I seek truth. Are you willing to examine things that may conflict with your testimony? Are you open to being wrong? I am. Either way.

Why is it every time I or someone else posts something that challenges your faith based position are there personal slights like most your post is above. You do this and so do many others here. I made no personal attack. You did.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

I doubt it. Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years.

Some did

Read your NT without a filter.

I've spent the last 4 years doing that in a non-theistic university setting.

Jesus thought the end times would be very soon...

Mark's Jesus? John's? Thomas'? Matthew's? Please specify.

... as did Paul.

At the first Thessalonian's stage of his life, absolutely. His had changed substantially by the time of Corinthians or Romans.

They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times.

Incorrect Generalization of Early Christians.

Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

According to Joseph's own words, he was in the dark on the matter:

"I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."

I'll have to go back and find the reference tonight when I get home, but I was reading a sermon of Heber C. Kimball's in 1853 in which expresses the notion that everyone there in the conference will be dead and buried within the next 50 or 60 years.

My guess is you are too.

Given your track record in the above statements, I don't think your guess is as valid as you believe it to be.

Yep I could be wrong. Could you? I am not sure what you mean on track record. Do you dispute that the early LDS church was not a millennial focused organization and was building Zion in expectation of Jeus quick return? I did not write a footnoted post but many others have.

As to which Jeus thought he was coming back soon well that you made this point demonstrates other problems really. But that is another issue or topic .

Edited August 8, 2015 by Teancum

[Bobbieaware]

I doubt it. Believers in Jesus have been believing he would come for the past 2000 years. Read your NT without a filter. Jesus thought the end times would be very soon as did Paul. They were all wrong. Almost every generation of Christians believed they were in the end times. Joseph Smith and the early LDS members believed Jesus was coming in their lives as well.

They were all wrong.

My guess is you are too.

They were all wrong because aside from the large number of prophecies in the Bible that still need to be fulfilled before the Second Coming can take place, there are many other additional prophecies recorded in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price that have to be fulfilled before the Lord's triumphant return can occur. For example, the Second Coming will not take place until the city of the modern Zion is established in the area Independence Missouri. So the reason why men have been inaccurately predicting the Second Coming is because they were/are either ignorant or misinformed ,not because the Lord's return isn't actually going to happen one fine day.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Storm Rider]

I don't claim to have an "unfiltered" reading of scripture nor did I claim that. Do you? I could be wrong, But what I wrote is substantiated by more than one NT scholar.

Next, yes Jesus has not yet come. I don't seek reasons to disbelieve. Why do you assume such? I try to examines evidence and I seek truth. Are you willing to examine things that may conflict with your testimony? Are you open to being wrong? I am. Either way.

Why is it every time I or someone else posts something that challenges your faith based position are there personal slights like most your post is above. You do this and so do many others here. I made no personal attack. You did.

 

You are strident in sharing your negative opinions; I think others should be able to provide an alternative.  What you did was declare, "Read your NT without a filter."  You are juxtaposing your position to Avatar's and then telling him you guess he is wrong along with everyone else.  Just a tad sanctimonious.

 

You appear to provide a host of reasons to disbelieve; if not, why provide this line of thinking incessantly?  Are you trying to help others see the light or do you think you are accomplishing more by casting stones in the paths of others?  No, I don't find any benefit by waving a flag of neutrality - being lukewarm.  There are some things I know and then there are a whole host of things I do not know.  I see no value and scripture indicates that this type of position is not beneficial for a disciple of Christ.

 

Please, don't not think that you or anyone else on this board "challenges" my faith.  I just have grown rather fatigued with the incessant negativity.  Those that read these threads on a Mormon Board need to at least be able to read that some LDS actually have faith and are empowered to provide witness to truths.  You are not nearly as neutral as you present and you certainly are more aggressive than you admit.  If you cannot see that in your post above, i.e. that it was indeed personal to Avatar, then "Houston, we have a problem" and it is a personal one. 

 

In closing, I have no problem with enquiry and questioning.  However, once having come to a Spiritual conclusion, a witness to some truth, I don't have a reason to return to it repeatedly with questions.  I am very careful about the things that I discuss about which  I do or don't have a testimony.  I care about those in the midst of a faith crisis that come here and only read the negative.  I don't know, I guess I really take seriously scripture when it talks about being a light unto the world.  Call me naïve.    

[Teancum]

You are strident in sharing your negative opinions; I think others should be able to provide an alternative.  What you did was declare, "Read your NT without a filter."  You are juxtaposing your position to Avatar's and then telling him you guess he is wrong along with everyone else.  Just a tad sanctimonious.

 

You appear to provide a host of reasons to disbelieve; if not, why provide this line of thinking incessantly?  Are you trying to help others see the light or do you think you are accomplishing more by casting stones in the paths of others?  No, I don't find any benefit by waving a flag of neutrality - being lukewarm.  There are some things I know and then there are a whole host of things I do not know.  I see no value and scripture indicates that this type of position is not beneficial for a disciple of Christ.

 

Please, don't not think that you or anyone else on this board "challenges" my faith.  I just have grown rather fatigued with the incessant negativity.  Those that read these threads on a Mormon Board need to at least be able to read that some LDS actually have faith and are empowered to provide witness to truths.  You are not nearly as neutral as you present and you certainly are more aggressive than you admit.  If you cannot see that in your post above, i.e. that it was indeed personal to Avatar, then "Houston, we have a problem" and it is a personal one. 

 

In closing, I have no problem with enquiry and questioning.  However, once having come to a Spiritual conclusion, a witness to some truth, I don't have a reason to return to it repeatedly with questions.  I am very careful about the things that I discuss about which  I do or don't have a testimony.  I care about those in the midst of a faith crisis that come here and only read the negative.  I don't know, I guess I really take seriously scripture when it talks about being a light unto the world.  Call me naïve.

Perhaps I am strident. But the post I commented to was also an affirmation post with no wiggle room....Jeses will be here before then.

But I a, trying to post my "negative" views with more neutrality, if possible. Or less stridently so any friendly help is welcomed.

As for a host of reasons not to believe well sure, I think they are abundant. Is this not a discussion board? Is it not welcome here to point out the reasons to not believe some thing or another? Whil I do so I welcome opposing thoughts that are based on reasons or evidence or such. But I dont welcome posted like yours was to me....that basically I am a bad person or a faithless apostate just because I may doubt or be a skeptic. If you can dispute my comments that Jesus and Paul seem to indicate that The Kingdom of God was at hand and even in their generation, which was my point, pleasedo so rather than talk about how I find reasons to disbelieve and how wonderfully faithful you are,

As for me not being neutral as I present....well you don't know my heart no do you nor can you read my mind. Thanks for your opinion anyway.

[Avatar4321]

He will be here long before 2000 years from now. Doubting it wont change it.

[3DOP]

You guys that are arguing about how long until the Lord comes back make me regret I phrased my topic subject as I did. The topic title was intended to merely contrast with "Mormonism in the Next Five Years". I stand by the subject matter of my post even if Christ returns in our lifetimes. So far, there is not much word from those who I wished to prompt into some thoughtful discussion. Does no one else see any possible tension between LDS founding principles and progressive agendas that might threaten the traditional LDS idea of Great Apostasy, which in turn undermines the idea of Restoration, as I do?

 

I know how to argue for a Great Apostasy, even if I don't believe in it, as a traditional Mormon who will defend polygamy and the priesthood ban. I do not think that those Mormons who propose that these policies were wrong in the eyes of God understand how they are undermining the idea of Restoration. For Mormonism as I have understood it, as a Restoration, to survive, there has to be some standard which applies to both Former-day and Latter-day Christians whereby we can determine failure of the one and not the other.

 

"To whom much is given, much is expected." That is why, if I were LDS, I would hold that the Lord was justified in taking the priesthood from the Former-day Church. I would hold that there is now a higher standard than for the Mosaic covenant. But if I apply such a high standard to the Former-day Church it seems like I am in danger of violating it in the Latter-day Church if I do not have a defense for polygamy or the priesthood ban. And what about the ban against women priests and homosexual marriage if Mormons continue in that direction for the future?

 

No hard feelings and I won't call the mods on you anyway, but I wish some of you could take your arguments about when the Lord is coming back somewhere else. If nobody wants to talk about the subject I raised I don't care if you take over the thread. But give it a day or two if you would to see if maybe someone is interested in the tension between progessivism and claims to being one true churches, LDS or Catholic. Be aware that the person who started the thread cannot see how a narrow focus on the question of Second Coming, sooner or later, is pertinent to the subject matter proposed. 

 

Thanks,

 

Rory

[Avatar4321]

The church is always in danger of apostasy. The only reason it wont go Into apostasy this dispensation is the Lord will return before it happens.

[Teancum]

He will be here long before 2000 years from now. Doubting it wont change it.

Nor will asserting it make it so.

[jkwilliams]

Thank you for all the replies. Unfortunately, I don't think I have explained myself very well. 

 

Storm Rider---

Hey thanks for the kind words. Perhaps you understand my thinking a little more than the others.

 

Avatar---

Hi. I am not arguing that Christ is delaying His coming for 2,000 years. But since you raise the question, I don't think we should allow our eschatologies to become so focused on today, that we don't have a vision for possible tomorrows.  

 

jkwilliams---

I don't have a problem with the one true church being led by all-too-imperfect humans. Everything humans touch becomes messy, whether it's religion or anything else. To believe that there has been no embarrassing history or bigotry in the one true church is to assume that a human institution can be infallible, and I do not believe that. Yes, own the heritage, all of it, good and bad. Learn from the faith and foibles of those who came before us, but don't expect it all to be pretty or to make sense. A flawed, human history does not in any way invalidate the claim to be God's true church.

 

3DOP

It is because I am in considerable agreement with this observation, that I am unable to believe in a so-called Great Apostasy. No Apostasy. No Restoration. I believe that the history of the covenants of God with Moses makes clear that we cannot be presumptious about judging God's people to be apostate because of the behavior of its members. Obviously, if one accepts the records of the Gospels, there is an effort on behalf of all the writers to show that the Holy Family was obedient to the Mosaic covenant in Christ's childhood, and that Christ maintained His adherence to the very end. It does not seem to me like the Former Day Church had any event so thunderously conclusive as the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Temple, after the leaders of the Temple religion colluded with a reluctant Roman governor to crucify the Messiah.

 

The events and beliefs that supposedly point to a Great Apostasy on behalf of the Former-day Church as against how it is documented to have happened when the "Former Former-day Church" (Mosaic Judaism) lost its authority to speak for God, seems disproportionate. I am content with your observations, but I believe there needs to be some standard whereby a so-called Restoration can exhibit that a situation is so entirely flawed and messy that God has, as it were, "left the building". When I spoke of historical embarrassment, I meant more than the usual, expected human foibles. I allow for at least as much foibles and more, as God had allowed for the centuries until the birth of Christ in the Old Testament. 

 

I need to go. I hope to develop at a later time why I think it is inconsistent for Mormons if they insist on a concession that the Restored Church can have been wrong about polygamy and the priesthood ban, while maintaining that the Former-day Church was certainly apostate. jk, thanks again for the thoughtful reply. Believe it or not, I am trying to influence Mormons to be closer to becoming Catholic rather than farther away! Thanks for your patience. I also hope to address some of the other replies.

 

Thanks to all. God bless.

 

Rory

 

Well, someone else will have to explain that standard to you, as I'm not one who believes there was an apostasy or restoration.

[TOmNossor]

 

I need to go. I hope to develop at a later time why I think it is inconsistent for Mormons if they insist on a concession that the Restored Church can have been wrong about polygamy and the priesthood ban, while maintaining that the Former-day Church was certainly apostate. jk, thanks again for the thoughtful reply. Believe it or not, I am trying to influence Mormons to be closer to becoming Catholic rather than farther away! Thanks for your patience. I also hope to address some of the other replies.

 

Hello Rory!

I understand a little better.

I have been among the folks who has claimed that the priesthood ban was a mistake not born of revelation for a long time.

 

Would this be an accurate summary of your point (with some addition on my part because I think it is important).

 

1. Catholics and LDS generally agree that there is one true church.  They generally agree that this means there is something from God that is lacking in the churches/communities/… that is/are not the one true church.  LDS might explain what is lacking in the Catholic Church, and Catholics might explain what is lacking in the CoJCoLDS.  At the very least LDS do not believe the Pope is the earthly/human leader of God’s one true church, and Catholics do not believe that the Prophet is the earthly/human leader of God’s one true church.

2. Granting the above, a restoration necessitates a need for a restoration (labeled a “Great Apostasy” by the CoJCoLDS).

3. LDS frequently point to errors and/or changes in the early church and use these to support the idea that there was a “Great Apostasy” and thus a Restoration is possible or maybe even necessary. 

4. If LDS now claim that the priesthood ban was an error and/or a change in the history of the CoJCoLDS would not this create a problem for the CoJCoLDS?

 

I hope that is a good outline, please correct me if I have made some errors.

 

The Catholic might then explain that the Catholic Church believes in Ecclesiastical Infallibility and Papal Infallibility (I might note that most Catholics believe in Consular Infallibility, but I am not sure how defensible or historic such a view is).  Catholics have always acknowledged that the wicked here and there and the errant here and there are part of their history, but when it comes to the Dogma or the Irreformable the Catholic can and does make a case that there is no error.  If the CoJCoLDS has finally failed at making a similar case for itself, then this is the leak in the dike that could signal the decline in the CoJCoLDS and certainly makes the case for the CoJCoLDS less appealing from a Catholic point of view.

 

I have long said that the apostasy was an “apostasy in authority and heresy in belief” in response to folks who brought a much more historical definition to the term “apostasy” than I think LDS can apply to the “Great Apostasy.”

 

I have also said that the Restoration was an event that the CoJCoLDS has been trying to explain for years.  That God restored His Church is solid LDS teaching. 

 

That the restoration occurred because priesthood authority was gone (one of my thoughts and I think Nibley’s too) or because sacraments/ordinances became vehicles for unmerited Grace with very little Covenantal content (Noel B. Reynolds), or because of wicked Popes (a popular explanation at one time), or because of errors in doctrine/dogma (another popular one that I think you are addressing), or ????  is all speculation to try to put understanding into the Restoration.  Reynolds book Early Christians in Disarray speaks of all of these.  He suggests as I remember that his view has some scriptural warrant to it and that the others have less or none.  But, I doubt he would say that his view settles the question.

 

“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas” (not said by Augustine, but by many including John XXIII) makes all of this more complex.  Perhaps Elder Reynolds is correct that among the most essential elements of the gospel is the dual covenantal nature of the sacraments.  When this was emptied “sufficiently” from the sacraments in favor of unmerited, unearned, …. Grace (this Grace being a wonderful thing IMO) this ended the efficaciousness of the sacrament.  No more baptism, no more holy orders, we need a restoration. 

 

My recent foray into this question has focused upon Corporate Revelation as the means to lead God’s church.  God lead his church by corporate (public) revelation in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and in the Restoration Testament.  But not in the Catholic Church for the last 1800+ years.  I need to be properly calibrated on this claim so perhaps you can explain to me what I am missing.  Tertullian claimed that revelation was to continue.  It seems that in response to the purported revelation Tertullian embraced (not what I would call true and valid revelation from my limited understanding, but illustrative of the expectation that revelation would continue in the true church), the church moved toward and ultimately made it perfectly clear that there was to be no more public revelation.  It had ended.  A church without revelation is not God’s church, it too ended and needed to be restored.  The solution to the problem of Montanism was a much bigger problem and the Catholic Church refused to recover.  (The solution to Black Pete combined with the general racist predilections of Brigham Young was the priesthood ban, but with revelation, this non-revelation born mistake was corrected).  When your mistake is the idea that revelation is NEVER to be had again until Christ walks the earth as King, you build a wall between your church and God.  God can touch the members and leaders with “personal revelation,” but a divine church lead by revelation is absent and must be restored.

 

I hope I did not stray too far.  I should be doing hundreds of other things, but I wanted to say hey.  I do not subscribe to the theory that errors CAUSED the apostasy.

Charity, TOm

[Avatar4321]

I think it's a mistake to think that the restoration is over. One phase of it may be. But the full restoration will be over when Israel is gathered and Christ is here.

Also the power has not been fully given to the saints yet. Yes we have priesthood authority but power comes from righteous living. I don't think the Lord has fully restored this power to it's full capability because the saints haven't prepared themselves for it. For those who have prepared themselves they have received the power.

There may be other things the Lord plans on restoring before His return.

[3DOP]

 

TOm

Would this be an accurate summary of your point (with some addition on my part because I think it is important).

 

1. Catholics and LDS generally agree that there is one true church.  They generally agree that this means there is something from God that is lacking in the churches/communities/… that is/are not the one true church.  LDS might explain what is lacking in the Catholic Church, and Catholics might explain what is lacking in the CoJCoLDS.  At the very least LDS do not believe the Pope is the earthly/human leader of God’s one true church, and Catholics do not believe that the Prophet is the earthly/human leader of God’s one true church.

2. Granting the above, a restoration necessitates a need for a restoration (labeled a “Great Apostasy” by the CoJCoLDS).

3. LDS frequently point to errors and/or changes in the early church and use these to support the idea that there was a “Great Apostasy” and thus a Restoration is possible or maybe even necessary. 

4. If LDS now claim that the priesthood ban was an error and/or a change in the history of the CoJCoLDS would not this create a problem for the CoJCoLDS?

 

I hope that is a good outline, please correct me if I have made some errors.

 

3DOP

Tom, hey.

 

Pretty good outline of how I have reasoned but I don't think my point is clear. It seems to me that Catholics and Mormons who want their churches to overturn previously held policies and/or doctrines once believed do not take much interest in how this might affect the positions of their churches in regards to exclusivist claims.

 

To admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion who have not received an annulment is to redefine the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. For the Church to have been so mistaken about this until now is impossible for me to reconcile with the one true church. If so, Sts. Thomas More and St. John Fisher died for a false teaching. All of England split from Rome because the pope could not admit that King Henry's "marriage" to a new woman, (obviously so that he could have an heir) while a former wife was alive was valid. And now...we await a synod "on the Family" in October which will probably tell us that Henry and Cranmer  and the Anglicans were the ones that were in the right all along!

 

No wait. They won't mention the folly of More and Fisher, or of the entire Church in its foolhardy dealings (according to what they seem to believe about marriage) with the English Crown of the 16th Century.  I doubt if they care very about what happened 500 years ago. Continuity with history and reverence for the past probably does not rank very high among their concerns.

 

From my observations over the years, it seems to me that a similar mentality has affected intra-LDS dialogue.  I think I see an interesting parallel. Those who claim to want to be LDS while denouncing polygamy, the priesthood ban, the ban on female priests, and possibly homosexual marriage do not seem to me have an interest in whether the Church is a valid Restoration of Apostate Christianity. I started this thread in part, to see if they do have such an interest.

 

We could discuss nuances of apostasy theory. I am sure that I would find your proposals, Tom, to be considerably more consistent than most LDS. But that is not the purpose of the thread. Granted, I proposed that there could be some difficulty with so-called "apostasy theory", for those Mormons who seem willing to deny that polygamy was valid, or that the priesthood ban reflected God's will for the times. But I think that like their Catholic counterparts, they have mostly lost a sense of belonging to one true church. Maybe they grew up in it. Maybe they like it. But the desire for change is not with a view to maintain that the churches of Joseph Smith or of Pope Pius V (Council of Trent) were one and true. They don't accept the authority of their churches traditions nor do they fully appreciate the ramifications of their criticisms of the past. 

 

If a majority of those who are leading the charges for homosexual marriage and women priests in both of our churches have firm beliefs in the exclusive truth and validity of the their respective churches with the priestly offices so attached, I would be quite surprised. Am I being divisive? In a sense, but I am also striving for unity. I want to go to church with you, Tom. I want us all to go to church together. And in my opinion, to renounce the LDS past while remaining LDS, makes a mindset that is more and more incompatible with the Catholic faith. I would suggest that the imperfect unity between what I would call traditional Mormons and traditional Catholics is at its base deeper, and has more potential to last...for 2,000 years, (granting that the Lord may return at any time!) than the imperfect unity which unites us with non-traditionalists who happen to identify themselves as Catholic or LDS. Tom, this is what I could mean if I suggested that you are a better Catholic than the Cardinal Archbishop of __________. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by 3DOP