theophilus

You can do anything you want. I probably won't participate. This is probably my last post. I don't know what your particular arguement is, but I'm pretty sure it's been made many times before you. I think God could write his case (again) on the moon in 100 mile long letters for everyone to read, but many would still prefer a Catholic Church with no rightful succession. They prefer a form of Godliness but deny its power. So sure, bring it up. Tickle the ears of people who've already decided the outcome. I've learned to cast my pearls elsewhere. For those who think I'm backing down, that's fine. Perhaps it shows the literal exhaustion it is to deal with this particular Protestant/LDS topic that I sincerely believe is a king of brainwashing. I think you'd appreciate my being frank. Keep in mind the hypocrisy of this forum that you are demonstrating so clearly. Just imagine if I came on with threads with the intent to try to show how I know the LDS church is a fraud. What if I came on and posted threads showing how Mormons can't understand their own modern scriptures? I could start threads until the cows come home. But then hypocrisy is accepted... After all, there is a rule here on how non-LDS are to treat LDS and not how LDS are to treat non-LDS. It's a rule I am familiar with and was not surprised to read. As for your other comments: I think I can boil you concern into one area: You think that if a council can be thrown in the trash then any council can fairly be thrown in the trash? Fine. I see you concern and I guess it makes sense to those who think a horse is a horse. But of course, the contents of councils are different. Like I mentioned earlier, the Church and the HS protect the Deposit of Faith. There has never been any matter of faith or morals that have ever been thrown out. Perhaps you have accepted the myth that Catholics think ALL contents of councils are infallible? But I think this is the really the heart Nicea that bugs you: (warning, being frank again) But the content of the Creed is what concerns you, isn't it? To Christians, the Creed widened the scope in which we understand God WITHOUT invalidating the former Apostles Creed (the pattern in which our discoveries happen). Notice also that the Creed does not "say what God is." The Church doesn't do that. It's a tempting thing to do! Mormons, though, have decided to take that route. The mysterious Trinitarian God of the Christians is rebuilt into the image of man. Defining God as being the same species as man and angels, not only makes the Mormon god the same as every other god, but it provides within a person's theology the possibility of developing (evolving) his movement into a religion that promises godhood. This evolution is simple to see in Smith's own writings. Smith wasn't always a polytheist; he developed his theology chronologically into polytheism. Our Trinitarian God bugs you I know. A trinitarian God makes it impossible for anyone who calls himself a "Christian" to believe in several Gods, which is central to your church. And if it is impossible for polytheism to be true, then the "Mormon version of theosis" is a lie. In other words, Trinity keeps you from becoming a god. So in your mind, the Creed must be discredited (although it is from the Bible word for word). Therefore the Bible must be discredited (it is missing plain and precious parts), and the Church didn't even have the authority to draft it in the first place (apostacy). One must wonder why Mormons carry around a corrupted Bible compiled by a corrupt Church. I think it is because it is easier to for Smith to let Christians do the heavy lifting. Inventing a completely new form of "christianity" would have been tough to do but utilizing keeping the Bible under one arm gives the appearance of Christianity. This is why the LDS Church doesn't overtly advertise the Bible's lowly rank within the LDS scriptures. This is why the LDS Church doesn't bring up the most repugnant of all LDS beliefs within the first discussion (as man is, God once was...), doing so isn't "edifying to faith-building." Most people are organisms that don't question these things, they can't discern these things, they want to believe that anyone who is "christian" has no secrets. So go ahead, follow the plan. Use OUR book, the Bible, to try to undermine us. Use the book that OUR saints died to give us. What you are doing is the same as breaking into someone's bedroom and stealing their diary, then insisting to the rightful owner the meaning of the words. Yeah, I'm disgusted. But don't hold back, educate the masses who are eager to lift up their own thrones.

Constantine was not a Church Ruler. He was emperor. He had not say in Church dogma. The "conversion of rome" was a result of the edict of Milan. It gave religious freedom. It did not force Christianity on anyone, it simply allowed it. That is not a "conversion" in a religious sense, it is a conversion in a political sense. The RCC existed prior to Constantine. Believing otherwise is nonsense. The BODY that is the RCC is the same BODY that existed before Constantine.

Faded, I started to read your first reply, I'm interested and I see a little of myself in you. I don't have the time right now to dedicate my mind your 3 comments but I'll be back. Thanks.

Islander, Actually, the debate has not lasted for 2,000 years. There has not been a "debate" until rather recently. The "debate" is only in the minds of people who find it necessary to usurp authority. Even the initial reformers knew it was a lost debate. Not until the apparent "freedom" which secularization introduced via the Reformation took hold, nobody with an once of conscience would experiment with debating the most basic things. All the "restoration" churches have no choice but to try to knock out the champ so the title can be theirs. When looked at from the outside, it is clear. Even the format of the BofM is clearly designed to initially sour its readers to Christianity (1 Nephi 13 and 14) so a "new and improved" model can be sold. That was the ace in the hole for Joseph Smith. While other restoration movements relied on sola scriptura (which scripture itself denies) Joseph was able to offer bling! There is no debate, only an agenda. Jadams, That's too bad. Study is usually what converts people to the Church. As we all know, it is "feelings" that tend to convert people to the LDS church. In all your studies perhaps you've come across the quote, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." Not that you are a Protestant, but I'm sure your valuable studies have familiarized you with the context of the quote. Godless, "Rome converting to Christianity" doesn't make any sense. Do you mean the Roman Church? The Roman Church IS Christianity. Christ built one Church. That Body is the CC today. This is not a debate in any way, that's why the "authority" of that Body is the what is attacked. In other words, Restoration churches want to convince people that Christ failed. Christ didn't bring a kingdom. Christ didn't build his Church on Peter. The Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of truth. AnthonyB, I'm impressed you are even aware of Clement, seeing as how most LDS don't even read their own saints as I clearly showed last month (a term that I've explained numerous times). I can see how that may seem condescending but I mean it. I've not encountered a LDS who would even pretend to have read such meaningless drivel. But I do sense a little bit of insincerity in you question--the kind that Mormons sense when fundamentalist Christians bombard this board with the typical Ed Decker questions. To answer your question: I don't know why people write as they do. I don't care. For all we know, there were hundreds of letters by the 4th Pope to Corinth other than the two we have and perhaps all of them were titled "I'm the pope, hear me roar". What we do know is that the churches (which were all Catholic) accepted apostolic Christianity. The 44th chapter of Clement 1 actually supports that. SO, when I see 1 Clement supporting apostolic Christianity, no argument from anywhere within Christianity against it, and the fact that Christianity was still mostly an "oral religion" I have no problem at all believing that this topic actually supports everything I've put forward. I don't know if you've ever put much study into oral traditions. If so, you'll know that "things that are most widely known" usually don't end up in written records of oral traditions. For example, when the Pope addresses the Church even to this day, RARELY does he inject the authority of his seat--it is already known.

Faded, Sorry I have not poked in here for over a month; leaving you hanging. •You think it would be more "logical" for the Bishop of Jerusalem to be Peter's successor? People often think that God should operate in ways that they think are logical. Even in the New Testament, Nathanael in John 1 couldn't understand how "anything good" could come from Nazareth. People have a tendency to believe that a royal heritage could have a beginning in lowly place. However, prophets were different. Consider Micah 5 where Bethlehem was declared the birthplace of our King! In other words, Micah was not the typical person who though God should operate on a human logical operating system. An example of another Mormon believing that God should act as a human was Joseph Smith when writing the BofM. Alma suggests that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (not Bethlehem). From my perspective, Joseph as Alma was thinking just like you, Faded. Actually, I think Joseph just had a memory lapse when he was writing Alma and relied on his human intuition and wrote in "Jerusalem" instead of "Bethlehem." That's just me and I'm not slamming you, I'm just showing how your presumption of divine logic is bathed in human frailty. •Your wording when describing Peter's place in Rome was carefully crafted. So I'll bite. True, there is little evidence that Paul was in Rome. The only 1st century document supporting this is in the Bible itself and it can only be derived if the horrible Catholic premise of Peter's presence in Rome is accepted. This is an example of how important Tradition is in the Church. That tradition of Peter being the Bishop of Rome was not contested for over 15 centuries until men wanted to start building their own churches. Even the "reformers" considered it to be "theory" to claim that Peter was not in fact the Bishop of Rome. Only modern theory claims that he wasn't. I personally find it easier to believe in Atlantis than to think Peter's seat in Rome was not legit and prime. All the successors believed it. It was so clear that it was never contested. •A lot of your "troubles" are based on a misunderstanding of how the Church works. Catholics believe Christ when he said he would build his Church on Peter. Catholics believe Him when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against that Church. We believe Paul when the Bible testifies that the Church (the actual body of Bishops and successors) are the pillar and foundation of truth. We believe Christ when he gave the Bishops (Apostles) authority to loose and bind. We believe the Bible when it teaches us to follow the teachings of the Bishops. The Bible itself even describes the EXAMPLE and ORAL Tradition that was to be followed. •Concerning Constantine: As a result of not knowing much about the Church, you've run with the Constantine theme. I've seen threads killed here when non-Mormons tell Mormons what they believe but you seem to have little problem arguing that Constantine was some sort of Church authority. I hear it a lot, it's like Democrats shouting out "Haliburton, gitmo, big oil" all the time. Because Catholics believe that there is only one Church, that Church will not die, that Church has authority, what that Church teaches is correct, that Church is protected by God to secure the Deposit of Faith, we have no trouble accepting that an illiterate pagan warrior named Constantine could be used to protect Her in a time when our writings, our leaders, and our existence were being systematically erased from the planet. However, Rome (the empire) protecting Rome (code for "the Church") does not imply in any way that Constantine was the Pope. •You wrote that the "emperor taking a leadership role established him as ultimate earthly authority." Well, you can think that, but it isn't thoughtful. It's complete nonsense. •With all of that in mind.. Forgive me if my comments are short. If you were asking questions, I'd give you better answers but your hit list is a collection of statements that really have nothing to do with Nicea and are based nonsense that anti-Catholic sources have been distributing for decades. 1) First, the council of Jerusalem is a Biblical precedent for a council. Second, the Church has every right to meet in any way it desires (even without Biblical precedent) to discuss or debate eternal truths (see my notes above). The Church exists without the Bible, but the Bible does not exist without the Church. If you don't believe this, then throw your Bible in the trash because if the Church was not allowed to meet to discuss truth, then your Bible (or at least the portions that you have) would not exist. 2) Constantine wanted unity within the kingdom. The Church wants unity within its Kingdom as well. The emperor may have called the council but Pope Sylvester sent two reps to the council in his stead. Why are you inserting your own "rule" that councils need to be called by the Pope? Here's a good time to discuss something that most Protestants and Mormons ignore: More than 80% of the Bishops were Arian. If Constantine wanted a "simple unity" without authentic Christianity within his kingdom then he would have insisted on Arianism becoming an apparent orthodoxy. THE FACT that he allowed Rome's (the Church) stance on "Trinity" to become written orthodoxy shows that he actually AFFIRMED Rome's primacy. Constantine did not usurp the seat of Peter, he affirmed it. This fact should, in an unbiased mind, show the PROVIDENCE of God! Where you see scandal, I see amazement! I see God's promises working themselves out. 3) As I just wrote, there was no "deadlock" in theology. Constantine affirmed Rome's stance. 4) No, the Emperor did not finalize any dogma. 5) Again, you are confusing "Constantine" with "the Church" or fusing them together in you mind somehow. 6) So? 7) I don't know who baptized him, it doesn't matter. He is not the Church. I guess it would make sense that he was baptized by an Arian considering the context of the area, time, and sorts. But again, who cares? Why not bring up the price of tea in China? 8) Even if Constantine "changed" his mind on the matter, how does that indicate that the Church "changed" its mind? In your "world" and in your thinking Constantine on his deathbed should have forced the Bishops together to write a new creed. But of course he didn't. EVEN if your allegation of the Church "changing its mind" is true, then you should apply the same rule to the witnesses of the BofM who did a lot more than "change" their minds. 9) Faded, we are talking about the Creed. 10) Again, this is about Necea and the Creed. 11) We (Catholics) lead. By definition, Protestants don't obey. If they honor our leadership (councils) then that is to their own good. If they choose to be separated, then that is their choice. The fact that Protestants don't honor the CC is not a charge against the Church. I can only remember one 9th century "robber council" that fits what you are saying. It had to do with internal leadership structure; not dogma. I've seen "lists" like yours a million times, some of them mention supposed councils that weren't even Catholic. If you want to discuss the substance, then let's do. In conclusion: Believing that Constantine was Pope is false. The premise is modern. Nobody made that argument for most of of the life of the Church. The Church has every right to discuss dogma. The Church has every right to declare truth. Nicea affirmed Rome's primacy (which wasn't even an issue--everyone knew it).

Vort, I will try again. The fact that this topic is the one that has hit a nerve is bizarre to me. Within the CONFINES OF ONLY THE FIRST PAGE of only this thread: 1) TUBALOTH WROTE: "You are really worried about Journal of Discourses? Do you have a copy and can quote it, because I don't have a copy! But it seems like you do and read it more often them most members." 2) DESERETGOV WROTE: "I don't know. Journal of Discourses is not scripture to me. It's pretty far down on my readining list." 3) MISSHALFWAY WROTE: "Memorizing/studying the JoD is NOT part of their training." Nothing wrong there, but it does indicate ignorance. With those three comments, it is FAIR to make the observation that the readers of the JofD are marginalized, OR that the the reading of it not encouraged. OF COURSE, my observation is not definitive. It is also fair and accurate to notice that I gave the benefit of the doubt by stating that this may NOT be an institutional practice. What that means is that I am NOT saying that the Church as an organization discourages the reading of it. I don't know how to make it clearer. Within the remainder of this thread: As circumstantial evidence (in LDS eyes) to my assessment: 4) I gave the story of how I was personally discouraged to research the JofD. (it wasn't good for building faith, anti-Mormons fake them, etc) As reinforcement to my observation: 5) Several comments with the repeated theme of "JofD is not doctrine." I cannot find any non-LDS member saying it is. It appears defensive, and lacks confident when it is repeated so often. 6) MNN727 WROTE: "...they [anti-Mormons] make it appear like they just happened to be reading the JoD and spotted this strange thing. As if one in a million of them have ever even touched a volume of the JoD or even know that there is more than one volume." True. Most anti-Mormons hate before they understand. Wouldn't it be fair to say that most Mormons don't know much about the JofD as well? Do I come off as someone who doesn't know how many volumes there are? Didn't my journey to read hard-copy of it express my desire to verify/discredit anti-Mormon literature communicate anything to you? 7) Someone also made the comment that "The JofD is hard to find, must be because all the anti-Mormons have them [sic]." That comment invalidates #6, but so what. If it is difficult to find them, the burden is on the LDS. An unavoidable conclusion for non-LDS: Whether it is accurate or not, the behavior of LDS in regards to the JofD results in suspicion. Confidence is not portrayed. When 1 out of 100 non-LDS who actually read portions of the JofD and find what "appears" as the founders having difficulty knowing what god they were talking about (for an example), and then they notice the lack of confidence that LDS portray in this area, then he is going to evaluate the situation. It may not be an accurate evaluation, but it is understandable. When investigation is perceived to be discouraged and self-revelation encouraged, the logical conclusion is that things don't add up. Reading of the saints: I have already apologized for using jargon. I thought the expression was more popular than it is. I used the term because I thought it would TRANSLATE to the LDS world. Within most of the Christian world, the term means the readings of our Early Church Fathers. We call them ECFs, or saints. By reading them, we can see continuity of theology from the nearly the end of the first century on, continuity of Tradition, etc. Contrary to your illustration, Catholics who are interested in learning the Faith do read them. Catholics who don't read them are, by definition, more ignorant yet become trophies of discernment for other groups. LDS have their founding fathers as well. Some of their writings are what make of the JofD. Using the term, I thought, would translate as "reading the JofD." I obviously failed, and have apologized for it repeatedly. Important: Not once did I say the JofD is regarded to as scripture. Not once did I imply it being important. You are blending my words with those of others--though I know of none. Hostility? My first impression of you was in my introduction. You were suspicious of me before you knew anything about me. As I read your posts, you seem to be suspicious of most non-LDS. Your quick attack on the Catholics you knew in Italy was before you even understood what you were reading in my post. I've been shyly called anti-Mormon and bashing now a few times by LDS on this forum (do not make me go back and rewrite the thread for you again) though I've given no reason for it. I have not used any SOP "anti-Mormon" arguments. Two times on this thread I slammed anti-mormon literature. Instead of treating me as though I am "one of them" I would appreciate you judging me by the words I use. Nothing I say can shake your faith, Vort. My Christimas gift to you. I will give the board a break: It has actually been a pleasure for me until lately. Most "Christian" boards don't allow Catholics to participate because those boards are mostly run by evangelical fundamentalists who don't consider the CC to be "Christian." The CC is "old school" and its intelligencia tend to be more in classrooms and books than the Internet. My intention was to simply correct the often wrong information about the CC that I've noticed at times--my entry point to this forum was when Catholics became "idolaters" concerning the cross. I got hooked! Some of this was stimulating and exciting. I knew I would be like Frisco speaking to guests at the Taggart wedding reception (anyone know what I'm talking about?) so I will keep closer to my word and be "the Catholic guy" if one is needed.

Vort, I will try to be more charitable. Within this thread there were three comments by LDS marginalizing people who read JofD. My term "reading the saints" was shorthand for reading the JofD. Like my Tradition, LDS does not consider JofD to be doctrine. However, my Tradition refers to the saints (Early Church Fathers) a lot in reading, prayer, study, etc. It was an accurate observation of the comments that LDS discourages the reading of JofD. It may not be a fact as an institution, but what I said is accurate. Your attitude of "I know you are but what am I" communicates hostility. I am not being hostile. I am sorry for the shorthand, the term must not be popular in your tradition.

I agree. It's like slicing a dollar bill in half and insisting that there are now 2 bucks. Mormonmusic, I'll try to keep the thread's theme alive while simultaneously bringing up your idea about faith. I agree. "Faith Alone" or "Sola Fide" is a blunder, often believed by good people who have more zeal than curiosity. One of the problems with the reformation is that there were sooo many solas! Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, Han Solo... The inevitable result of self-interpretation. I think Sola Fide was the worst of the solas. Luther's revelation of Sola Fide came to him while sitting on the toilet, which is where it should have remained. Though new to him, the idea had aspects that were as old as pelagianism itself. Problems: •Proponents of "Faith Alone" tend to be those who believe that "scripture interprets scripture." In other words, they believe that Sola Fide simultaneously exists with Sola Scriptura. The reason they tend to profess Sola Scriptura is to provide "legitimacy" to a new model of leadership. In other words, "Sola Fide" is the parasite and "Sola Scriptura" is the host. This concludes that there are two "solas" at play. Perhaps they don't know the meaning of sola? The model immediately falls to pieces. •The error is self-evident in a biblical and sociological way. Outside of faith being given to a person in a private way, it cannot be developed without "work." The heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 actually WORKED. Again, the model immediately falls to pieces. To be fair, it is often used as a way to argue against baptism; another blatantly clear topic. •The ONLY time in the Bible where the words "faith" and "alone" are side by side is in James 2:24 which reads the OPPOSITE of the mantra's assumption: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." The model, again, falls to pieces. IMHO: LDS and I are close to being on the same page in this arena. LDS and I have doctrine and personal revelation that act as witnesses to truth (what we believe as truth). But for those who have no witness to private interpretation, statistically, are not entertaining truth. And if anyone's private revelation reveals what Luther argued, then either the Bible's message or his revelation (or both) is in error. Back to your Question: After more thought about your original question, I thought I'd answer it in a more truly "Cathlic" manner. I remembered Paragraph 27 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will we find the TRUTH and happiness he never stops looking for." Apologetics doesn't help "find" truth. Apologetics defends truth. Finding it, is letting God draw us in. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Catholic teachings also state that religious ignorance is a rejection of God. One of our saints, Jerome, taught that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of God. IN SUM, I guess I would synthesize truth-seeking into (I do not speak officially): •Being available to God •Submitting to His Church •Behavior, righteous living •Studying •and of course, prayer

Vort, Read my posts and you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks for your kind attitude.

This is good stuff. I think it is fair to say that these experiences are common throughout the Christian spectrum. Converts from traditions tend to attribute their experience to the whole. Often converts from [insert anyone] to [anything] see themselves as authorities of what they left yet usually have no clue at to what the tradition actually taught. We often ignore that there were gems. Catholics have them, evangelicals have them, LDS have them. I see truth-seeking as a process, not just a "road to Damascas" experience. "Road to damascus" experiences are possible, but I think rare. They just happen too often in too many faiths with too many differences for them all to be "true." To answer your question: For me, anything that is self-validating is not truth. Examples: •The Bible validating/interpreting the Bible. Circular, self-validating, false. •My faith is true because I know my faith is true. Circular, self-validating, false. It is possible that I am just a "doubting Thomas." But If I am a "doubting Thomas," and I go to look at Christ's hands, there better be holes in them. Those great "a-ha!" moments, I think, are when we see overlaps of different areas; like when logic validates scripture, history validating scripture, natural law validating church teachings, "feelings" of the Spirit validating doctrine, etc. The more overlap one observes, the more real it is to that person. That is how it was with me, though is was a 20 year long experience.

:D

well that settles that.

mnn727, I may be mistaken, but are you making light of the fact that evil anti-mormons (like me???) have read the JofD? I have not read all of them--doubt anyone has. I was about 20 years old. The REASON I made the trip to Harding University to camp in their library for a week reading as much as I could is because I WAS LIED TO by a mormon bishop who told me that the copies of "anti-mormon" JofD prints I was given were fakes. Instead of trusting neither the Ed Decker dolt types nor the Mormon bishop, I wanted to verify with real hard-copy. That does NOT make me an anti-Mormon, it makes me a truth seeker. As a Catholic, I love to read the saints. Within Mormonism, reading the saints is discouraged. Maya, No offense, but if you are going to comment on my specific post, then please read that specific post. I wrote that there are answers on this forum, but the answers conclude with a shared theme. That theme is personal revelation. PC, I think you understand my stance, I am not against personal revelation. I appreciate your tradition, I can learn from it as well. You probably know how I feel about the reformation, but some of what has come out of it is still good--and Protestants are still preaching Christ crucified! He who is not against us if for us! Mormonmusic, I appreciate your ability to talk without emotionalizing things. It is a shame that you've been through so much anti-Mormon drama and I understand how it drains. You may not know this, but simply type in the word antichrist image into google and you will get an idea of how I am drained by anti-Catholic junk. Recently, we had some evangelical/fundamentalist disturb a Mass by running up front and telling us all that we're the whore of babylon, going to hell, etc. I know I've failed to be as charitable as I should be when people bring up "old" questions to me. Like you, I can see the question before it's asked. I hope that I have not fallen into that category with you. I enjoy uncover theological themes and cultures. I'm a theo-geek. Most Mormons who I know can't decide if the Love to hate me, or hate to love me. Honestly, I hope this thread has been a "steel" sharpening "steel" scenario, but it is starting to ware on me a little. I've enjoyed your thoughts and I've actually learned some things.

Mormonmusic, 1. I hear people today make the same assumption about the Bible. Catholicism is not like that. Those who claim it are quoting from the end of the book of Revelation. "...and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book." Rev 22:19 The problem with those who quote this verse are many. One is that Revelation was not the last Bible book written, It is simply at the end of the Bible for literary reasons and to show the Church's triumph and imagery of the Mass. This one fact should cause people to adjust their view. Second, Proverbs and Deuteronomy has similar language. So what we have here are three examples of saying not to "add" or to "take" from the word of God. The term "word of God" needs to be examined, which leads to your second point... Personal revelation, to be "of God" is not necessarily "consistent" with the Bible. To be "of God" it would need to be "consistent" with the Catholic Church. If it is NOT "consistent" (which means X) then it is a revelation from something OTHER than the Church--and it may appear as an angel of light. 2 This goes to an "old" question by Mormons to non-LDS, "Where do you get your authority?" The Bible was not yet organized, but the books were around. I guess I glossed over too much too quickly with too wide a brush. The order had not been determined. You want to know on what grounds did the Church find its authority to determine what is scripture? The Catholic viewpoint is that Jesus established a Church. Peter holds the keys. "Keys" in this case is not what "keys" are to Mormons; we see the Church as a Kingdom. Peter can bind and loose. In today's language, Peter was the first "pope" and his chair has authority over the entire Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church and the Deposit of Faith History supports the early churches (small c) looking to Rome (Peter's chair) to settle disputes, make final decisions, etc. Do the scriptures support such an idea? Absolutely! Scriptures teach that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. It does not say that the scriptures are the pillar and ground, it does not say that one's feelings are the pillar and ground, and it does not say that a collective mind of 30,000 denominations are the pillar and ground. The creed is not scripture. It is sort of like LDS's Articles of Faith but adheres to the teachings of the Apostles (Bishops) in communion with Rome. The creed aids in defining orthodoxy. Keep in mind that at this time, the Church was twice as old as the LDS church is today, so you can imagine how it was time to clear up disagreements. When people read scripture, they want to interpret for themselves. To a point, that's ok. But the inevitable result of self-interpretation is division and chaos, which is what nearly defines 30,000 communities who all think they are "right." The Bible is a product of the Catholic Church. The Church is not a product of the Bible. To aid in providing a unified interpretation of the scriptures, the Church drafted the creed. The Church had the authority to do so by the authority given to Her by Christ. The Catholic Church still has that authority to bind and loose, to settle claims, and clarify doctrine without invalidating prior doctrine--even though several new 19th century American communities bank on being otherwise. 3 I don't really understand the third question, but I'll try to sum things up. •"Adding / taking from the Bible" is not understood by those who wave it overhead shouting, "Sola Scriptura!" •The Bible does not say what the Bible is. "Sola Scriptura" is illogical and unbiblical. •The Bible's contents was determined by the Catholic Church with the HS's guidance. •The Creed clarified doctrine. The Creed is scriptural. The Creed holds to the teachings of the Fathers. The Creed is the the product of an authoritative Tradition. I hope I have time to look at your other threads. Forgive me if I am in and out in the near future.

Ok, I'm back. Unlike my dog, I come when called. Thank you, everyone. I've spent a long time lurking, so it seems natural to me to start speaking up. But to you, I'm brand new and out of left field. I had not intended on doing so much talking. I will find my rock soon and curl up under it. PC. I do not mean to downgrade seeking personal revelation. What I'm saying, if I could put it in a "bumper sticker" format, is: The first guy who says "God told me" in an argument loses. Being asked to read a book and having one's feeling be the mark of it being "God-breathed" is a gamble that could be lost--without even knowing it. Do you know that the Bible teaches that one's heart is deceptive? That Christians of old would study to see if a "gospel" message was true? The example that Mormonmusic gave about Peter's revelation of Jesus being the Son of God is a good example of a "faith" issue. But it is another assumption to insist that Peter's experience is the "burning in the bosom" that LDS hope it to be. With that logic, any sect can claim their unique testimony experience to be the same as Peter's. And if everyone is right, then nobody is right. Another point of interest with Peter is that his revelation was given by the Father. Peter did not read a book, a book that had glaring problems, a book that said Jesus was the Son of God, and THEN asked who Jesus was. Peter's confession was out of left field and not encouraged. His testimony was not the result of another person's philosophy on how to get answers. You know that Catholics and Christians pray, ask God for wisdom, help, etc. We do not, unless we are being silly, ask God to help us understand why there are no camels in North America (just as one example). This is the difference of a "faith" issue and a "substance" issue. Mormonmusic, On the grounds of your 13th Article of Faith, I consider practicing Mormons to be my friends. I am not a Mormon-basher at all, thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I believe that the world would be a better place if everyone was a Mormon. My best friends are Mormon. I think I've helped them become better Mormons and they have helped me be a better Catholic. However, there is a deep knee-jerk reaction to calling someone a basher whenever there is disagreement. It is defensive. It does not communicate a confidence in the material or beliefs. Yes, my experiences with Mormons is limited, but includes one private interviews with a bishops, one-on-ones with seminary teachers, friendly discussions with hundreds of lay Mormons, the Discussions, reading everything I could find in a pre-Internet world (bashing and approved), etc. I was the geek of geeks, often driving a thousand miles to actually obtain a full collection of the JofD. I've yet to find one Mormon who has a set--and my reading of it gives me clues as to why. Of course there is a but... I will not disrespect you by not stating my obvious stance. It is difficult for me to understand how good people can believe the BofM. The lack of answers for its problems are not matters of faith, but matters of intellect. We are not the smartest beings, but we are smart enough to know that when prophets speak in the past tense about things to come, it appears to be written by a 19th century storyteller. When one can chart an evolution of theology, it appears that it was made up. When Mormons discourage the study of the JofD, it is a signal that something is wrong because it is fair to be suspicious of those who wish to control information. Bytebear, When Mormons are quicker to run from questions (or dismiss them because they are "anti-Mormon") than they are to answering them, what that communicates is that there are no answers. The "stumbling blocks" that the other thread mentions are a lot of the biggies, wouldn't you agree? The "stumbling blocks" if you read them would show that they are NOT matters of faith. They are largely matters of contradictions, confusion of which god is in play, matters of a physical nature like archaeology, etc. One simply calling problems like those "faith" matters is actually a way of escaping responsibility. These are not faith issues; they are issues that the LDS will need to deal with in an information age--they are not going to go away. I owe you an apology for picking on you. That's why I'm called The Awfulest. 2:00 AM. I'm road tripping tomorrow, will check in. Thanks again for the discussions. [returning to lurking]