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]

Bytebear, the content my not be his, but questions are not anti-anything. Even without thinking, you are able to consider the questions, but have you ever considered the answers? What are the answers? If copying questions from websites is wrong, then your answers should be your own and not "answered" by providing a link. ...and it's ok to say you don't know. An answer that is "I know my church is true" is not an answer. Sorry to jab you, you just gave me a good way to show an example of what I've been talking about. A sincere G'night to all! -Patrick

Thanks, ...just realized the "thank" feature. I understand prayer in finding answers of faith. I don't understand prayer in matters of substance. By matters of substance, I mean: language, the physical, history, etc. I find praying for a burning in the bosom over the B of M to be nonsensical. I find it unprecedented anywhere in Christian history. I don't find it Biblical. I find it rendering man's ability to use his mind pointless. The result of the model can always be questioned. I, the Bible, and the Catholic Church, reject the notion that God cannot be known outside of a "testimony" experience. That is not to say that it does not happen, it just is not a practice within any nook of Christian history that I'm aware of. Perhaps some gnostic crack, but not Christianity. Developing a theology that says, "only a discerning person can understand" is a theology that allows feelings to trump objective evidence. It ignores that people of every walk have different "testimonies." And nobody, nobody, is in a position to evaluate if one person's testimony or even his own testimony is real/fake/wrong/right. It is impossible. The model leaves many followers to never find answers, ignore physical facts, and at times fake or long for testimonies. It also provides a "one-upsman" mentality within the person advocating the model. Because if someone doesn't feel the right way, then they simply must not be reading/praying/ or be discerning enough. I've seen many LDS in my life have "testimonies" and then finding out that what they thought was "one church" turning out to be a "different" church. Or they wanting a testimony so badly they don't know if it was real. This is not an indictment on individual LDS members (the Catholic Church has plenty of members who live like they should not be there), it is a result of the model. Sure, the Catholic Church has many faults in catechesis over the last couple generations, but "membership" and a knowing that the CC (or any Protestant brand) is true does not require a model that anyone can, no offense, fake. In some respect, I feel I'm being a little unfair. I (my Church) has had 2,000 years of study and our apologetics has had time to develop, be questioned by countless groups that have come and gone, and become an area of study that is as deep as God is infinite. I do appreciate those who are willing to discuss things like this without emotionalizing them (LDSVALLEY and MAXELL). Thank you.

There is a good chance that this post will be labeled as "contentious" but an honest reading of it will show that it is an urging for LDS to consider their image within the theological arena, and suggestions on how to communicate to an untapped mission field. I understand that Mormons get a lot of the same "questions" from outsiders that appear as though they are reading from Ed Decker. I'm Catholic, and we have no shortage of those types of questions too. Like, "don't call people father, what's this Mary stuff, why are you a cannibal, etc." What I've learned over the last 20 years talking with Mormons and even from this forum is that there is so much unintended disrespect and emotional assumptions made about outsiders. It is human nature for converts of any sort to have a blind spot in this area because their new-found zeal displaces maturity. But the assumptions and intellectual disrespect, I've found, is nearly institutionalized. For example, Just in my own introduction, I was warned to read the rules (which I had), assumed to have been raised Catholic (which is not the case), and given a warm welcome by one Mormon by pretty much saying, "Yeah, we'll see how respectful you are." This thread is laced with the same disrespectful assumptions. "This isn't new..., you think you're the first..., these lists are old..., etc." Some answers were good attempts, but most unfortunately included sarcasm. And contrary to some desires, many of those "old" questions have not been answered on this forum ways other than escaping the nature of the question. 9 out of 10 times, the questioner is not sincere, but it is better to receive wrong than to do wrong. Apologetics 101: 1 Pet 3 "Always be ready to give an EXPLANTION (apology / argument) to anyone who ASKS you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence..." It is very difficult to find LDS members who know their faith well enough to share in an intellectual manner. Don't be offended, please read on. A questioner (sincere or not) will indeed evaluate your answers and non-answers. Saying, "You don't know" is an answer, but answering a question with a question is not an answer-- it is a non-answer. If the list of questions in this post are indeed "old" then the LDS have had ample time to formulate apologies for them. A reference to those apologies (if they are around) would be a good way of answering them. Formulating one's own answer would add credibility to the missionary as well. Sure, the missionaries are not trained, but keep in mind that the questioner will evaluate the missionary and the institution by the answer or non-answer. The questioner also is fair to evaluate the answerer's own judgement on his choice of church if he cannot answer "old" or basic questions. I have learned that the LDS culture uses personal experiences to fill in "theological gaps" that are difficult to make arguments for. For example, praying over the validity of scripture, praying for "knowledge" (the word in James is actually "wisdom"), etc. Arguments that end in a "burden of proof" on the questioner are not arguments. Designing answers that leave the burden of proof on the questioner relieves the answerer from understanding his own beliefs. A burning sensation, a "testimony" or any other subjective means, are not intellectual. Whether LDS members find subjective measures to be acceptable is not the point; the point is that people who have questions and are wanting answers tend not to be satisfied with what LDS members are capable of providing. •If somebody was to ask me what the nicene creed means, I'd answer it. I would not say to go back and read it again. •If somebody was to read our ECFs (like Aquinas or Augustine, sort of like the Journal of Discources for Mormons) I would encourage him and try to answer apparent contradictions in the Saint's thoughts. •If I was given "old" bashing questions, I'd say, "These are easy! Here are the answers." •If I was given "old" bashing questions and had no answer, I'd question my own judgement for having the beliefs that I have. •If someone found a difference in the synoptics (ex: "mount" of olives or "plain" of olives") I'd explain it. Often, Explanations like this are so FULL of theology that the questioner falls in love with the passages. •I would not tell them to pray about an answer, wait for a "testimony" about it, pass the question off to some other subjective measure, or "attack" the questioner by saying that he needs to read more. These are some of the questions that were posted in this thread: Like I mentioned, some answers on this forum are not bad (better than what is usually given in person, possible because users have time to formulate answers). NOTE: I am not giving answers. •Typical question: If the Book of Mormon really contains the fullness of the Gospel, why does it not teach the doctrine of eternal progression? Typical way of answering: The burden of answering the question is returned to the one asking. "Just read the B of M." Typical way of answering: The "answerer", instead of answering, makes an assumption of the one asking. "I assume you would find out by reading." A BETTER way of answering: Don't disrespect the questioner by answering with a question. Don't disrespect the questioner by insulting him with assumptions. •Typical question: God said, Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. How can there be Gods who are Elohims ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldnt speak falsehoods. Typical way of answering: Again, the burden of answering the question is returned to the one asking, by answering the question with a question. "Why would God..." A BETTER way of answering: Acknowledge that there is an apparent inconsistency within LDS teachings on the subject and give a reason for the apparent inconsistencies. Don't disrespect the questioner by answering the question with a question." •Typical question: If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? Typical way of answering: There is no acknowledgement to the the traditional viewpoint of the virgin birth which is clearly the purpose of the question. A BETTER way of answering: Acknowledge the Traditional viewpoint of the perpetual virginity of Mary, acknowledge the apparent contradictions within LDS teachings, and then clarify what you believe. •Typical question: Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, page 210 says Jesus was being married to Mary and Martha in Cana. Why then was he INVITED to his own wedding? Typical way of answering: The "answerer" marginalizes the J of D, marginalizes the questioner, and then answers the question with a question. "Are you really worried about the J of D?" A BETTER way of answering: Realize that seekers of truth do read. The J of D is in most theology libraries and is supposedly a "rich mine of wealth" for seekers of truth. Acknowledge the problem, then clarify the problem. •Typical question: If the book of Mormon is true, why hasnt a valid geography been established for the book? Typical way of answering: The questioner is giving a "theological" answer to a "substance" question. "Then prove there is a God." A BETTER way of answering: Keep matters of theology within theology. Keep matters of substance within substance. It is okay not to know the answer; it adds credibility to the answerer (and the institution) by simply stating so. Not knowing does not imply that it is not true. •Typical question: If polygamy was a provision for increasing population rapidly, why did God give Adam only one wife? Typical way of answering: Answering with question. "Who said Adam needed to populate rapidly?" A BETTER way of answering: Answer with an answer, explain the the false premise. •Typical question: Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of Reformed Egyptian, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed? A typical way of answering: Imply ignorance to the questioner, and answer with a question. "Just read the B of M." Or, the answerer puts the burden of answering the question himself. A BETTER way of answering: Humbly realize that many LDS know little about the Bible. Unerstand that people asking questions may knoq even less about the B of M. Respect them. •Typical question: The Bible says, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood. A typical way of answering: The answerer throws out blanket statements such as, "You need to study more." A BETTER way of answering: Answer the question with an answer. Acknowledge apparent contradictions with the Bible and Young, clarify them. If you don't know, then say you don't know. In brief: •The burden of answer is on the one who is showing up at a person's door. •The burden of an answer is on the one being asked. •Passing the burden of an answer to the one asking the question is escapism. •"Old" questions are asked of insincere and sincere people. •One gains more credibility by saying, "I don't know" than by giving a non-answer. •Not having answers make the person and the institution appear that they don't have answers. •Filling in theological or rational gaps with personal experience is not creditable. •"Faith" is not required to understand factual answers. There is a different thread on this forum about "stumbling blocks" to the faith. After reading that thread, I've found that many of those stumbling blocks are also seen in many "old" questions. To me, those stumbling blocks and those "old" questions are of an intellectual nature. The human creature is not like the animals. We don't only "react" (the brain / emotions) but we are able to "respond" (using the mind). Theology is the INSERTION of reason into religion. Until the LDS are able to answer questions that should be answered, the LDS will continue to be the church of feelers instead of thinkers. An example of this is the often used statement when LDS cannot answer questions, "I know my church is true." Another overly used statement is, "Contentions are of the Devil." The word "Contentions" is often thrown into the conversation whenever a LDS member is faced with a person who is able to offer arguments against LDS thought. Disagreement is not contentious. Offering arguments is not being argumentative. Expecting honest answers is not disrespectful. LDS would do well to take their emotions (reactions) out of discussions and to start engaging (responding) to people with objective and reasonable arguments. As well, treat outsiders as they do their own flock who have "stumbling blocks" of the same nature. Some questions certainly do fall into speculation, but questions of fact, language, and simple reason are legitimate questions to any person investing in the truth business... and are deserving of respect. Now here comes the love... Edit: Spelling, oh why bother.

Mormonmusic, The "Bible" at the time of the creed was not yet together. It was not until 410ad that the "Bible" was assembled into a form that we would even recognize. Contrary to a lot of assumptions, the oral teachings of the Church were what transmitted orthodoxy. The Bible itself talks about holding to oral teachings. The Church, as the Bible explains, is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Christians at the time of the creed did not believe that "the Bible" was a of supreme authority. It was accepted and believed that authority rested in the Church--the institution that was still in the work of delivering the Bible. The Creed was an exegesis of the books that were currently accepted and geographically spread. The The creed affirmed orthodoxy. It does not "add" to the Bible. The example of "clarifying" doctrine without "invalidating" former doctrine is what the Catholic Church continues to practice. The Creed clarified doctrines that were being challenged. The Church through history has does that, but for reasons many non-Catholics use it as some sort of "starting point" to ascribe error. Understandable, I can see how the clarification of doctrine by the creed could rub Mormon theology the wrong way. It certainly rubbed a lot of people the wrong way in the early 300s as well.

No, it is not interesting that no prophet, apostle or even the Savior had an understanding of the Trinity. BECAUSE you are assuming your premise (and saying you know the mind of Christ). Since you are assuming what the prophets, apostles, and Savior understood, It is more than fair for me to assume you are hoping that arguments of silence are in fact arguments. But if silence was the case... Are we to really believe that the idea of Trinity was invented at Nicea? Where did the idea come from" What was Arius fighting against? It is only reasonable that if a "well-fashioned" argument against Trinity was developed, then the object of Trinity was in existence. For example, Canada nearly defines herself as NOT being America (sorry Canadians). Are we to believe that America doesn't exist? Revelation is a process. Trinity revealed itself in pieces. Consider Is 9:6 Jesus= •Mighty God •Councelor •Father •Prince of Peace Lools like God is slowly revealing himself to me... not to mention Deut and Eph (see creed note). Also worth noting is that the Creed does not invalidate the earlier creed.

The Nicene Creed We believe in... ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6) Father (Matthew 6: 9) Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3) Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1) and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16) And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17) Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16) Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16) Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2) Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5) True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5) Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18) of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30) through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2) Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5) came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35) and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35) and became man. (John 1: 14) And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3) under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6) suffered, (Mark 8: 31) and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4) And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4) and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10) and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55) and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27) to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1) Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11) And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26) Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4) Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2) Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; (John 15: 26) Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17) Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18) holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9) catholic, (Mark 16: 15) and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22) I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (Ephesians 4: 5) I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5) and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30) AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

This thread has proved one thing: There is a difference between what church's believe and what individual members do. The same happens with Catholics. Earlier, a former Catholic said that Catholics involve the crucifix with some sort of idolatry. Perhaps that former Catholic did, but idolatry is not found in Catholicism. Period. Next: To Catholics, 1 Cor 1:24 describes that Christ crucified is the "power of God". Verse 23 says "...we preach Christ crucified..." Why does Paul preach Christ crucified? Doesn't he know that Jesus was raised from the dead? Of course he does. Again in 1 Cor 2:2, Paul is preaching Christ Crucified. Did Paul forget that Jesus was raised? Of course not. An empty cross has no power. That is why Catholics keep Him on the cross. We, too, preach Christ crucified. The Crucifix reminds us not only of God's power, but also His love for us. Romans 6:8 says that we must die with Christ. Where did he die? On the cross. The crucifix serves to remind us of this. Next: Someone commented on a giant crucifix present in the Mass. During Mass, the priest reads scripture during the Eucharist, "...a death He freely accepted...". Again, the Crucifix aids us in remembering Christ's act. The crucifix is not a symbol of death; it is a symbol of Christ, His love for us ("even death on a cross"), His acceptance to save us and even the hope we have. Also: As others have noted, the use of a cross without Jesus (I believe) is a product of anti-Catholics and Protestants not wanting to "appear Catholic." We Catholics don't have issues with crosses, we simply see the Crucifix as the better of two goods.

Thanks, RREN. I wasn't raised Catholic though. I was an anti-Catholic evangelical type, got a BA in biblical studies from an evangelical university. Was a minister for a little while in [Removed personal info for security] There, now we both got each other's testimony! I honestly am glad you are happy now as well. I'm hear to learn more about LDS theology, not to be a problem in any way, and to possibly respond to incorrect assumptions about the Catholic Church that I've seen over the months here (not just from Mormons). I'll mostly be invisible. There is a lot we agree on. On those grounds, let's have fun!

Got it, thanks. The rules took a bit of time to read; good chance I had already did something wrong. Thanks for the welcome(s).

I did read the rules, did I miss something?