SteveVH

Modern findings? You forget. Our Church was there and we have written records of what the early Church believed. These records are undisputed. If you choose to follow doctrines of heretical groups whose beliefs contradict what the early Church believed you are free to do so, but we know very well what the early Church believed; it is documented for all to see. So compare and contrast away. Read the determination of the early councils. Read the early Church Fathers. Then read those found to be heretics. It is they who strayed from the deposit of faith given by the Apostles.

Quote from Cardinal John Henry Newman: "Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripure are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is of temprorary and what is of lasting obligation?... The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

Orthodox and Catholic doctrines are nearly identical and the differences that do exist are extremely minor. One is the "filioque". Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Orthodox believe in the primacy of the Pope, but not his supremacy. Catholics believe both. Those are the major differences. The foundational doctrines held by the Church since the beginning are believed by both without any difference. And both have valid apostolic succession. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox as the other lung; together we breathe life into the Body of Christ. They have extremely beautiful and rich liturgies and valid sacraments. The situation isn't near as grim as you wish to paint it. I would feel very much at home in the Orthodox Church.

And if there were no apostasy would there have been any need for a restoration to begin with? Your own leaders, including Talmage, have made the "Great Apostasy" a make or break issue. I have never said that we should rely "solely" on history for anything. But when an article of faith contradicts real events then something is wrong and I would apply this to the Catholic Church as well as the LDS. Thank you. I have my answer. I would agree completley. That is not my intention. I only ask that these "evidences" have some credibility. Maybe that is a matter of perspective. Again, a matter of perspective. I don't consider them "good" evidences at all. The Catholic Church has fought heresy and corruption, from within and without, for 2000 years and has maintained its orginal doctrines intact, not to mention an unbroken line of succession clear back to Peter. That would be an extraordinary feat for a simple human institution with no divine authority to accomplish. In fact, it has never been accomplished. The Church has outlived every government and human institution that has existed since its inception. Not only has it outlived them, it continues to flourish. In this same period the Catholic Church grew by 12,250,000 new members. Numbers mean very little if anything. I would venture to guess that Islam has grown even more than the Catholic Church. That does not convince me to become Muslim.

Anatess, with all due respect, the Great Apostasy is the foundational belief upon which the LDS Church either stands or falls. If the question cannot be answered by historians or scholars, "not at all, not even a bit", then what does that imply? You say that "The answer to that question is as individual as the question, Is There A God?" But these are two, very different things. A "Great Apostasy" would be a historical event of great magnitude, even if it happened over a period of time. We read of heresies, schisms, corrupt clergy and such in the history of the Church, but never a complete and total apostasy by the Church, not even close. History is absolutely silent as to an event such as this. The question "is there a God?" is a matter of faith, not history. Do you not believe that the Great Apostasy, an event occuring in history, should be answered with historical evidence rather than being reliant upon faith or some interior "feeling"?

While I have not asked for "proof", are you saying that objective, incontrovertible proof is absent from the Mormon argument? That in order to be believed one must first just accept the Mormon postion by faith? I am fine with that answer if that is the answer one wishes to give, but it is not real convincing to those outside of the Mormon faith.

I have now read the first 50 pages of Talmage's book. I have made an appointment with my dentist for a root canal just so I can get in the mood to continue. So far I find Talmage to be no more "scholarly" than any other anti-Catholic writer and have found nothing that I would describe as convincing. He relies heavily on three "historians" who's credentials are less than stellar. Edward Gibbon ("The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire") is famous for his hatred of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and certainly cannot be considered an objective historian. Joseph Milner was a strong Evangelical Protestant who lived in the 1700s at a time when tensions between Protestantism and Catholicism were extremely high. Even the Protestant publication, the "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" rerers to Milner's work as "innacurate and uncritical". Johann von Mosheim, who is the most objective of the three, describes corruption and heresy within the Church. No Catholic denies this, but corruption and heresy among unfaithful Catholics does not equal a "total apostasy". If it does then the LDS Church would have to admit that it is also in a total apostasy unless it claims that there are no unfaithful Mormons out there. The only reference to an early historian I have found so far is Eusebius Pamphilus who gives a detailed account of the various heresies and divisions found in the Church during the first three centuries. Talmage attempts to use these accounts as evidence that the early Church had become corrupt while ignoring the fact that Eusebius' also describes how the Church councils and early Church Fathers refuted each and every one of these errors and preserved the deposit of faith given to the Church by the Apostles. He also seems, so far, to ignore the writings of the early Church Fathers who lived and wrote during this same period (Clement, Ignatius, Justin and Ireneus) and whose writings were widely available in 1909 when he wrote his book. An honest scholar would have to take these writers into account. Sorry, so far I am less than impressed.

I have just started reading "The Great Apostasy" by James Edward Talmage. I would like to point out a problem that crops up along the lines of which Anatess was speaking and it has to do with the perspective from which one views a certain text. Let me quote the paragraph of which I speak: "25. The record states that the Messiah appeared in person among the Nephites on the western continent. This was subsequent to His ascension from the Mount of Olives. A foreshadowing of this great event was given by Christ in a declaration made while yet He lived on earth. Comparing Himself to the good shepherd who giveth his life for the sheep, He said: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."--(John 10:16; read verses 1-18 inclusive. Compare III Nephi 15:21.)" Mr. Talmage begins with the presupposition that the story of the Book of Mormon is true. I do not fault him for that, of course, but I don't think anyone would argue that it does not influence his interpretation. From a Catholic perspective, Jesus is not speaking geographically, but rather is speaking of those outside of Judaism, giving us the first glimpse of the worldwide scope of the Church. Where they live is of no importance. In other words, he is speaking of the gentiles, not a certain group of people on a certain continent, but rather everyone in the world, not just Jews. The book of Acts addresses this very issue, with Peter's vision of the unclean animals (gentiles) and both Paul and Barnabas' mission to the gentiles. The reason I bring this up is that since I believe Talmage's premise, that Christ was speaking of a certain people on a certain continent, rather than the gentiles throughout the world, is in error, everything subsequent which is based upon this premise, therefore, must also be in error. It only makes sense if one first accepts the Mormon position and then works backwards. In other words, it is like saying "We know that Jesus appeared on the American continent" (the presupposition), therefore this verse must mean that he is speaking of the people to which he appeared". I have a difficult time with this type of reasoning.

You have a great insight here, Anatess and I could not agree more. Unfortunately human nature is something with which we have to deal. We all approach the issue with our own biases. All I can say is that I will do my best to be as objective as I can.

You make a good point and I will follow your advice and pick it up. Please don't misunderstand me. If I read everything that people suggest I would have time for little else. In addition, many times it seems that what your "esteemed" leaders write does not often translate into what Mormons actually believe. If something is a little controversial I hear "well that isn't officially doctrine", or "he wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that". I have no problem locating Mormon material to read. What I am interested in is how actual Mormons believe, which is why I am on a Mormon forum and not curled up somewhere with a Mormon book. But fair is fair and I happen to trust your judgment on this. I'll read it and give you my comments. :)

We are sons and daughters God through adoption. Galations 4:5-7 "To redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God." Ephesians 1:5 "He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will..." So we are not sons and daughters by nature. There are qualifications which have to be met in order to be a son or daughter of God. Some examples of what qualifies us as his children: Romans 8:14 - "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." Revelation 21:7 - "He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son." We do not believe that Jesus was created. He is the Creator, not the created. All things and all beings were created by God; The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one divine Being who we call God. Everything else (including satan) are creatures. And satan is not the same "species", if you will, as either God or man. He is an angel. Christ is different as I have pointed out above. He was "begotten", not created. He is the only begotten Son of God. We become Christ's brothers and sisters, again, through adoption.

No disagreement there. I have not asked for a discussion, however since the purpose of a forum is presumably for that purpose, feel free. You are correct in that I have reached a conclusion in the matter. I am trying to understand how Mormons reach a conclusion in this matter. How you have determined that I have a reached a conclusion "without any consideration of evidence" seems more than a little presumptuous. If you would like me to respond to your purported "evidence" I will be happy to do so. Keep in mind that each of the issues you have presented could be a thread on their own. But I will be happy to give you the basic premise on which I have drawn my conclusions. It is based upon the very promises made by Christ himself concerning his Church. He promised that he would not leave us orphans, but would remain with his Church until the end of time. He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. In short, the Church is a divine institution, it is Christ's own Church, and therefore is not dependent upon man in order to succeed. I believe he has kept his promises which would make any need for a restoration null and void from the outset. That is the perspective from which I begin. If you wish me to expand my answer I'll be more than happy to do so.

You do not properly understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus does not speak to himself, but to the Father who is a distinct Person of the Trinity. There are three, distinct (but not separate) Persons in one divine Being. I understand that this is a difficult concept for any human being to grasp because it is completley outside of our human experience. Three persons in one being is not possible in our physical existence, therefore one might assume that it is not possible at all, expecially if one believes that God's nature is like us. The Mormon view that we are basically the same as God, other than our level of progression, makes this even more difficult and we would consider that view to be an absoulute theological error. From the Catholic viewpoint, however, God is eternally above mankind in his nature, his power, his glory and his majesty. In fact, in any and every way we can imagine. To even speak of God in human terms can only diminish his glory. Just want to give you the correct perspective here. Jesus teaches that the Father and the son are both Yahweh. Most famous are the I AM statements in John. That the Father is Yahweh (I AM) is abundantly proven in Scripture and something I think we can both agree upon. Jesus, in Matt 22:44, interprets Psalm 110as a discourse of the Father to the Son: "The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (Adonay), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Everybody knows whose right hands Jesus sits on, and here we are told it is Yahweh. Jesus is also Yahweh. There are three important principles here in order to understand (I didn't say agree with) the doctrine of the Trinity: 1. Oneness of God: God is one and his nature is expressed in the name I AM. 2. Distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the three persons are not interchangeable, and they relate to each other as individuals, speak to each other, have personal names, etc. 3. Equality of persons: all are the One God in the same sense and with no difference in degree; this does not exclude a subordination of Jesus as a man; although as God, "in the form of God," he is equal to the Father he "becomes obedient" in taking on flesh and dying, notwithstanding his inherent equality. (Phil 2) I don't expect you to agree, but I want you to understand. Thanks and God bless.

Anatess, thank you for the link. No I have just not had the time to read another book right now (reading three simultaneously as it is), but I do have the link and am planning on giving it at least a look. To be honest with you, it will depend upon the credibility of what I find as to whether I will read it in depth. There are a lot of books out there and many versions of history. If Mr. talmage is intellectually honest in his writing I will give it a go.

But then I wouldn't have anything to argue about! Seriously, I agree with you. I have no doubt that I will enjoy eternity with many Mormons. We have a loving and merciful God who wills that none of us be lost and his love for Catholics is no greater and no less than his love for Mormons or any other denomination. While I believe (as you do) that it does matter what we believe, only God knows our hearts and I have seen very few hearts as sincere as Mormon hearts. God bless you.

Thanks for all your comments. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church is not a "church of the Bible" (the Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible). We are an apostolic Church and the Bible is one of our documents. So, as far as "receiving a testimony" of the history of the Catholic Church, yes I believe I certainly have. It is very easy to look at all the ills and evils in society over the past 2000 years and attempt to use this as evidence, but then one would have to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church was probably the greatest force in history in establishing a civilized and moral soceity. You have mentioned some of those accomplishments.

Thanks, I'll tuck those away. Either that or give me about six months and I'll mail you a harbound copy of my response.

Kneeling is a prayer in itself; a prayer of humility and humbleness before God. The very act requires a certain interior disposition which lends itself to a deeper prayer life. I find that it also helps in avoiding distractions during prayer as well. When I'm kneeling, I am foused, body and soul, on the Lord. Of course, we can and should pray at all times, but there are those times, and everyone has experienced them, when all of our focus needs to be on that conversation with God. That is when it is time to get on our knees.

Awesome! God is present to the world and reveals Himself to everyone through the love we give each other. This love is the longing of every human heart and we are empty and meaningless without it. Thank you so much for posting this. Wonderful job!

Okay. Do you think the Dark Ages were caused by the Church? Maybe you could explain a little more.

Could you explain further? That's quite a lot to throw without at least some specifics. Do you mean like starting higher education and opening hospitals (to everyone). Is that how the Church disrespected the rights of non-Trinitarians? By feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, regardless of their state in life or beliefs. Like that? I have no expectations. And upon what do you base that comment?

Okay, thanks.

I'll check it out. I have a pretty thick skin. :)

Yes, I have heard this before. From what I understand, (though I have heard more than one version) it was the puported loss of "priesthood authority" that was the main issue, and along with that the end of revelation. Am I correct? With all due respect I always like to consider on what side of the fence one sits before I consider where they stand. Bart Ehrman is an anti-Christian polemicist. A glance at even a few of his comments makes it clear where he is coming from. No offense but, but he doesn't even come close to having credibility despite his voluminous writing. Having said that, it is no secret that the Church has had to fight heresies from the beginning. People, and even some clergy, were coming up with all kinds of novel ideas. The Church's job was to protect the truth, the deposit of faith, handed down to it by the Apostles. Anything that contradicted that truth was anathamized. Yes, good ole Origen. First of all, before one can say that "we see a change in the earlier doctrines to newer beliefs later on" one must understand that Origens beliefs were never, ever, Church doctrine to begin with. There was no doctrinal change whatsoever. His beliefs were suspect from the beginning and the Church took him to task on more than a few of his beliefs, finally officially declaring him to be a heretic. No. The councils were convened in order to officially define dogma in defense of the faith and against heresy. The Council of Nicea was convened to defend the Church doctrines agains Arianism (the belief that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created and is therefore distinct from God the Father). This could not be an argument over the Bible as the Bible would not even be canonized for approximately another 75 years. Chalcedon was convened to fight a heresy concerning the nature of Christ (the Catholic doctrine being that Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person). As I have already stated the issue was Arianism, not Origenism, although Arius may very well have borrowed from Origen. The result was a definitive creed in which more detail was given to the three Persons of the Trinty in order to clearly define exactly what the Church believed as to the nature of the Persons of Trinity. Nearly every council convened was for the same purpose. To defend the faith against heresy by more clearly defining the doctrines which were challenged. Yes, I am well aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But I don't know what this has to do with the "Great Apostasy". They are not included in the Bible because the Church that determined the canon did not include them. Now one of two things is true here. Either the Church was, indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit in making this determination or it was not. If it was not, then we can all consider our Bible interesting reading and nothing more. If it was guided by the Holy Spirit then we must accept it as it was given to us, and without question. The New Testament is a Church document so the Church determined its contents through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Trust it or don't trust it, but don't just partially trust it and partially distrust it. The Holy Spirit was either involved or He wasn't. You choose. I find that curious. Why if you believe the Bible is not perfect or complete, then say that "We believe it to be inspired of God, regardless."? Hey, thanks for taking so much time on this post. You have given me a lot of helpful information.