Exaltation Implications

[Claire]

When one does not comprehend the depth of a subject their answers are of necessity shallow.  Hint - the Dead Sea Scripture has significantly altered our understanding of biblical textual criticism.  

 

And as far as civility is concerned - your statement about your dog's spirit degradation of the LDS sacred notion of being spiritually and physically like our "Father in Heaven" is the most uncivil and condescending comment I have encountered in years.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls did have an impact on biblical studies, but that being said, they did also largely reinforce previously held theories. If you want to cite a specific example where the Dead Sea Scrolls support your position, then I would invite you to do so.

 

As for the dog analogy, I did not compare God to a dog. What I did do was point out that, if you are going to say that we are God's children simply because we are created by him, then you would have to state that all created things (dogs included) are also God's children because they are also created by him. In order for the title of a "child" of God to actually mean something, it has to include something above and beyond being created by him. The point was to illustrate a flaw in your initial presupposition, nothing more. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intent.

[Jane_Doe]

 

And as far as civility is concerned - your statement about your dog's spirit degradation of the LDS sacred notion of being spiritually and physically like our "Father in Heaven" is the most uncivil and condescending comment I have encountered in years.

 

Traveler, Claire didn't mean any harm.  She's been nothing but polite and studious studying LDS beliefs.  I'm sure she didn't mean any offense. 

[SpiritDragon]

 What I did do was point out that, if you are going to say that we are God's children simply because we are created by him, then you would have to state that all created things (dogs included) are also God's children because they are also created by him. In order for the title of a "child" of God to actually mean something, it has to include something above and beyond being created by him.

 

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe anyone has said that humans are God's children simply because He made us. We believe we are God's children because of prophetic revelations offering clarity to scriptures too numerous to be worth citing that state we are God's children. The notion that because God created other things besides His children has no more bearing on the possibility or veracity of the human family being God's children than my wife and I building (making) a house disproves our child is indeed our offspring. 

[Jane_Doe]

In studying other Christian traditions, I’ve noticed that a lot of “traditional Christian” faiths really stress the magnificence of God, so much that they describe Him as incredible, unknowable, unrelatable entity.  They then describe humans as this miserable tiny rebellious dust of the earth.  I often see people then place humans as far from God as can be imagined, and *really* stress that distance as a theological point.

 

LDS faith acknowledges God is great and we are far from Him. In the LDS theology, we started out with God, then traveled away (the fall).  And rather than focusing on this current distance, we focus on returning to God: narrowing the distance in this life (emulating God) and in the life to come. 

Edited January 27, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Claire]

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe anyone has said that humans are God's children simply because He made us. We believe we are God's children because of prophetic revelations offering clarity to scriptures too numerous to be worth citing that state we are God's children. The notion that because God created other things besides His children has no more bearing on the possibility or veracity of the human family being God's children than my wife and I building (making) a house disproves our child is indeed our offspring. 

 

The specific quote I was initially responding to was that "But the point is that the reference rhetorically G-d as a Father and the means by which our spirit exists," which I understood to mean as such. I do understand that that is not the typical LDS or Traditional Christian understanding of the concept, just how he seemed to be presented in that particular quote.

 

In studying other Christian traditions, I’ve noticed that a lot of “traditional Christian” faiths really stress the magnificence of God, so much that they describe Him as incredible, unknowable, unrelatable entity.  They then describe humans as this miserable tiny rebellious dust of the earth.  I often see people then place humans as far from God as can be imagined, and *really* stress that distance as a theological point.

 

LDS faith acknowledges God is great and we are far from Him. In the LDS theology, we started out with God, then traveled away (the fall).  And rather than focusing on this current distance, we focus on returning to God: narrowing the distance in this life (emulating God) and in the life to come. 

 

 

There is some truth to this. The LDS concept of God, coming from one of these more "traditional" backgrounds, seems, for lack of a better term, "too small." He doesn't really feel like God, just a being that happens to be more advanced than us for the moment. That's not to say that the LDS impression is wrong, or that the gut reaction is in any way right. Gut reactions don't determine what is true :)

 

That being said, while God is certainly "unknowable" in that we can't fully understand him and couldn't help to know anything about him at all via reason alone, we do confess that we know quite a bit about Him by virtue of divine revelation. I don't know that I'd agree with the rest of your assessment, in that everything I've experienced in more "traditional" denominations holds closer to what you express as the "LDS" position. We believe that God creates man for Himself, and that our final end, the purpose for which we were made, is to return to Him.

 

The big difference I suppose is how close the "emulation" can get. We (Catholics) tend to hold that we can enter into union with God and become participators in the divine nature. That being said, this union and participation must be mediated by Christ, who is both wholly God and wholly man. Further, we also do not believe that we can become in any way become intrinsically divine ourselves, meaning that while we can share in God's divine nature we cannot become gods ourselves.

 

That does bring about a question though. As I mentioned, participation in the divine life for Catholics  requires the mediation of Christ, and this mediation is perpetual (forever). Where exactly does Christ fit into LDS escatology (the study of the last things: death, judgement, heaven and hell)? Does he have any distinct purpose in the afterlife? I'm particularly curious about after final judgement, as if I remember correctly he reigns over the Millenial Kingdom prior to that.

[JimmiGerman]

(...) Further, we also do not believe that we can become in any way become intrinsically divine ourselves, meaning that while we can share in God's divine nature we cannot become gods ourselves.

 

That does bring about a question though. As I mentioned, participation in the divine life for Catholics  requires the mediation of Christ, and this mediation is perpetual (forever). Where exactly does Christ fit into LDS escatology (...)  Does he have any distinct purpose in the afterlife? I'm particularly curious about after final judgement, as if I remember correctly he reigns over the Millenial Kingdom prior to that.

 

 

And what makes you so sure you can share in God's divine nature?  What would you think is the first step, therefore?

 

And who can look behind the curtain? Who will say the Catholics are able to do it possibly better than the Mormons? Where are the divine revelations, the spirit of the Gospel, where is the living Christ to be found? In your doctrine...?

 

You are concerned about the mediation of Christ and his "distinct purpose in the afterlife"...? Be sure at least he will be in your neigbourship, then. 

Edited January 27, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Claire]

 

And what makes you so sure you can share in God's divine nature?  What would you think is the first step, therefore?

 

And who can look behind the curtain? Who will say the Catholics are able to do it possibly better than the Mormons? Where are the divine revelations, the spirit of the Gospel, where is the living Christ to be found? In your doctrine...?

 

You are concerned about the mediation of Christ and his "distinct purpose in the afterlife"...? Be sure at least he will be in your neigbourship, then. 

 

The basis of the Catholic beliefs on this subject are divine revelations (which culminated in the life and teaching of Christ) along with the interpretation of those revelations by the Magisterium of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

My question wasn't so much why you believe what you believe, but what you believe in the first place. I'll admit that the why is probably the more important question, but it's also a subject that we've also somewhat gone over already :)

[JimmiGerman]

The basis of the Catholic beliefs on this subject are divine revelations (which culminated in the life and teaching of Christ) along with the interpretation of those revelations by the Magisterium of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

My question wasn't so much why you believe what you believe, but what you believe in the first place. I'll admit that the why is probably the more important question, but it's also a subject that we've also somewhat gone over already :)

 

You've given the answer by yourself. Your doctrine is based on events that once were culminating during the life of Christ on Earth. The Mormon belief is based on modern revelations given by God the Allmighty and the teachings of the ever lasting Gospel and the living Christ, revealed by their prophets. However, your doctrine denies the possibility of present and modern revelations consequently.

 

What Mormons believe in is a great divine plan and the individual freedom of decision, the freedom to return, to get through this life according to the divine laws and commandments God the Allmighty has revealed to Joseph Smith, the prophet, his successors and the present authorities of a re-established church.  And it's even more than that. I would call it a Christian doctrine and a life philosophy or a lifestyle.

Edited January 27, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Traveler]

The Dead Sea Scrolls did have an impact on biblical studies, but that being said, they did also largely reinforce previously held theories. If you want to cite a specific example where the Dead Sea Scrolls support your position, then I would invite you to do so.

 

....

 

Do you accept as valid the published works concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls of Robert Eisenman, Michael Wise and Florentino Garcia Martinez?  Especially Eisenman and Wise prior to 1993?  And do you understand why I chose the date of 1993?

[Claire]

You've given the answer by yourself. Your doctrine is based on events that once were culminating during the life of Christ on Earth. The Mormon belief is based on modern revelations given by God the Allmighty and the teachings of the ever lasting Gospel and the living Christ, revealed by their prophets. However, your doctrine denies the possibility of present and modern revelations consequently.

 

What Mormons believe in is a great divine plan and the individual freedom of decision, the freedom to return, to get through this life according to the divine laws and commandments God the Allmighty has revealed to Joseph Smith, the prophet, his successors and the present authorities of a re-established church.  And it's even more than that. I would call it a Christian doctrine and a life philosophy or a lifestyle.

 

Okay, I understand that LDS believe in modern revelation. I guess I'm not following how any of this is relevant to the original question. Perhaps my question wasn't clear.

 

My question is: After final judgement, what role (if any) does Christ play? Does he continue to act as a mediator between us and the Father, or can we functionally bypass him in that relationship?

 

 

Do you accept as valid the published works concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls of Robert Eisenman, Michael Wise and Florentino Garcia Martinez?  Especially Eisenman and Wise prior to 1993?  And do you understand why I chose the date of 1993?

 

Of the three, the only one I'm particularly familiar with is Eisenman, and his theories I think would have to be completely rejected not just by Catholics, but probably by LDS as well and every other major Christian denomination as well. He more or less dismisses the bulk of the New Testament canon as Pauline propaganda designed to Hellenize and domesticate Christianity for Greek consumption, further arguing that Christians were originally a group of Jewish revolutionaries. Obviously any group that accepts the inspired nature of scripture couldn't agree with him, and I don't think the scientific data is on his side either, given the fact that most of his theories are based on scrolls which were carbon dated to prior to the Christian era. 

 

I'm have no idea why 1993 is significant, except perhaps that most of the craziness that comes out of Eisenman seems to be after that date.

[Guest]

Okay, I understand that LDS believe in modern revelation. I guess I'm not following how any of this is relevant to the original question. Perhaps my question wasn't clear.

 

My question is: After final judgement, what role (if any) does Christ play? Does he continue to act as a mediator between us and the Father, or can we functionally bypass him in that relationship?

 

His being a mediator is, as far as has been revealed (you'll notice me saying this a lot), is in the fulfillment of the Plan of Our Salvation in this stage of our Progression.  The entire gospel of Christ encompasses this Plan.  No revelation has been made on what His calling is going to be after the Plan is fulfilled.

 

As far as Catholic belief goes, heaven is the end-state and God is the end-state.  It is life everlasting with no more progression and therefore, Christ is fixed as the mediator forever and ever and ever.

 

In LDS belief,  life continues to progress after the Plan of Salvation is fulfilled.  Not just for us, but also for God.  What that progression is going to be has not been revealed besides the promise that we, with our eternal families, will continue to serve other eternal spirits in our dominion and continue to follow the Father.  Heavenly Father and Christ continue to progress in their own level of progression, therefore, Christ will always be our elder as we continue to progress towards what Heavenly Father and Christ "once was" in the next stage of progression.  But, his calling as the atoning balance between justice and mercy for us will be fulfilled at the last judgment of this progression - we don't know what his calling will be on the next stage. 

 

There are 3 levels of glory that we inherit after final judgement - the Celestial Kingdom is the closest to Heavenly Father and Christ.  The Celestial Kingdom, therefore, is the best place to follow the Father's progression... it is harder to follow the Father from the lower kingdoms.  But wherever we end up in, we will still need to move towards Christ as he exemplifies who we are to become.

[Claire]

His being a mediator is, as far as has been revealed (you'll notice me saying this a lot), is in the fulfillment of the Plan of Our Salvation in this stage of our Progression.  The entire gospel of Christ encompasses this Plan.  No revelation has been made on what His calling is going to be after the Plan is fulfilled.

 

As far as Catholic belief goes, heaven is the end-state and God is the end-state.  It is life everlasting with no more progression and therefore, Christ is fixed as the mediator forever and ever and ever.

 

In LDS belief,  life continues to progress after the Plan of Salvation is fulfilled.  Not just for us, but also for God.  What that progression is going to be has not been revealed besides the promise that we, with our eternal families, will continue to serve other eternal spirits in our dominion and continue to follow the Father.  Heavenly Father and Christ continue to progress in their own level of progression, therefore, Christ will always be our elder as we continue to progress towards what Heavenly Father and Christ "once was" in the next stage of progression.  But, his calling as the atoning balance between justice and mercy for us will be fulfilled at the last judgment of this progression - we don't know what his calling will be on the next stage. 

 

There are 3 levels of glory that we inherit after final judgement - the Celestial Kingdom is the closest to Heavenly Father and Christ.  The Celestial Kingdom, therefore, is the best place to follow the Father's progression... it is harder to follow the Father from the lower kingdoms.  But wherever we end up in, we will still need to move towards Christ as he exemplifies who we are to become.

 

Thanks for the explanation anatess! :)

[Vort]

His being a mediator is, as far as has been revealed (you'll notice me saying this a lot), is in the fulfillment of the Plan of Our Salvation in this stage of our Progression.  The entire gospel of Christ encompasses this Plan.  No revelation has been made on what His calling is going to be after the Plan is fulfilled.

 

Christ is our Savior, now and throughout all eternity. This is well established in scripture. I doubt the LDS understanding of this doctrine is exactly like the Catholic understanding, but in the sense of an eternal role the doctrine is the same or similar.

[Guest]

Christ is our Savior, now and throughout all eternity. This is well established in scripture. I doubt the LDS understanding of this doctrine is exactly like the Catholic understanding, but in the sense of an eternal role the doctrine is the same or similar.

 

She didn't ask about him being our Savior.  She asked about him being our mediator.  A Savior - by virtue of that one act - is a forever kind of thing.  You don't stop being the one who saved us just because we've all grown up.  Everything we become is made possible by that saving act.  Make sense?

 

But yeah, it's essentially the same except that we have a different application of "Eternal".

Edited January 27, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

She didn't ask about him being our Savior.  She asked about him being our mediator.  A Savior - by virtue of that one act - is a forever kind of thing.  You don't stop being the one who saved us just because we've all grown up.  Everything we become is made possible by that saving act.  Make sense?

 

This seems to make sense to me. Christ is our Mediator in bringing us to God. But once we're brought to God, there we are. The Mediation has been done and is a past action.

[Traveler]

....

 

Of the three, the only one I'm particularly familiar with is Eisenman, and his theories I think would have to be completely rejected not just by Catholics, but probably by LDS as well and every other major Christian denomination as well. He more or less dismisses the bulk of the New Testament canon as Pauline propaganda designed to Hellenize and domesticate Christianity for Greek consumption, further arguing that Christians were originally a group of Jewish revolutionaries. Obviously any group that accepts the inspired nature of scripture couldn't agree with him, and I don't think the scientific data is on his side either, given the fact that most of his theories are based on scrolls which were carbon dated to prior to the Christian era. 

 

I'm have no idea why 1993 is significant, except perhaps that most of the craziness that comes out of Eisenman seems to be after that date.

 

Very interesting – your personal views of Robert Eisenman.  Prior to 1993 Robert published a book called Dead Sea Scroll Conspiracy.  In that book he claimed that the Catholic Church via scholastic suppression was hiding at least 50 Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts and preventing publication of such manuscripts.  In 1993 microfiche photos were discovered in a basement of a university in Boston.  These microfiche photos were published on the internet despite threats of lawsuits to prevent publication were taking place.  Among the microfiche photos 50 previously unrecorded and unpublished Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts were discovered – Just as Robert Eisenman had claimed.  Florentino Garcia Martinez was to first to publish a translation of the 50 controversial manuscripts in question.  His work was done without commentary – translation only – thus is, in my opinion the most subjective.

 

Contrary to you claim variant reading and textual criticism has drastically increased because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  For example several new versions of the Bible (in particular the Old Testament) have been published.  There is much more concerning textual criticism and that is why I quoted Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. a Catholic scholar that tries to deal with the changes.   I am sure you can find many Catholic scholars that claim every point you want to make.   But since you are not familiar with the 1993 controversy you are not informed enough to understand – let alone contribute to the depth of understanding needed for an actual realization of what an unbiased view may constitute.

[Claire]

Very interesting – your personal views of Robert Eisenman.  Prior to 1993 Robert published a book called Dead Sea Scroll Conspiracy.  In that book he claimed that the Catholic Church via scholastic suppression was hiding at least 50 Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts and preventing publication of such manuscripts.  In 1993 microfiche photos were discovered in a basement of a university in Boston.  These microfiche photos were published on the internet despite threats of lawsuits to prevent publication were taking place.  Among the microfiche photos 50 previously unrecorded and unpublished Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts were discovered – Just as Robert Eisenman had claimed.  Florentino Garcia Martinez was to first to publish a translation of the 50 controversial manuscripts in question.  His work was done without commentary – translation only – thus is, in my opinion the most subjective.

 

Contrary to you claim variant reading and textual criticism has drastically increased because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  For example several new versions of the Bible (in particular the Old Testament) have been published.  There is much more concerning textual criticism and that is why I quoted Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. a Catholic scholar that tries to deal with the changes.   I am sure you can find many Catholic scholars that claim every point you want to make.   But since you are not familiar with the 1993 controversy you are not informed enough to understand – let alone contribute to the depth of understanding needed for an actual realization of what an unbiased view may constitute.

 

Okay, I'm going to ignore the critiques on my person and pose a question to other LDS on these forums. That question is this:

 

"Are the theories of Robert Eisenman contradictory or not contradictory to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

I honestly believe the answer will be a resounding "no," but who knows, I could be mistaken.

 

To give others an idea of what we're talking about, here is an excerpt from Amazon's (generally favorable) summary of his book, "James the Brother of Jesus."

 

"In an argument with enormous implications, Eisenman identifies Paul as deeply compromised by Roman contacts. James is presented as not simply the leader of Christianity of his day, but the popular Jewish leader of his time, whose death triggered the Uprising against Rome—a fact that creative rewriting of early Church documents has obscured.

 

Eisenman reveals that characters such as "Judas Iscariot" and "the Apostle James" did not exist as such. In delineating the deliberate falsifications in New Testament documents, Eisenman shows how—as James was written out—anti-Semitism was written in. By rescuing James from the oblivion into which he was cast, the final conclusion of James the Brother of Jesus is, in the words of The Jerusalem Post, "apocalyptic" —who and whatever James was, so was Jesus." (Emphasis are my own)

 

Whatever you else you may think, if the New Testament is inspired scripture, and I'm pretty sure both Catholics and LDS believe it is, then you cannot hold that the documents comprising the New Testament are deliberate falsifications.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Claire

[Jane_Doe]

 

"Are the theories of Robert Eisenman contradictory or not contradictory to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

 

The official church answer would probably be something along the lines of "we do not endorse the views of any one particular scholar..." 

 

My personal answer would be that I don't know what Eisenman thinks nor do I particularly care.  He is one man giving his opinion on a subject, and no matter how well 'studied' he is, there are many things about that time period we just don't know.

 

As to your question " then you cannot hold that the documents comprising the New Testament are deliberate falsifications."  I'm not sure what exactly you're asking.  Yes, I believe the New Testement to be inspired.  Yes, I believe that some "scholars" are out to put their own view on things and make a name for themselves.  However, I also believe that those gain-seekers are the minority of people studying the Bible (no idea with Eisenman is one).

[Claire]

The official church answer would probably be something along the lines of "we do not endorse the views of any one particular scholar..." 

 

My personal answer would be that I don't know what Eisenman thinks nor do I particularly care.  He is one man giving his opinion on a subject, and no matter how well 'studied' he is, there are many things about that time period we just don't know.

 

As to your question " then you cannot hold that the documents comprising the New Testament are deliberate falsifications."  I'm not sure what exactly you're asking.  Yes, I believe the New Testement to be inspired.  Yes, I believe that some "scholars" are out to put their own view on things and make a name for themselves.  However, I also believe that those gain-seekers are the minority of people studying the Bible (no idea with Eisenman is one).

 

I don't really expect the LDS Church to have any particular stance on this guy, nor would I expect you to care. I guess my point in the debate with the Traveler is that he's citing as an authority on biblical scholarship a guy who's theories seem, at least on their surface, to be contradictory to what his own Church teaches. Not being LDS myself, I'm trying to get second opinions on that.

 

I'm not necessarily saying that Eisenman is corrupt or anything like that, but I am saying that, from what I know if his writings, his theories seem contradictory to those held by most Christian groups, Catholic, LDS, or otherwise.

[Guest]

This seems to make sense to me. Christ is our Mediator in bringing us to God. But once we're brought to God, there we are. The Mediation has been done and is a past action.

 

Yes.  So, the difference in Catholic and LDS teaching on this one is the slight difference between the Catholic view of Heaven as an end-state (eternal state, Christ is fixed as the Mediator) versus the LDS teaching of eternal progression (Christ progresses on as well).  That's how I see it.

[Guest]

 I am sure you can find many Catholic scholars that claim every point you want to make.   But since you are not familiar with the 1993 controversy you are not informed enough to understand – let alone contribute to the depth of understanding needed for an actual realization of what an unbiased view may constitute.

 

This is hogwash.  Of course, you have this viewpoint because you are not Catholic.  The Catholics kept the scrolls unpublished exactly to protect the believers from this kind of treatment.  They have complete faith in their canon, therefore, any material/writing pertaining to the Church has to be subjected to the authority of the magisterium and given the Catholic exegesis!  This is not BIAS.  This is their faith in their Divine Guidance.

 

Think about it - you are completely experienced in anti-Mormon articles taking the History of the Church and the then-unpublished accounts of the First Vision and Polygamy and coming up with their own translation/interpretation of what Joseph Smith and other Church figures said leading to all these "I lost my faith because Joseph Smith is a pedophile" "unbiased views"... even accusing the Church of HIDING these histories!

 

And then you use the same paintbrush to attack Claire's devotion to her faith?  My eyes are threatening to roll right out of my head.

[JimmiGerman]

Very interesting – your personal views of Robert Eisenman.  Prior to 1993 Robert published a book called Dead Sea Scroll Conspiracy.  In that book he claimed that the Catholic Church via scholastic suppression was hiding at least 50 Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts and preventing publication of such manuscripts.  In 1993 microfiche photos were discovered in a basement of a university in Boston.  These microfiche photos were published on the internet despite threats of lawsuits to prevent publication were taking place.  Among the microfiche photos 50 previously unrecorded and unpublished Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts were discovered – Just as Robert Eisenman had claimed.  (...)

 

 

God knows what they still are hiding. I would guess they want to hide and suppress all modern revelations and manuscripts.

Edited January 30, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[jerome1232]

What has happened to this once fantastic thread?

[Guest]

It's still fantastic... or at least, we're trying to keep it still fantastic. 

[Claire]

God knows what they still are hiding. I would guess they want to hide and suppress all modern revelations and manuscripts. And they have slandered Maria Magdalena and by their inquisition thousands and thousands allowed to get murdered. And they have soiled and falsified the Christianity and persecuted prophets.

 

I suppose there are a few clarifications I should make here on Catholic dogma.

 

First, there actually is some allowance for revelation. Jesus represented the culmination of public revelation, meaning that there would be no more prophets in the Old Testament sense. Private revelation, however, still can occur. There are all sorts of revelations given to certain people since Christ which the faith are allowed to, but not required to, believe in. The Church will even put it's stamp of approval on some of the ones that, after investigation, seem likely to be legitimate. Again though, even if the Church says that a certain bit of revelation probably did happen (i.e. Mary at Lourdes and Fatima or Jesus to St. Bernadette), Catholics are not required to believe in those revelations. We believe Jesus gave us everything necessary for salvation during his earthly ministry, so anything beyond that is just gravy.

 

As for Mary Magdalene, there are some biblical scholars (Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise) out there that equate her to the adulteress from the Gospels, but there certainly isn't any definitive dogma stating that. In fact, I would say that the majority of Catholics would argue that it's unlikely that that was her, mostly due to the lack of anything really indicating that it was.

 

While by "inquisition" I'll assume you're referring to the Spanish inquisition, that's actually a somewhat more generic term in the Church. The main office in the Vatican that deals with questions about doctrine, for most of its history up through the 1960s, was called the "Office of the Holy Inquisition." Further, there were a number of wide scale investigations called "inquisitions," most of which dealt with whether a Church in a given area was accurately promulgating the Faith, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. The Spanish Inquisition specifically did get ugly, but it should be noted that it was also largely driven by Spanish civil authorities and that, to be blunt, any Church that exists for 2000 years is going to have its scandals.

 

As far as "soiling and falsifying Christianity and persecuting prophets," I'll be happy to speak to any particular incident you'd like to address. I'll be the first to admit that the Church has had a few nasty incidents over the millennia, but as a wise LDS person once told me, "the Church is perfect, the people in it aren't." (or something like that)