[AugustineH354]

Hi Chris,


You posted:

>>David, great to have you here.>>

Me: Thank you Chris.

>>In your opinion, do you think your review of Bickmore's book supports the LDS belief in the Great Apostacy (because that's how it was presented on the FARMS website)? And if so, why did you convert to Catholicism and not Mormonism?>>

Me: Yes and no. Remember, the two intended primary audiences of the book were Mormons and Protestants. With very few exceptions (see my above link to Dr. Reynolds insightful talk) Mormon apologetics have focused on Protestant objections; and as I stated earlier, this is to be expected because until the rise of “liberals” (spear-headed by Sunstone, and Signature Press) within the CoJCoLDS 99.9% of the anti-Mormon literature produced was from Protestants. Now, with that said, Bickmore’s book does not really address the “traditional” Catholic arguments for the continuity of the church that our Lord founded in the first century (though he attempts to do so in an internet debate with a lay Catholic - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html).

Now, with the above in mind, I see only two options for one who is a committed Christian: the RCC (for one who maintains continuity), or the CoJCoLDS (for those who believe in a “great” apostasy). Our separated Protestant brethren try to maintain (IMO) an intermediate position that has resulted in countless divisions (I have coined the phrase: "either divine development or divine restoration").

I personally do not believe that LDS apologists have substantiated a valid reason for God to remove the keys of authority from the early Church; this coupled with John Henry Newman’s brilliant treatment on the development of doctrine tipped-the-scales (so to speak) in favor of the RCC. But, and I want to be clear on this, if I have made a wrong choice, I am quite sure God will let me know; and I say this because I a committed disciple of truth.

Grace and peace,

David

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. – John Henry Newman