Then Mormons are going to stop preaching, teaching and promoting their false doctrines?
First, I don’t answer loaded questions because they are fallacious. (When will the Mormon Church declare the Book of Mormon an allegory because there is no historical truth to it?)
It is almost impossible to know everything about the Catholic Church; its organizations, teaching, history. And very difficult sometimes to know why she teaches it. Our clergy are very well educated. Some of the most beautiful buildings in the world are Catholic Churches. Catholicism is a beautiful and smart religion. This can be a problem for people who don’t appreciate these qualities or see them as a negative.
The Catholic Church has the Apostolic authority given to it by Christ. Father Sullivan wrote a whole book about it. You wanted Apostolic Authority to be in one place and it was not there. So you concluded Apostolic authority was no where. Then you come to CAF telling Catholics that Apostolic authority was not passed down and Father Sullivan agrees with you. You read a whole book on Apostolic authority and missed the conclusion. You have to be kinda smart to be Catholic.
Something simple is much easier to understand. Catholic history and belief are complicated. Sometimes someone can read a whole book on a small part of it and still not understand.
Joseph Smith started a new religion by claiming supernatural events happened to him. This may be hard for some to believe but it is easy to understand. Catholics believe in apparitions and miracles, so this would not seem too crazy. The wheels fall off the bus when more and more claims are made each more fantastic than the next, and each more non-Christian than the next. Even if the claims are true, it is no longer a Christian religion. Then the whole thing explodes when almost every claim he made that can by subjected to empirical evidence it shown to be false. Then you look at the history and the changing claims and stories. It may be easy to understand, but it is completely irrational to believe. I say it is easy to understand because a Mormon only has to understand what is taught today; don’t even worry about what was once taught or why. Belief is all you have left at this point; reason is gone.
Here you are setting empirical standards for the Catholic Church which Mormonism can’t even come close too. Here you are sowing your seeds of doubt about a Church you can’t understand while believing in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and the Melchizedek Priesthood. Believing they are Christian.
I don’t see the beauty in it.
I thought I was done in this thread, but I will offer a little more.
I have mentioned the single biggest problem in Mormonism on this board a number of times. If you ever spoke of or admitted the slightest problem with Catholicism, I am not sure that answering the questions would not be that hard. I also asked if you agreed with Horton in that the Pope will never allow those who regularly have sex outside a valid marriage to partake of the Eucharist.
The answer to your question is really easy for me. I think it very unlikely the CoJCoLDS will declare the BOM has no historical truth to it. This is due to the historical evidence for the BOM that is readily accepted by numerous scholars (most of whom are LDS, but LDS are 95%+ of the folks who have taken the BOM seriously enough to evaluate its historicity). That being said, there are believing LDS who think the BOM is inspired fiction. This IMO is a valid belief to hold as a LDS. There are even folks who call themselves LDS who do not believe there is any thing that is supernatural or beyond-human that exists. I would not call this a valid believe to hold as a LDS, but I have no need to “purge” such things either. Of course there are numerous folks who call themselves Catholics who reject the supernatural completely.
I assure you that I do not see being beautiful and smart as a negative. I assure you that I believe Catholicism is a smart religions with beautiful buildings.
No, I understood Sullivan quite well. It is you misunderstood my posts completely. It has nothing to do with how smart you are either. IMO, it has everything to do with the fact that you look at every Catholic problem with extraordinary charity and a hope that Catholicism will come out OK. You look at every LDS problem without charity and with the firm conviction that I am lying and LDS are ugly “without beauty.” Many Catholics disagree with you, but few post here.
The simplistic “apostolic succession” arguments everywhere present before Newman’s development thesis are false. The arguments invented by Rome in the Clementine Recognitions, are false. It is not true that Peter told Clement of Rome (or Linus or Cletus) that he had Peter’s authority to lead the entire church. ALL historical evidence points against this. Sullivan’s book explains to Catholic and non-Catholic that this is not a true historical position.
Father Sullivan argues that there was a DEVELOPMENT of authority and that this DEVELOPMENT was not merely human, but was divine. There is zero “empirical evidence” for this DIVINE development and it appears far more HUMAN (natural) than the sudden and powerful restoration claims from Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. The “empirical tools” you celebrate decimate all supernatural especially the NEW ideas offered by Cardinal Newman (and originally rejected by many and viewed with suspicion by Rome) or the ideas of Eno or Sullivan.
It takes a great deal of CHARITY to dig into Pope Francis’s teaching and not believe he is CHANGING Catholicism in ways that destroy it AND indicate that he or his predecessors are not infallible. Simple conclusion with simple thinking result in “fatal flaws.” Pope Francis is teaching that those who have sex outside valid marriages can in some instances continue to partake of the Eucharist. He just is. I originally came across “Catholic” folks who claimed that this was heresy and …. I dug into it and now I think it is quite problematic, but not a “fatal flaw.” (A “fatal flaw” being a single thing or group of things that PROVE a religion, paradigm, invention, … cannot be true, helpful, work, …).
The whole DEVELOPMENT theory of Newman “explodes when every claim he made can be subjected to empirical evidence and shown to be false.”
There is no supernatural claim that has ever been demonstrated via empirical evidence. Not Fatima, not the Eucharist, not Newman’s theory, and not Joseph Smith’s or Pope Stephen’s claim to have authority.
No, you again misunderstand. My point is that your “empirical standards” decimate the belief structure that includes supernatural authority present in Pope Francis, Transubstantiated Eucharists, and numerous other things I think you probably believe in as a Catholic (of course maybe this is my mistake, maybe you reject the supernatural and think Catholicism is a good social club).
My point is that we have empirical evidence that within 1 year Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are claiming that they UNIQUELY have authority from God and within 4-5 years we have empirical evidence that they claim Peter gave them this authority. It took >150 years for any empirical evidence that the Bishop of Rome claimed he uniquely possessed Peter’s authority and the earliest responses we have from those outside of Rome are puzzlement and rejections of these claims as unique and false.
It is possible that God guided the RISE OF THE PAPACY, it is possible that humans trying to have more power guided the RISE OF THE PAPACY. It is possible that God revealed truth to Joseph Smith, it is possible that Joseph Smith invented claims associated with God communicating to him.
The TOOLS you celebrate decimate Catholic truth claims just as they do LDS truth claims and yet you call yourself a Catholic and celebrate your “smarts.”
That is my point. Of course perhaps you are the “bright” here and I am just not smart.
I was actually asking if Stephen agreed with you when you said:
But, Stephen has not answered.
It occurs to me that you might be trying to trick me (which would be unfortunate).
You STRONGLY imply that the church will NEVER allow those who participate in “Sexual activity outside a valid marriage, which is between a man & woman” to “partake of the Eucharist because there is no presumption that they are in mortal sin.”
If this is your view, then you could have said it 10 years ago and I would have agreed with you. But today that is precisely what Pope Francis is advocating.
The simplistic conclusion about how Pope Francis is CHANGING Catholicism and going against what Pope John Paul II taught are readily expressed by folks who claim to be Catholic. Cardinals, scholars, and priests have expressed grave concerns with Pope Francis’s changes. I do not think his changes are absolutely a “Fatal Flaw,” but that is only because I wanted to know the BEST way these changes could be understood. I still think they are quite problematic, just not absolute proof that Pope Francis is anti-Catholic. I also think the “simplistic conclusion about Mormonism” you and Stephen offer are less solid (and therefore less problematic) than this concerning Pope Francis.
What you offer does not refute anything in my post.
Catholicism is beautiful.
Catholicism is smart.
Catholicism has Apostolic Authority.
You misrepresent the conclusions of Catholic authors.
Mormonism is an invention and not a restoration.
Mormonism is no longer Christian.
You do seem to be changing your loaded question. Maybe you realize that an odd looking apple is not an orange but maybe it is in fact an apple. Of course this has nothing to do with this thread.
You also seem to realize that there was no talk of a Melchizedek Priesthood until 4-5 years after the founding of Mormonism. And this is the subject of this thread.
But there is no empirical evidence that the claims are true considering:
Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon has been scientifically proven false as I said earlier in the thread from Joesph Smith, Spencer Kimball and my personal experience.
His claim about the Book of Abraham has been scientifically proven false.
His understanding of a Melchizedek Priesthood is biblically false. You have had several chances to prove otherwise, but you can’t, because it isn’t there. Even the Book of Mormon does not say anything about a Melchizedek Priesthood. Just a priest named Melchizedek who prefigures Christ; basically copying the Bible.
They didn’t act like they received Christian authority of any kind. Cowdery returned to the Methodist Church, and Smith engaged in adultery then claimed polygamy.
They did not talk about the authority and visits from St. Peter until 4-5 years after the founding. This caused a major rewrite of D&C 27 in 1835 from the same “revelation” published in the Book of Commandments in 1833, as presented in this thread. William McLellin wrote in his diaries before 1836 that he had never heard Joseph Smith or Cowdery talk of receiving any Priesthood from heaven until 1834. These later claims are one of the reasons William McLellin lost confidence in Joseph Smith and was excommunicated in 1838.
You appear to continue to misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that your “test” with which you refute Mormonism refutes Catholicism.
Agreed, but this is not proven by “empirical evidence.”
Agreed, but this is not proven by “empirical evidence.”
Disagree, but this is a FAITH based statement that cannot be proven by empirical evidence.
No, you misunderstand here again. Newman, Sullivan, and Eno offer a DEVELOPMENT theory to explain Catholic authority that is based on FAITH and not empirical evidence. This DEVELOPMENT theory is not absolutely refuted by “empirical evidence.” The reasons for authority offered by the Roman church centuries after Peter’s death are refuted by “empirical evidence” and no scholar believes they are factual accounts of real events. Hence the need for DEVELOPMENT theories more than a thousand years later.
I have not seen in the writings of the ancient church a theory like Newman’s. I have seen what is known to be fictitious in the Clementine Recognitions. Newman’s theory was rejected by many educated Catholics as being Protestant and was viewed with suspicion in Rome. Today scholarship has shown that without Newman’s theory there is no solid historical narrative that allows for Catholic authority so everyone CHANGED to embrace it.
In other words, history proved your church wrong and your church CHANGED its narrative (sound familiar?).
Not something proven by empirical evidence, but I acknowledge your faith in this.
I don’t know how I changed my question.
Actually, you have been shown that the BOM publish in 1830 and “translated” in 1829 mentions Melchizedek’s priesthood and says he is a “high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father” then it is explained in the BOM that we mention Melchizedek because of his “mighty faith.” This is quite clearly a mention of the “Melchizedek Priesthood” in the BOM supporting the mention by the author of Hebrews in the Bible.
Newspapers reported in 1831 that sometime before this Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were claiming that they possess unique authority nowhere present in the world.
Before 1834, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are telling folks that this authority is a result of Peter passing it to them.
This period of time (immediately to 5 years) in which we see “empirical evidence” that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claim to have been visited by Peter to receive Peterine authority is contrasted with the 150+ years before the Bishop of Rome claims to have Peterine authority, the 300+ years before the Roman church invents a document claiming Peter selected Clement of Rome, and the 1000+ years before some DEVELOPMENT theory is presented that is not contradicted by empirical evidence.
I am not holding Catholicism to a standard that Mormonism does not meet, you are holding Mormonism to a standard Catholicism does not meet.
I thought I would ask you about what your anti-Mormon position is.
Earlier you said:
I responded by telling you that Catholics do believe Peter was available.
You have now recently said:
So do you believe Peter was not available? Or do you believe that Catholics believe in apparitions and miracles (just not the same ones LDS speak about as being true).
To be more accurate, you should say that you do not think believing the early and consistent claims of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery is warrented because of the things you THINK you see coming from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery after these claims.
I do not think I should believe in DEVELOPMENT theories from Newman, Sullivan, and Eno because they do not align with what was claimed for centuries and can no longer be believed because of the evidence against those claims.
You have failed to show the Joseph Smith claimed that ALL American Indians were descended from Lehi’s group (he didn’t). That Lehi lived in ancient America has not been proven false by science. Long before DNA, intelligent LDS who actually read the BOM rejected the idea that ALL American Indians were descended from Lehi’s band. Today it is fairly common for LDS to believe that Lehi’s group landed among “Others” in the Americas. This is a CHANGE in LDS views. It is SIMILAR to many CHANGES in Catholic views. If this means that the CoJCoLDS could not be God’s church then Catholicism couldn’t be God’s church either.
Today it is fairly common for LDS to believe that Lehi’s group landed among “Others” in the Americas. This is a CHANGE in LDS views. It is SIMILAR to many CHANGES in Catholic views. If this means that the CoJCoLDS could not be God’s church then Catholicism couldn’t be God’s church either.
I thought you were probably confused when you spoke about the Book of Moses earlier.
The sourcing of the Book of Abraham is the only large problem I see for LDS truth claims. There are a handful of responses, but I find none completely satisfactory. Clearly, I think net-net LDS truth claims are will supported and Catholic truth claims have problems that are bigger than the BOA, but I do think the origins of the BOA are a problem.
Joseph Smith’s understanding of the Melchizedek Priesthood is not inconsistent with what the author of Hebrews wrote. It is the Catholic understanding of Hebrews that is inconsistent with LDS truth claims, not the Bible itself. You have been told this (and some Catholic authors -Mark Shea- speak of “Melchizedek Priesthood” as you have been shown and they have no connection to Joseph Smith only the Bible).
I do not agree that the facts you claim to see mean they are not acting like they have authority. Cowdery believed Joseph Smith lost his way, but he never denied the authority. He worshiped in a Methodist Church which denied the need for authority, but he ultimately returned to the CoJCoLDS and he never denied what he witnessed.
The editing was always claimed to be a correcting back to the original understanding. It is consistent with the 1829 BOM and the claims made and recorded in newspapers in 1831 and 1832.
And again, this pales in comparison to the CHANGE in narrative evident in Newman’s now accepted development theory.
The Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood, as invented by Joseph Smith, cannot be found in the Bible. Like all of your claims it has not been proven, only claimed. It is not there or in the Book of Mormon. All you have to do is quote the Letter to the Hebrews, but you haven’t been able to do it. It is not there.
I know what you asked. Since agreement is so important for you I was just letting you know I agreed with Stephen.
This was your question.
My answer remains the Catholic Church will not allow those who are NOT in a valid marriage to receive the Eucharist. Sexual sin has always been and always will be sexual sin. That you believe Pope Francis is trying to change this shows your lack of understanding in the Catholic Church.
The Church has not changed any of her core views.
The claim “editing as a correction” is not consistent with the facts. Just give me a few non-Mormon newspaper quotes that recorded it. That last newspaper quote provided by fairmormon didn’t help your case.
Joseph Smith wrote, “In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” Times & Seasons, March 1, 1842, Page 707.
“The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years—six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ—a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here.
The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.” - President Spencer W. Kimball, Acting President of the Council of the Twelve; April 1971
Being part Apache I find these words offensive. I would think that through their stories something like this would have been passed down through all Indian tribes. If these “prophets” were in fact true they would have known that all Indians from Alaska to Argentina came from Asia. There is no Jewish DNA in our blood. I would think it would have came up in my fathers DNA test. But it did not. I seen the results and none were present. And its not just me that finds it offensive but my Navajo brothers as well.