Infant LDS vs. Infant Catholicism

[Quiddity]

For some time now, I’ve grown attached to using LDS as a modern “model” of what my Church used to be like. Like an infant version of Catholicism. Perhaps, slightly slanderous to some and no big deal to others. At any rate, the comparison is a valid one in my opinion.

Have you noticed the struggles LDS have gone through? Everything from blacks, homosexuality, female clergy, FLDS, and the basic need to be liked (I bump into so many LDS with this mentality), etc. Imagine reading this a 1,000 years for now. How would you interpret this?

Personally, I don’t know how any rational person could read the LDS history and Catholic history and not think “they’ve lost there way”……or at least interpret them very similarly.

Now……I’m familiar with some LDS responses on this and I actually think they make valid points. However, they only become valid points if one judges LDS based on there own church government and authority. And I’m willing to do this when examining the LDS claim and still conclude that it is not the true Church.

However, I hardly meet an LDS that ever returns this favor. In other words, if LDS tell me that there stance on homosexuality is “X” and it’s official because it went through the correct authoritative process. I can care less if Joe the Mormon tells me otherwise; I’ll go with what is official within your own system.

Do LDS do the same? Or do you believe Joe the Catholic on what our position is on “X”?

If not, why wouldn’t you follow that model with regard to history?

For example: You find a quote in early history that seems to support your view of the Godhead.

Even though we have a system in place (Councils) that pretty much trumps whatever Catholics said throughout history. Yet, LDS will stick to that one quote.

Thoughts?

 

[SoyLeche]

Maybe it's just late in the day on Friday - but I don't really follow what you were trying to say in that post....

 

[Katzpur]

Victor, I'm sorry but you lost me, too. Completely.

 

[Quiddity]

It's my understanding that LDS must believe the Great Apostasy was supposed to happen. Whether this can be proven in light of what I mentioned above (follow Catholic system) is highly questionable IMO.

The idea is that Catholic authority was stripped from the earth due to our rebellious ways. Even though, from a Martian's point of view...LDS is no different in this respect.

 

[SoyLeche]

It's my understanding that LDS must believe the Great Apostasy was supposed to happen. Whether this can be proven in light of what I mentioned above (follow Catholic system) is highly questionable IMO.

The idea is that Catholic authority was stripped from the earth due to our rebellious ways. Even though, from a Martian's point of view...LDS is no different in this respect.

I agree - it can't be proven.

 

[Quiddity]

I agree - it can't be proven.

Love that honesty.

However...

Doesn't LDS claim rely heavily on something that can't be proven?

I mean, it's not like asking "Prove God's existance"...this is recorded history.

 

[SoyLeche]

So, just to be sure I understand.

You hear a lot of LDS people talk about how the current Catholic church is different in many ways from the church of the 1st couple centuries AD. They use this as "proof" that the apostasy occurred.

You see that there are various differneces between the LDS church of the 1840s (when things were pretty much starting to get settled) and today and give a resounding "so what" to those claiming apostasy in the Catholic church.

I agree with your assessment. If the Catholic church were true it could still evolve from what it was to what it is and remain true. The same is the case for the LDS church.

If the apostasy did occur, though - we would expect that the earlier writings would be "less corrupted", and therefore closer to the "true" church. Since we pretty much take the apostasy as a given (from the First Vision experience, when Joseph Smith was told that none of the churches around at the time were true), we look to the earlier records. When they line up with what has been revealed in the latter days, we get excited about it.

 

[SoyLeche]

Love that honesty.

However...

Doesn't LDS claim rely heavily on something that can't be proven?

I mean, it's not like asking "Prove God's existance"...this is recorded history.

Not really. Not much more than the Catholic church does (on the claim that the apostasy didn't occur).

 

[Katzpur]

It's my understanding that LDS must believe the Great Apostasy was supposed to happen.

I don't know that I'd say it was "supposed to" happen, but I would say that, IMO, it was almost inevitable, and also that the Apostles saw the beginnings of it.

Whether this can be proven in light of what I mentioned above (follow Catholic system) is highly questionable IMO.

I don't think such things can be proven conclusively one way or the other. If you could prove it didn't happen, I would undoubtedly become a Catholic. If I could prove it did, you might consider becoming LDS. I think all either of us have is evidence that we believe supports our position. I'm sure that either you or I could argue in favor of our respective positions well enough that a completely objective observer would be hard pressed to make a decision based on that evidence alone.

The idea is that Catholic authority was stripped from the earth due to our rebellious ways. Even though, from a Martian's point of view...LDS is no different in this respect.

Actually, we believe "rebelliousness" took place before the Church known today as the Roman Catholic Church even came into existance. Of course you believe that, regardless of the name by which it is known today, it is the same Church the Apostles themselves were a part of. The problem is that the "Church", even in 40 A.D. or 50 A.D. was so splintered that I don't know how this dilemma could be resolved.

 

[Quiddity]

So, just to be sure I understand.

You hear a lot of LDS people talk about how the current Catholic church is different in many ways from the church of the 1st couple centuries AD. They use this as "proof" that the apostasy occurred.

You see that there are various differneces between the LDS church of the 1840s (when things were pretty much starting to get settled) and today and give a resounding "so what" to those claiming apostasy in the Catholic church.

I agree with your assessment. If the Catholic church were true it could still evolve from what it was to what it is and remain true. The same is the case for the LDS church.

If the apostasy did occur, though - we would expect that the earlier writings would be "less corrupted", and therefore closer to the "true" church. Since we pretty much take the apostasy as a given (from the First Vision experience, when Joseph Smith was told that none of the churches around at the time were true), we look to the earlier records. When they line up with what has been revealed in the latter days, we get excited about it.

So...are you saying that it's simply a matter of degree? In otherwords, if we were only "a little" corrupt, that would somehow change things?

Just want to make sure I read you correctly.

 

[Quiddity]

Not really. Not much more than the Catholic church does (on the claim that the apostasy didn't occur).

Not really...we aren't claiming the Church went completely south. That's a big difference. Either it's true or it's not.

 

[Katzpur]

So...are you saying that it's simply a matter of degree? In otherwords, if we were only "a little" corrupt, that would somehow change things?

Just want to make sure I read you correctly.

Victor, I think the issue concerns authority more than it does doctrine. You or any other Catholic could probably understand that position more than the average Protestant could. If any Church was teaching all of the correct doctrines, those doctrines would not be the slightest bit "corrupt." But if that Church was not led by individuals to whom God had given the authority to lead it, it would, in effect, be in a state of apostasy regardless of the doctrines it taught. That's why I have always found more to agree with in Catholicism than in Protestantism. Catholicism at least recognizes the need for authority, whereas Protestantism doesn't.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't know that I'd say it was "supposed to" happen, but I would say that, IMO, it was almost inevitable, and also that the Apostles saw the beginnings of it.

That's even worse IMO. It's like starting something you knew never had a chance.

I don't think such things can be proven conclusively one way or the other. If you could prove it didn't happen, I would undoubtedly become a Catholic. If I could prove it did, you might consider becoming LDS. I think all either of us have is evidence that we believe supports our position. I'm sure that either you or I could argue in favor of our respective positions well enough that a completely objective observer would be hard pressed to make a decision based on that evidence alone.

This isn't like arguing something mystical about our respective faiths. Neither of us have any trouble believing Christ can walk on water and I'm sure I'd believe everything about the LDS tablets if I was simply convinced LDS was true. In that regard, sure, we will both be convinced of our own beliefs.

However, I'm treating this as a court room setting. You guys present your evidence based on history and we do the same. I don't say this to be boastful, arrogant, or pompous....but....the court hearing wouldn't last very long as the mountain of evidence to support our understanding of history is astounding.

Granted, it's not an easy task, but nonetheless it's there.

Actually, we believe "rebelliousness" took place before the Church known today as the Roman Catholic Church even came into existance. Of course you believe that, regardless of the name by which it is known today, it is the same Church the Apostles themselves were a part of. The problem is that the "Church", even in 40 A.D. or 50 A.D. was so splintered that I don't know how this dilemma could be resolved.

Well, apparently having 12 Apostles and a prophet wouldn't of made a difference...

I'm sure you'd agree that this wouldn't be too difficult to do for God.

 

[Katzpur]

That's even worse IMO. It's like starting something you knew never had a chance.

You don't think God knew what Adam and Eve were going to do? Come on! He wasn't the slightest bit surprised. He put them in a perfect home and all they had to do to stay there was obey Him. He didn't make them disobey, but He definitely did start something He knew beforehand was going to end up with the fall of all of humanity.

This isn't like arguing something mystical about our respective faiths. Neither of us have any trouble believing Christ can walk on water and I'm sure I'd believe everything about the LDS tablets if I was simply convinced LDS was true. In that regard, sure, we will both be convinced of our own beliefs.

However, I'm treating this as a court room setting. You guys present your evidence based on history and we do the same. I don't say this to be boastful, arrogant, or pompous....but....the court hearing wouldn't last very long as the mountain of evidence to support our understanding of history is astounding.

Victor, I respectfully but strenuously disagree.

Well, apparently having 12 Apostles and a prophet wouldn't of made a difference...

You lost me.

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, I think the issue concerns authority more than it does doctrine. You or any other Catholic could probably understand that position more than the average Protestant could. If any Church was teaching all of the correct doctrines, those doctrines would not be the slightest bit "corrupt." But if that Church was not led by individuals to whom God had given the authority to lead it, it would, in effect, be in a state of apostasy regardless of the doctrines it taught. That's why I have always found more to agree with in Catholicism than in Protestantism. Catholicism at least recognizes the need for authority, whereas Protestantism doesn't.

Interesting...

So, you saying that we could of technically been teaching correctly and still be in a state of Apostasy?

That's new to me.....I must say.

 

[Katzpur]

Interesting...

So, you saying that we could of technically been teaching correctly and still be in a state of Apostasy?

That's new to me.....I must say.

Technically speaking, it could pretty much be true, although the problem is that without the authority to receive continued revelation from Christ and to administer the saving ordinances, the doctrines wouldn't have that much meaning. Take the period of time immediately after the last of the Apostles were martyred. Certainly there were groups of Christians who were still teaching 100% pure doctrine. How long that lasted is impossible to say.

 

[painted wolf]

It seems to me (and forgive me for butting in)... but the "apostasy" seems to have happened right after Christ died...

Right off the bat you have the various apostles splitting up and starting vastly different churches, Paul with the Catholics for example. The early Gnostic churches based on the writings of other apostles that other churches consider invalid... Twelve apostles, most of them lost to winds of history.

IMHO it hasn't gotten any better over time.

The LDS fragmented after Joseph Smith died as well.. perhaps this is just the way of faiths that are held together by charismatic central figures like prophets.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

You don't think God knew what Adam and Eve were going to do? Come on! He wasn't the slightest bit surprised. He put them in a perfect home and all they had to do to stay there was obey Him. He didn't make them disobey, but He definitely did start something He knew beforehand was going to end up with the fall of all of humanity.

There is a HUGE difference here. You'd agree that Christ is a "the fix" for man's fall, right? So, for every mess up we create, God has a "fix" for it, you'd agree? And what your basically saying is that God created the LDS Church as a fix to the early church, right? The problem is that the LDS formula is no different then that of early times. It's still ran by humans who can screw things up. So how is that a "fix"?

On another note, we have a slightly different understanding of the Fall.

Victor, I respectfully but strenuously disagree.

I expected as much...

Ever had a chance to actually listen to a debate on history between our theologians?

I've had the chance to listen to Bickmore, who is one of your leading theologians on this stuff.

Good stuff...

You lost me.

In otherwords, having the LDS hierarchy in place in early times wouldn't of made a difference.

 

[Quiddity]

Technically speaking, it could pretty much be true, although the problem is that without the authority to receive continued revelation from Christ and to administer the saving ordinances, the doctrines wouldn't have that much meaning. Take the period of time immediately after the last of the Apostles were martyred. Certainly there were groups of Christians who were still teaching 100% pure doctrine. How long that lasted is impossible to say.

Very interesting...

I will definately come back to this.

You will be quoted...

 

[Katzpur]

It seems to me (and forgive me for butting in)... but the "apostasy" seems to have happened right after Christ died...

I'd say it started right after the last Apostle died, but was not complete overnight.

Right off the bat you have the various apostles splitting up and starting vastly different churches, Paul with the Catholics for example. The early Gnostic churches based on the writings of other apostles that other churches consider invalid... Twelve apostles, most of them lost to winds of history.

I believe that the Apostles mentioned in the Bible were united. I see no evidence that they split up and started different churches.