Athanasias was not the only one.

Saint Irenaeus,(ca. AD 115-202) who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator.[4] Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in thesis: “We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.”

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) an early Christian leader in Alexandria:
“yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”

And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God…His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it.

Origen (ca. AD 185-251)
“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.  It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.”

Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)
“...the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons… in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest…”

Hippolytus (AD 170-236)
“Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son…The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory.”

That’s just a few of the early fathers on Theosis.  I didn’t even list Athanasius.

There is no exact date of the apostasy.  It was an ongoing thing that happened within the church as well as when the prophets were killed off.

Also, Athanasius was certainly not alone, and he was a latecomer to the teaching as well.

William R. Inge, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote:
“God became man, that we might become God” was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that “deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers…We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of deificari in Latin than Origen of apotheosis in Greek…To modern ears the word deification sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking.”

In Orthodoxy, deification has been described as “becoming by grace what God is by nature” or partaking of the divine energies (as opposed to the divine essence). It’s my understanding that the energies/essence distinction doesn’t fly in Latin theology, but perhaps I’m mistaken.
Anyway, my $0.02 worth.

I have always found such talk of the Great Apostasy annoying.  Every schism and group that attempts to trace back or claim apostolic teaching wants to say that the Church went off the rails at some point in the past only to be rectified by…them.  I find it pretty arrogant that somebody born in the past 200 years or even sooner has a better understanding of the deposit of the faith than say Athanasius or Augustine or Aquinas.  What is more likely, that the deposit of the faith remains sure or that Joseph Smith or Martin Luther or David Koresh or ...insert name of schismatic or religious whackjob here ... has it right?  The Catholic Church is what it is…I wish people would accept the fact and let it be.  After all, the lesson of Luther and every schismatic since is that you can easily form your own Church and believe what you want.  Those who don’t accept the Church teaching should just go.

If the critic is Protestant, direct his attention to II Peter 1:4. “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…”

Throughout the Old Testament, men are called “gods” numerous times. Christ himself asks, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods” (John 10:34).

This is why the Lord is sometimes referred to as “God of gods.” He is not simply a powerful creature among other slightly less powerful creatures—He is the very fountainhead of power and life.

This is a very effective tactic to take when Mormon missionaries knock on your door.  I always begin by telling them that I want to focus on the Great Apostasy, and ask for details on when it happened, and who was behind it, and what proof there was for it?  They NEVER have any specific examples of people, dates, or documents that support the notion of a Great Apostasy having occurred.  It is all vague.  Some have told me it happened suddenly at some non-specific time by unidentified persons, and others have told me that it happened very gradually over time, again by unspecified persons.

I have fun with them by pointing out that the early Church Fathers were, if anything, extremely sensitive to heresy, and had no problem writing about and criticizing heresies.  Why, then, are there no writings about the Great Apostasy, which was presumably the greatest heresy of them all?

The answer, of course, is that there was never any such thing.  As they depart, they always tell me they will come back with “more information” to answer my questions.  But they never come back.

Alan:

You talk as though theosis is a concept unknown to Catholics and Orthodox throughout their history until Joseph Smith told them about it.  This is, again, a demonstration of the fact that Mormonism is for people who know nothing about Church history.

Mormonism is a “great apostasy” from the indefectible and Catholic Church of Christ. Its heretical pretenses apart, it is by itself a manifest unbelief in the divine promise of Christ to his spotless Spouse, the pillar and foundation of the truth, in the new and eternal covenant.

In Christian theology, man does not partake of the divine essence, for that is infinite and incommunicable (although not in Mormonism, where he dwells on some planet). Man rather shares in the life of God through grace, by being joined to him as a body to a head, and as branches to the vine. Man partakes of the divine nature, both by being born again, and receiving in place of the old nature of the flesh, the new nature from the Spirit of Christ, and in the Holy Eucharist, where he receives, the body, blood, soul and divinity. Thus, when “we see Him, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is”

Mark: 2 Thessalonians 2:3 says there will be an apostasy.  It doesn’t say it will be “great,” but one can’t rule that out from the passage alone.  Have we as Catholics identified this apostasy, or who the man of lawlessness is?  If we can’t identify these two things, then why do we ask the Mormons to?

Because by [Athanasius’] time everybody (including Athanasius) looks, acts, talks, walks and quacks exactly like a Catholic…

Surely you don’t mean this. Athanasius spent much of his life in exile, thanks to the Arians. (He did, of course, receive succor and support from the Bishop of Rome.)

What you mean is that no one looks, acts, talks, walks, or quacks anything like a Mormon.

Mark, I responded to your article - not to get into a debate about Mormonism, but rather to point out a flaw I saw in your post.  You seemed to set up Athanasius as an isolated case and post “Apostasy” case, and even said the following:

“That passage from Athanasius, by the way, is a favorite with Mormon apologists (i.e, “God became man that man might become God.”) It gets trotted out as “proof” that early Christians were basically Mormon before the Great Apostasy”

Athanasius was so much later than the majority of Christian Fathers teaching Theosis, that it’s not only NOT used much by Mormon apologists, it’s more in the timeframe of Constantine’s gathering of the masses.

I didn’t come here to this Catholic site to argue for or against Mormonism.  I came here to add to what I believe should have been further examples, but were left our of your article.  There are plenty of anti Mormon sites out there doing what you are doing, I didn’t think the goal of the National Catholic Register is on the same mission against the Mormons that you seem to be.  I could be wrong of course, just an observation.

fwiw, my brother, who is a lifelong Catholic, and I have had many and varied discussions about this and other early church teachings that include this topic and others.  I respect him and his beliefs a great deal, and I don’t seek to destroy his faith in the Savior, and he respects my faith in Him as well.

Have a great day, and thanks for the discussion.

Alan

Alan

Reader John has it right. Athanasius is operating out an an Eastern context, in which the divine energies involve a participation in the life of God. Augustine failed to understand this, and his failure to do so, created many problems, including the Reformation. Mormonism is a reaction against the Calvinistic (hence Augustinian) nature of American and Western religious life in general Anyone who wishes to check this out further, might do well to look up the wors of my late friend and mentor,Father John Romanides. (romanity.org)

Alan:

Of course you came to argue for Mormonism.  And yes, the Athanasius quote is used times without number by Mormon apologists, as I can attest from experience.  Your other proof texts get trotted out too, always without reference to the life and theology of the person quoted (just as you did here).  The point remains, there was no great apostasy and so no need for Mormon re-revelation.

Jack: By “everybody” I’m talking about the ecclesiastical writers who come down to us under the title “Fathers of the Church”.  Even the dubious ones like Tertullian (became a Montanist) or Eusebius (semi-Arian) don’t believe anything like the stuff that Joe Smith cooked up.

Brent:  We ask Mormons to because their whole system is predicated on the claim of a great apostasy having happened in the early Church.  Surely it’s not too much to demand some evidence for that claim before blithely walking away from the Church Christ founded to embrace this piece of fiction as “revelation”?

Philip:

And yet, there is that quote from Athanasius in the Catechism and the Catholic Church speaking again and again of our being “partakers in the divine nature”.  So it would appear East and West aren’t all that far apart on this matter.

There is the same amount of proof regarding the catholic tradition as the mormon tradition. Even my two aunts who are catholic nuns are very aware of problems regarding the religion. Two popes excommunicated each other and started the roman catholic church and the orthodox church. Catholicism is full of holes and corruption. How could someone believe that the church that Jesus started was the same church hundreds or thousands of years later. Study the history of catholic leaders throughout time. There is nothing godly about them. Your disparaging comments regarding mormons are ridiculous considering you live in a glass house and belong to a religion that is failing and falling.

Phillip - Augustine, too, has some kind of idea of participation in the life of God.  I would argue that the whole of Confessions, in fact, is a prayer about a longing for that kind of theosis, so that by the last chapter, theosis becomes inevitable.

If I could add one comment about the Mormon missionaries—I always ask them whether, if the Great Apostasy did not happen, the LDS faith could be true, and to their credit, they always say “no.”

James, the notion that “there is the same amount of proof regarding the catholic tradition as the mormon tradition” is simply not correct.  I think it would be helpful if you were to spend some time reading the Church fathers (there are a number of great collections of their writings on Amazon, and you can pull them for free on other websites).  By doing so, you would learn that the Catholic Church is teaching the same doctrines that it taught in the 1st, 2nd, 3d, and 4th centuries, and beyond.  By contrast, not one Church father advances anything resembling any of the distinctive or core LDS doctrines. 

When you speak of corruption in the Church as an argument for the Great Apostasy, you are confusing two different things.  It is true that Catholic popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laypersons have not always lived up to (and still do not live up to) the doctrines of the Church.  But the doctrines they are supposed to live up are the ones that the Church has always taught.  There has been, and is, corruption within the Church, but it is a corruption of behavior not doctrine.

The Great Apostasy, by contrast, is the notion that the Church’s actual doctrines in the beginning were consistent with what the LDS Church teaches today, but that those doctrines were abandoned near the beginning of the Church’s existence (hence the Great Apostasy), which necessitated their restoration by Joseph Smith.  And there is not a shred of evidence in the historical record that any such Great Apostasy ever happened.

“There is the same amount of proof regarding the catholic tradition as the mormon tradition.”

There is FAR more evidence for the Catholic tradition than the Mormon one.  Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of the Church Fathers.

“Catholicism is full of holes and corruption.”

Breathlessly waiting for evidence that the Faith is contradictory….

“How could someone believe that the church that Jesus started was the same church hundreds or thousands of years later.”

I guess the whole “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is just Jesus winging it?  Ironically it is the Mormons who make Jesus out to be a liar on that score.

“Study the history of catholic leaders throughout time. There is nothing godly about them.”

So?  Judas betrayed Jesus.  Clearly the immoral actions of Christians, even high up the hierarchy (you can’t get higher than Apostle) was accounted for by Christ.

St. Augustine is something godly about Catholic leaders throughout history. John Chrysostom, Leo I, Gregory I, Pius V, Anselm of Canterbury, Robert Bellarmine, etc., etc.

“Two popes excommunicated each other and started the roman catholic church and the orthodox church.”

Did those two popes have names? What were they, and when did it happen?

@James:

The same amount? There is no proof of a great Apostasy; however, there is proof that Jesus established a Church that was later nicknamed the Catholic Church. Yes, and my neighbor who is a Bishop of the LDS Church says that if there is no great Apostasy then the whole LDS Church has the duty to become baptized and come into communion with the Catholic Church.

Yes, two Popes; however, one was the successor of the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Church.

What in Catholicism is full of holes? I hear this claim, but I do not see evidence for this claim at all. There are two parts of the Catholic Church, the human and the divine. The believers and Jesus, the believers scar the face and body of the Church, but Jesus still remains divine and is never corrupted.

When we see Him in Heaven we will be like Him,

Well….

So far I am finding that it is a my job sort of to show the folks around here by example that the Catholic Church is ancient and ever-living.

If there is something that I am pleased with and I would like to share. I don’t get in anybody’s face, I just share it.

I might go down like this, “Today is a good day. 1782-years ago at this moment XYZ happened.” Or… in response to a question about what I did over the weekend, I might mention that I visited the Trappist monks at the top of the mountain. Or, I’ll speak about the great coffee from the Carmelites.

I do often feel a great burden to be the best possible Catholic I can. That is a great weight some days. But, I know it is good to show my neighbors that I take pride in the science of making a cup of joe (I have an itricate ritual adapted from my beer-brewing routine). I show them that I do my best at every job I do (I am butcher).

I find that I must routinely express words like ‘virtue’ and ‘the XYZ Commandment is of course’ for even the most venial things. I find that Mary has been guiding me in learning the Psalms and Canticles. For example, I found that by spending an evening with Proverbs 31 I have been able to combat the Mormon concept of womanhood.

Also, I routinely must make use of proper philosophy. I don’t mention the ‘burning in the bosom’ but I’ll describe how emotions can lead one astray when given too much credence.

Most importantly, I must also within earshot of many make massive discourses (for 10 or 15 minutes at a time) how a particular thing is a complete travesty while at the same time pay huge compliments while at the same time nail down the lid of coffin with logical and devotion. For example, “Well of course, suffering is a gift from God. It says it right there in Paul’s letter.” Or, for example, “A good rule of thumb about devils is that they leave you alone when they got you thinking you’re doing good. If you got a great family and you feel comfortable in your skin. Bam! He’s got you.”

In a nutshell the task is to try to spur within them a great love for the Father. Hopefully, they will individually come to love Christ. I truly believe that the way to bring this about is through Mary’s Immculate Heart. Their is a great weakness in them I have found concerning Her.

It can be quite the burden to do this all and without causing scandal or taking unneccessary swipes.

What Alan has quoted from Saint Irenaeus ‘We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.” coresponds to what the Catholic Catechism (460) teaches;
‘The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
On the surface then it appears that there is little differnce between the Mormon and Catholic position. However if we compare the actual positions there is gulf between them.
The Mormon position;
God the Father has not always been God, but was once a man
like us God had to “progress” to his current status of godhood.
Men (but only Mormon men) can progress to be Gods like Heavenly Father           This process is called exaltation.
The Catholic/Orthodox Position;
The teaching of deification or theosis refers to the attainment of likeness of God. For many Church Fathers theosis firstly restores man to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, however it goes beyond that because Christ united the human and divine natures in Jesus’ person, it is now possible for us to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve.  “The Son of God became man, that we might become god”, [the second g is always lowercase since man can never become a God] indicates the concept beautifully. II Peter 1:4 says that we have become ” . . . partakers of divine nature.” That is we share in the divine nature not assume it.
Did Irenaeus believe along with the early Church that we assumed or as Mormons believe become exalted beings equal with the Father and that there are many Gods in existance?

Irenaeus writes (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).that;
“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God”

Mormons talk about a great apostacy and innovation of doctrine in the early Church however when examing the early history of the Mormon Church,
following Joseph’s death, several leaders vied for the right to lead the church. Among the issues that divided them, beside their competing claims to be Joseph’s legitimate successor, were Joseph’s secret teaching and practice of polygamy and Joseph’s recently introduced concept that God had not always been God, but was a once a man. Eventually, a sizable number of Latter day Saints, including Joseph’s widow Emma, joined together in following Joseph’s oldest living son, Joseph Smith III. This movement, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, broke with all the doctrinal innovations of the Nauvoo period, rejecting as unbiblical, polygamy, plurality of Gods, the elaborate Masonic-based temple ceremonies introduced to help men progress to being Gods, as well as the Book of Abraham.

Considering the topic being discussed here, I thought it would be worthwhile to supply a few *easy to read* EWTN links on this subject for the visiting non-Catholic (or young Catholic).

————

(1) Does the Catechism say that men become Gods?

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=438547&Pg=Forum6&Pgnu=1&recnu=16

http://origin.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=480702&Pg=Forum6&Pgnu=1&recnu=4

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=508055&Pg=Forum6&Pgnu=1&recnu=4

(2) Can man progress to Godhood?

[In recent years I have noticed a number of articles in Mormon literature concerning the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification, derived from the Greek term theosis. There are two logical linguistic fallacies the Mormon writers have committed concerning their use of Eastern Orthodox citations. First, they commit the fallacy of equivocation, pretending that the early Church fathers meant the same thing the Mormons do when they use similar terms. Second, they commit the fallacy of vicious abstraction, that is, the removal of a statement from its context and the changing of its argument.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MAN_BECO.htm

(3) The Great Apostasy?

[The Mormon “great apostasy” doctrine is a myth. There never has been?nor will there ever be?a complete apostasy. Jesus Christ promised that his Church, established on the solid rock of Peter, will remain forever. We have his Word on it.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON2.htm

(4) In the end… Truth prevails.

[For over 22 years of married life, I proudly proclaimed my Mormon affiliation. I told Anne that I had no intention of becoming a Catholic.

“I was born a Mormon, I was raised a Mormon, and I’m going to die a Mormon!” I exclaimed.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/mormhome.htm

Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventism: The moronic trinity of nitwitted phony-baloney religions.

I think it was St. Augustine who spoke of the progenitors of heresy as being extremely intelligent and learned.  Joseph Smith was not one of them. 
The idea of debating with Mormons is almost silly to me, though for some reason there faith is growing quite well.  But I could tell the Book of Mormon was a forgery simply by reading it - they claim it is written by several prophets over a period of several hundred years.  But why is it that the narrative voice is EXACTLY the same throughout every single book?  My answer is because it was written by one person, and not a very good writer at that. 
Personally, it seems to me that anyone with a basic education in Christian history and thought would be able to refute Mormon missionaries in the blink of eye.  I’m not really sure of the point I guess.

Part of the problem is that, like atheists and pagans alike, folks constantly confuse God and gods, often in imagining God as sort of the biggest and most powerful of a bunch of lesser gods, or the special-pleading choice of one god among many optional choices of gods.  Of course, this only shows that the imagination is a poor substitute for the intellect. 

There is nothing in common between the concept of God (Pure Act, the ground of being, Existence Itself, etc.) and, say Zeus or Odin (came into being, pass out of being, exists in the material world, Spandex-clad superhero, etc.)  It’s like classifying a Chevy Impala among the ungulates. 

Problem is, Latin (and I must suppose Greek) lacked as English lacks any way to speak of divine being in a distinct way from God.  We can come close when we speak of “participation in…” some divine attribute.  For example, Tom Aquinas wrote that the multiplicity of nature (diversity of species over time and space) was a way of finite being participating in the infinity of God—but moreover, the infinity predicated of God was neither an infinity of number (since God is one) nor an infinity of extent (since God is not corporeal).  The good for material beings consist in attaining all that is appropriate to their natures.  (As we say, She is a good doctor, because she has mastered many of the healing arts.)  Since material being is finite, these goods are themselves necessarily limited.  But God is unlimited; and his infinity must be understood in this manner. 

Hence, we may participate in God’s divinity and become godlike without by the remotest stretch becoming God.  The latter is a logical contradiction and the belief in it, as well as in a material “God” dwelling on some far-off planet (which we may as well call Olympus) marks the believer as essentially pagan.

Yes….what you are witnessing here are Mormon evangelicals using Catholic teachings to support Joseph Smith’s exaltation of becoming gods….

Problem is that when you confront them for taking pieces out of context, they deflect or deny or come back with insulting and even more unsupportive statements…the problem is that they are a very deceitful lot.

They refuse to check the footnotes….that show that we partake in divine grace through the Cross, but we never become gods of our own.  Adam and Eve disobeyed God and tasted the forbidden fruit to be as gods, while ignoring the tree they could eat, the Tree of Life.

Partaking in divine grace is partaking in the sacraments and the greatest gift the Lord can bestow on us is communion with Him and all creation.

The Cross is the sign of contradiction to pride, power, and greed.

The Mormons are using St. Athanasius and St. Irenaeus as miraculous proof in support of Joseph Smith’s teachings….Deseret News had an article in this past May.

Just as the Vatican had to stop the Mormons from accessing sacramental records for the dead, it now has to work to offset the misrepresentation Mormonism is now doing to our faith in the Eucharist.  CCC460 needs an addendum added, ‘we partake in divine grace, but do not become gods’.

I see that the NCRegister SPAM filter has temporarily *blocked* my earlier post.  Oh well, that’s fine.  Must be a good reason.

In any case, it will most likely appear in the next 12-24 hours (at its original position and time)... it usually does.  Nothing really special about it, I just simply included a few EWTN links for the visiting non-Catholic to read on this overall topic.  If you are interested check back in 24 hours.

In the meantime… remember this:

There is only ONE God!

Isaiah 43:10: “You are my witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.”

Isaiah 44:6: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.’”

If anyone’s interested, the LDS go-to text on the Great Apostasy was written over 100 years ago by James Talmage.  It’s available on Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_great_apostasy.html?id=yJn69K_Q0y0C

and via Wikipedia (The Great Apostasy book) in PDF and TXT formats. 

It’s.. um.. enlightening.

Since we’re talking about weak points in Mormon theology, here’s another one I find interesting.  According to LDS belief, faithful Mormons can one day create and populate their own planet.  If that’s true, aren’t those newly-created people worshiping an inferior god if it’s our god that ‘promoted’ some dude that kept all of the LDS commandments on this planet?  And it’s then logical to figure our god must have reached the same ultimate reward.  If this is true, that means there was some other god somewhere that determined his ‘eligibility’ and rewarded him.  So why don’t we worship the god that made our god God?  Where did the process begin?  If it had a definitive starting point, why don’t we worship that original god?

Unfortunately, you won’t get much more than “I don’t know” from LDS folks when asked about this conundrum.

I would not recommend a Catholic talking to a Mormon missionary at their door. These Mormon missionaries are to well trained.

It seems that a lot of the debate about whether Catholics (or the Fathers) agree with Mormons on Theosis of humans in the next life, is semantic, much like the wastes of time over whether Catholics “worship” Mary or not. It depends on what “god” means. 
Moreover, it deflects us from the bigger question: was GOD always God. Do they find any evidence that any of the Fathers believed God the Father was once “like us”? Obviously the Son was, but by “emptying Himself” first; He didn’t start out like us and evolve.

As a former Mormon I have a stake in this. I think the best short response is to ask them about Matthew 16 where Jesus says he will build his church on Peter ( the rock). Mormons and protestants believe he did. But then he says ” the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it.” Mormons and protestants have to believe that Jesus got that part wrong. If he didn’t they should be Catholic. If he did get it wrong they shouldn’t follow Him at all. The protestants are in this same spot after all one of Luther’s most powerful texts is “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” This means that the “gates of hell” have prevailed.

Actually, Matthew 16 isn’t a good scripture to use, because there are 3 different interpretations of Peter and the rock, from the 3 different Christian perspectives.

Catholics interpret Peter to be the rock
Protestants interpret Christ to be the rock
Restorationists (LDS) view revelation to be the rock

Here’s a fun exercise in scripture comprehension.  See if you can find and understand all 3 interpretations…

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If the Mormon knows catholic history he will see that the gates of hell have prevailed with the inquisitions and evil popes.

Jane-

Or even Popess Joan.

The key is not actually whether peter or Christ is “the rock”. The grammar really doesn’t support either the protestant or the Mormon interpretation ( esp. the Mormon, since revelation is not at issue).  The question is not whether we have had bad deeds ( we have, e.g the inquisition) or really bad popes ( we have). The real question is whether these people have prevailed. The key word is prevailed. THEY HAVE NOT. As to revelation if the continuing guidance of the Catholic Church doesn’t count as revelation then what would?

“for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

That’s the LDS interpretation of why revelation is the most important and binding issue in this passage, and the “rock” upon which the church is built… continuing revelation.  Without it, everything else is just flesh and blood, or man made.  Peter was singled out because he was the only one who got it, and so became the head or leader of the Church, as per Mormon understanding.

Guidance is not the same thing as revelation.

@Leslie,

Just b/c there are several interpretations doesn’t mean they are all correct or that we cannot / should not use Matt. 16.  Your scripture comprehension test tellingly stops at verse 18.  Continue the game until Jesus stops speaking in verse 19 and see if you can still claim all three interpretations hold:

15. (Jesus) said to them, But who do you (plural) say I am?
16. Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17. Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19. I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Also, note the Peter means “rock”.  Jesus doesn’t rename revelation “rock”, he doesn’t rename “faith” rock - he renames Simon “rock”.

@Leslie,

Popess Joan?  Is your grasp of church history so poor you actually don’t know this is a myth?  Really?  You can read about this on Wikipedia (hardly a Catholic source)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

Please.

Nathan, no, not a wiki reference.  The Catholic Encyclopedia.  It’s pretty thorough, although obviously the Church’s take is that it’s a fable, but it goes into the historical facts about her.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm

As to verse 19, yes it’s relevant, but as I stated, Peter was chosen as the head of the church, so yes, he did have the power to bind on earth and in heaven.  That doesn’t change the meaning.

@Leslie,

What do you mean it doesn’t change the meaning?  Your claiming the rock could be three things

1. Faith
2. Revelation
3. Simon

But if you don’t cut Jesus off before he continues to describe what being the rock involves (having the Keys to the Kingdom) two of your three options evaporate.

Furthermore, as I pointed out above Peter just means “rock”.  Christ is saying:

17. Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18. And so I say to you, you are ROCK (peter), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Could Jesus have been clearer?  He doesn’t say “I am Rock (peter)and upon this rock I will build my church” nor does he say “Revelation is Rock (peter) and upon this rock I will build my church.” 

Also, your Mormon view still claims the Church, which Christ is founding in Matt 16 even in your other interpretations, will last forever.  Thus, still no Great Apostasy, making the argument rather moot.

Leslie,

What do you mean it doesn’t change the meaning?  Your claiming the rock could be three things

1. Faith
2. Revelation
3. Simon

But if you don’t cut Jesus off before he continues to describe what being the rock involves (having the Keys to the Kingdom) two of your three options evaporate.

Furthermore, as I pointed out above Peter just means “rock”.  Christ is saying:

17. Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18. And so I say to you, you are ROCK (peter), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Could Jesus have been clearer?  He doesn’t say “I am Rock (peter)and upon this rock I will build my church” nor does he say “Revelation is Rock (peter) and upon this rock I will build my church.” 

Also, your Mormon view still claims the Church, which Christ is founding in Matt 16 even in your other interpretations, will last forever.  Thus, still no Great Apostasy, making the argument rather moot.

In my experience of talking with Mormons, the best was was to focus on historical facts—“when was the great apostasy?” was the best option. Do not get into a discussion of the trinity/godhead/etc - these topics are just too complex and the language is too nuanced. They will nod and say “we believe in a trinity too,” without actually believing the same thing. At one time the Book of Mormon opened with an intro that declared all other churches evil, my tactic then was to simply challenge them to prove Catholicism was wrong (same basic idea as pinpointing a fictional apostasy). However, they have since removed that line.

In general, none of this will work though. Question either Mormons or JWs too much and you are suddenly “attacking” their religion and in particular them. “Stop attacking me!” is a common response from my Mormon cousin. It’s sad that their religion is so weak that they must resort to this as a defense. At least the Mormons would read other literature, the JWs couldn’t read anything but what they were given by their controllers or even listen to another faith’s prayers.

Nathan,  Christ continues to carry the thought from the previous sentence into the next one. It is not isolated.  He was not finished with what he was saying. Thou art Peter (Which means Petra – Rock), and upon this Rock, I will build my Church.

Now, take a moment to think about this. The question is, upon what will Christ build his Church? The text does not refer to Peter because Peter is known as Simon Bar-Jona, but Christ referred to him as Petra/Rock. When we look at it, Christ was not referring to Peter himself, but Peter’s confession – Thou art the Christ, Son of the Living God. It is Peter’s confession as to who Christ is, a confession that came about by Divine Revelation. Meaning, Christ will not build his church on a Human figure, but on a principle doctrine – Revelation as to who Jesus Christ is – Son of the Living God. This is what the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Again, the context is based on two questions and one principle truth: Who do men say that I am? Who do you say that I am? Flesh and Blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father which is in Heaven and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail.

In short, the Church Christ came to build, and the reason why Christ bestowed upon Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is based upon divine Revelation, and that divine revelation is to whom Jesus Christ is. It is the foundation to which Christ’s church is to be built upon – not His Church being built. This is the meaning of the context.

I think we will need to agree to disagree, and I have to log off for the day, but thought it should be stated this is how Mormons view the context of that passage.

Have a great day.

Leslie,
Sorry to see you left. Your argument is disingenuous.  Back to Matt 16, Christ clearly tells Simon Bar-Jona “You are Peter (i.e. You are Rock)”. Then, in the next breath, Christ declares, “and upon this Rock I will build my Church.”  I’m not sure how much clearer this could possibly be. Simon is the Rock upon which Christ will build his Church, which is why Simon then receives the Keys to the Kingdom (a reference to Isaiah 22:22) - and is entrusted to lead the Church.  Earlier you claimed Peter was singled out b/c “he was the only one who got it” - wrong, Martha did to (see John 11:27). If faith in Christ’s identity was sufficient to become the rock then we would see Martha become another Rock (and have her name changed as well) after she makes the same confession of faith.  Yet she neither receives a new name, the Keys to the Kingdom, nor the powers to bind and loose. Furthermore, think about what Peter’s confession is “You are the Christ.” What is Jesus’s reply “You are the rock (Peter).” They are parallel.  Peter confesses who Jesus really, individually is and Jesus, in turn, reveals who Peter really, individually is.  The one is the Messiah, the other the rock upon which the Church is built.  Your line of arguing would suggest that Jesus isn’t really the Messiah, but his following the Father’s will is - in the same way Simon isn’t really the Rock, but his divinely revealed faith is.  The simple fact that Jesus renames Simon “Rock” is unavoidable.  If He wanted to make a point about faith being the foundation of His Church, He chose an odd time to re-name Simon Bar-Jona.

Let’s further clarify why the Mormon interpretation of Matt 16 is utterly insufficient.  Think about what is taking place. Jesus asks the Twelve who people are saying He is and who they think He is.  Simon gets it right (because God the Father reveled it through him). If the Mormon view is correct we would expect Jesus to tell the Twelve how important faith / revelation is.  But Jesus doesn’t do this, instead of focusing on faith / revelation He focuses on Simon.  He explains how Simon came up with the right answer (faith / revelation), but the focus is certainly on Simon. Jesus mentions faith / revelation exactly one time, while going on at length about Simon.  First, He declares Simon to be “blessed.” After explaining why (b/c God revealed the truth about Jesus through him) – He renames Simon, who henceforth will be called Rock (Peter).  Rock was NOT a name before this.  To explain why He has renamed Simon “Rock”, Jesus explains “upon this Rock I will build my church.”  And He continues, showing Simon exactly what being “Rock” entails, having the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose.  To suggest Jesus was really trying to say faith / revelation is the rock is simply disingenuous.
Interestingly enough, none of this really matters in the Mormon debate.  Regardless of what Christ is building His church on in Matt 16, he is building a Church which even the “gates of hell” won’t stand against.  Even under Leslie’s argument, He is still building a Church that will last forever, to suggest this Church utterly disappeared within a few hundred yrs until the nineteenth century contradicts Christ’s very promise, no matter what He was using as the foundation stone of His church.

I love the “if my church’s theology is bunk, then yours is too” line of argument.

Nathan, for fear of being dragged back into this, I will add one last thing.  It’s interesting that just FOUR VERSES later, in Matthew 16:23,  Jesus calls Peter “Satan”, and says to him… “Get behind me”.  Peter later denies the Christ 3 times and weeps at his lack of faith.  So much for him being the rock.

Revelation from God is the only unchanging truth.  Men are fallible, God and His ways are not.  Peter later receives the keys to the kingdom on the Mount of Transfiguration, with the appearances of Moses and Elias to Peter, James and John, with Christ.  It is this incident, where we believe the keys and authority were passed, and he later became the head of the Church.  But it is the rock of revelation that is the unchanging factor that keeps the kingdom of God alive among men, no matter what era of time they live in.

I’m not going to continue to argue for Mormonism on a Catholic site, I think it’s bad form, but for what it’s worth, Peter, with James and John, as resurrected personages,  appeared to Joseph Smith in 1829 and bestowed the keys to him and 2 others, according to the LDS view.

I’m done, I’ve said my peace, and I really do have to run.  We’re not going to agree, obviously, but that’s it in a nutshell about our beliefs on that passage. 

Cheers.

Why this debating Mormonism Vs. Catholicism? Isn’t the crux of it whether it’s ok to elect a Mormon or not as POTUS? That’s the real issue this blog writer is asserting w/o saying. As a Catholic I believe that Romney’s faith should not be a problem since there have been other POTUS who have had faiths contrary to Catholic belief. None of them has attempted to convert the nation to their faith. They simply became the leader of the nation - not the resident DC high priest. We don’t need to be so concerned w/a person’s faith as long as they are moral, ethical and experienced stable individuals who do not try to takeover religious guidance of this nation.
There is absolutely no evidence that Romney has any intention of doing the latter. He was GOV of MASS and did not try to enforce his beliefs there on others. What IS against Romney is “fear” which people are imposing upon Catholics and people of other faiths - which is strictly scare tactics coming from w/in the writer of this blog and others like it and him. Catholics don’t defend the faith by intimidation or fear. We project the faith by love of others - including Mormons.

RE Leslie,

Yes, Peter is called Satan (tempter) by Jesus and denied him, which further supports Catholic teaching that 1) Peter can only TEACH the truth about Jesus and 2) he is liable to sin and fall as any man.

The Bible and history support the Catholic position, Mormonism has no such support.

When one speaks of the Great Apostasy….....I would say that Mormonism fits the bill!

Sorry Leslie, you can run if you want to, but it doesn’t help your argument.  Let’s look at EXACTLY what Jesus says to Peter in Matt 16:23 - “Then He turned and said to Peter (ie Rock), “Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling stone to me. You are not thinking as God does, but as men do.”  Far from taking away the new name (Rock) Jesus makes a pun on it (stumbling stone).  And Simon will continue to be called Peter, even after denying Christ 3x. What you are missing in all this Leslie is that it simply isn’t an either/ or ... either revelation or Peter - it is and/both.  Jesus is building His church on Peter as the means through which Divine Revelation is made known.  Can Peter do bad things still? Yes (as seen in the verse above) Can he be a stumbling stone to some believers? Again, yes.  These verses are describing the foundation of an office, the Petrine Office, through which Peter (and his successors) will govern the Church, proclaim Divine Revelation, and promote the Faith.  At times doing bad things, at times being a stumbling stone to others (like Mormons) but still being Peter.  Christ is founding His church on all these things in the office of Rock.  And please note, these are HISTORICAL EVENTS, not “appearances”.  And, please, don’t come onto a Catholic website, attack Church teaching, then flee claiming it’s suddenly bad form to argue here.

Also, I see nothing wrong with trying to argue for Mormonism on a Catholic site. It’s better form to debate with people who might actually have answers than to seek out only those who are uneducated. One of the most frustrating things about Mormons/JWs is their tendency to throw out their “teaching” that you’re wrong and then run away from actually defending it while claiming the higher ground.

As an extreme metaphor to get the point across: if you are going to pick a fight, pick one with a guy your own size. If you throw a punch and find the guy stronger than you, don’t pretend to suddenly be noble and complain when they punch back. Step up and be a man.

You don’t get apostolic succession from Matt 16:15-19.

Great article Mark Shea!
Thank you for earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Jane,

Yes, you do. The verses I have been discussing with Leslie clearly show 3 things, 1) Jesus founded a Church 2) Peter is the foundation stone of the Church 3) the church will last forever.  The Petrine office, its powers and responsibilities (even the potential pitfalls) are all outlined in the verses we were discussing.  You perhaps are suggesting the office ended with the martyrdom of St Peter.  So we have to ask, is there any biblical evidence that the office of Apostle can continue past the death of the original holder (that is one of the original 12)?  To answer that question, let’s look at the first vacancy, the Apostolic Office held by Judas.  In Acts Chapter 1 verse 15 we find (guess who) Peter standing up in the middle of the assembled Christian community and, after recounting what Judas did says in verse 20 “may another take his office.” The assembly then proceeds to propose 2 candidates for the empty Apostolic Seat praying (in verse 24) “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”  In the end, Matthias was chosen and (verse 26) “he was counted with the eleven apostles.”  Here we see Matthias becoming the first Apostle via succession. So, we have 1) Jesus founding a Church 2) That Church lasting forever 3) Peter is the Rock of the Church 4) When an Apostle dies another is chosen to replace him.  Sounds like perpetual Apostolic Succession to me.

Arguing with Mormons is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.  Though I admire their absolute faith in a religion that has no factual basis whatsoever, and I really admire their charity, the Book of Mormon is so obviously, blatantly a fraud that at some point one would think that common sense would eventually kick in.  That’s even avoiding all the misrepresentations and attacks made on Mormons by fundamentalists and others who are out to lunch.  I’m talking about the straight facts, the context in which the Book of Mormon arose, Joseph Smith’s extremely sketchy life, right down to the exact same narrative voice used throughout the work.  It just seems obvious to me - but Mormonism is indeed a religion based more on personal feeling (the warm fuzzy thing they talk about). 
Don’t get me wrong, I still respect Mormons as people, and I admire their faith and charity, but the theology of Mormonism itself just doesn’t have a leg to stand on…

Jason Lake, say what you will about the “exact same narrative voice”, the Book of Mormon is mostly an abridgment of many books, covering several hundred years, written by a single prophet/historian.  Where do you think the name Mormon comes from?  Of course most of it has similar language patterns, it was retold by a single man.  What’s interesting is those parts (first few books) claiming to be direct translations of different authors, and not a re-telling, have very different language and word patterns.

You might want to actually look into how it was complied and the many many word studies that have been done on the different books.

Here’s the basic info.

http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/explanation?lang=eng

Here’s the part that you are referring to that apparently gives you so much grief.

“The longest portion, from Mosiah to Mormon, chapter 7, inclusive, is a translation of Mormon’s abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi.”

Jason.. problem is, common sense won’t kick in for most Mormons because they’re taught to be afraid of challenging their church.  Even the letter I received from Salt Lake while in the process of removing my name from their rolls had a threat in it. “In light of the eternal consequences you face, we strongly urge you to rethink your request.”

B.E. Ward,
That’s not surprising really.  But what of converts?  How can anyone seriously accept Mormon beliefs as a convert?  It just makes no sense…unless the person does zero research and relies only on feeling.  I am not trying to bash converts to Mormonism, but I seriously cannot understand how someone could take it seriously in light of even the most cursory research.

INSIDE A MORMON TEMPLE—Isaiah Bennett

(Note: Isaiah Bennett was a Catholic priest who converted to Mormonism and then reconverted to the Catholic faith.)

[For the Mormon, temple work is undertaken as a means to advancement, for oneself or for a dead person. The central figure is the patron or the one for whom he is doing proxy work.

For about an hour and a half during a typical endowment session, the patron listens to the instructions, makes the dictated rote responses and promises, receives and gives the required hand signals and code words, and dons the ritual clothing. In return for his proper performance, he is promised exaltation as a god while being symbolically introduced into this eternal delight by being taken by the hand and brought through a cloth veil into the celestial room, there to contemplate his eventual deification.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/insidtem.htm

Because converts generally come from backgrounds that are extraordinarily ill-catechized, if they’ve been catechized at all.  Then there are spousal conversions, etc.  What you don’t see are seriously committed, knowledgeable Christians who say “You know? Joseph Smith was right!”

Nathan- where did Jesus say that Peter is the “foundation stone” of the church? Do any of the other apostles in their letters say this specially about Peter and if so, where?

[For a novice apologist who knew quite a bit about his own faith but next to nothing about theirs, I have to say I didn’t do too badly. That’s not to say I didn’t make mistakes?I did, plenty of them.

The second failing was that I tried to refute every argument they had against Catholicism with a Bible verse. It was a game of scriptural badminton.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/mormon3.htm

I can’t wait to grow up and be God - of my own planet. Then maybe I can plagiarize over 25,000 words from a King James version - including typos - and say they are from plates I found that were supposed to be created before the the King James version I copied them from. And by they way, when can I see those plates? At a minimum, wouldn’t a prophet write his own books? Or if he copied them wouldn’t he correct Bible typos as he copied them? So forget about the Bible says this, St. so-in-so said that, etc.      Just look at the these more simple errors.

Plagiarize?  Have you ever actually read the Book of Mormon, of are you just giving talking points?  The Israelites, that settled in the Americas, according to the text, were through the branch of Ephram and Manasseh. They had the Jewish scriptures with them, and relied on them to prosper their civilization spiritually.  They quote extensively from Isaiah and other passages in the Old Testament that speak of the Messiah and what is to come in the last days.  And it was translated into the modern sacred language of the day, that would have been King James verbiage at the time.

You are free to scoff, and I’m sure you will continue, but I love my Savior and will serve Him to my end.

Here’s a thought for you, from Job 21:3   Do with it what you will. 

“Suffer me that I may speak; and after that I have spoken, mock on.”

And as Christ tells them personally, upon his visit to the Americas as a resurrected being… “Great are the words of Isaiah”

1 And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah.

2 For surely he spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of Israel; therefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the Gentiles.

3 And all things that he spake have been and shall be, even according to the words which he spake.

4 Therefore give heed to my words; write the things which I have told you; and according to the time and the will of the Father they shall go forth unto the Gentiles…

3 Nephi 23

Wilford,
I think he means plagiarized in terms of certain errors within the KJV translation that were perpetuated in the Book of Mormon. 
My personal observation remains, however, that the Book of Mormon is obviously written by one author, not several prophets over several hundred years.  Why?  Because the narrative voice is identical throughout the entire Book of Mormon.  Every author speaks in the same manner, writes in the same way, etc.  This is not found in the Bible - every author has a certain writing style with its own distinctive elements.

“And by they way, when can I see those plates?”

Bill, you will never be able to see those plates because, they have “conveniently” been taken back to heaven by the angel…..no fuss, no muss!!

That`s exactly the problem - why on Earth would the angel take the plates back to heavenÉ  Wouldn`t those be amazing tools for conversion of all the apostate Christians in the world…

Maybe more like amazing tools for the establishment of an apostate church, because as I said in a previous post, I believe that Mormonism is apostasy, and since Mormons skirt the issue when you ask them to explain when the Great Apostasy took place, I would respond…..when your Mormon plates were taken back to heaven!

Actually, Mormons believe that knowledge via the Holy Ghost is the only sure way to know truth.  Men are saved by faith, not by evidence.  And evidence is contrary to the way of God.  There’s a reason he does what he does.

Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Even if there were plates for all to see, they would be dismissed as fraud.  That’s the way to works with folks that want signs and evidences.  Spiritual witnesses are the only sure foundation.  That’s the whole point of us talking about Peter, that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it, but my Father in Heaven”, remember?

No, evidences only go so far.  The Holy Ghost is the bearer of truth, always has been, always will.

The plates were seen by 15 witnesses, 4 of which were done in the company of an angel. They were required by God to give their testimonies to the world. A couple of them even left the church later in life, and one would think they would have an ax to grind, but to their dying day, said their experience with the angel and seeing the plates were true.  The testimonies of the various witnesses are found here, about a page down…

http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng

Yup, Jesus didn’t provided evidence for who he was. Never once healed a sick man, made the lame walk, blind to see, deaf to hear, or raise the dead. When he rose from the dead he knew evidence of this would be useless so he refused to allow his disciples who doubted to touch his wounds and put their hands into his side. Nope, no proof given, they only knew he rose by the grace of the Holy Spirit. [/sarcasm]

Indeed, men might refuse to believe the evidence given, but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t provide it. He certainly doesn’t require us to rely on warm fuzzies to know what is true and what is not. “Pray about it and see if your heart burns with the truth,” doesn’t work unless you believe that there is no one truly seeking the Lord outside the Mormon religion. That anyone who believe something other than Mormonism is somehow spiritually weaker than you. To rely on such pride to determine truth cannot be healthy.

Of course Jesus provided evidences of His ressurection to the people, he did it also among the peoples of the Americas too. 

http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=eng

He is the Savior of all mankind, of all nations, not just the Middle East. 

But He showed himself to his believers, those that already had faith, not those who mocked and ridiculed.  Faith is the power of salvation, not signs.
He called apostles and prophets from among them, and they were special witnesses of his divinity and mission.  That is His way.  It still is.  He has done the same in the last days, prior to His return.

As the Christmas season approaches, I can’t help but think of the phrase, “God is not dead, nor doth he sleep.”

Oh, and I would add that a testimony from the Holy Ghost is not something to be trifled with.  He works through the witness on the heart.

A couple of good examples of this from the NT.  On the road to Emmaus, the disciples said, after it was revealed to them that Christ was with them:

Luke 24:
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”. 

But probably my most favorite and beautiful example of this truth can be found in 2 Corinthians 3:3.  I love this.

“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.”

The fleshy tables of the heart are where the spirit writes truth, not in tables of stone, of on pages of ink.  It’s a writing that will stand the test of time.

Have a great day.

Again, two people can pray, sincerely pray, and come to different conclusions about what is true. Both fully convinced of the “truth”, and the Mormon response is to say the non-mormon didn’t want to believe enough.

Further, Mormonism is logically inconsistent. By most accounts “great apostasy” happened within the first 200 years, some believe before even the second generation had passed away - so a little over 150 years after the death of Christ. Mormonism was roughly founded in 1830 (book written), we are over 150 years since that point. How is it that Mormonism hasn’t gone apostate? God’s grace? Yet if His grace can prevent the Mormons from going apostate, why not the early Christians?

Mormonism is too logically inconsistent for belief.

Praying is not the only requirement.  To know through the Holy Ghost the truths he wants us to know, we must also be doing what He wants us to be doing.  The Holy Ghost speaks to the heart, but only if the heart is prepared to receive.

John 7:17

” 17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

and 1 Corinthians 2:14

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

That might seem arrogant from man’s perspective, and I’m sure I’ll get flamed for it, but it’s God’s way of shedding light and truth, to the willing and obedient heart.

How is it that the Mormon church is immune from going apostate within 200 years yet the early Christians were not?

All I can tell you is that I’m a very strong believer in the hand of the Lord in the establishment of this country and the Constitution and the freedom of religion that we all enjoy.  I don’t think that the restoration of the Lord’s kingdom could have happened anywhere else. 

The early apostles and disciples were all killed in horrific and gruesome ways, and the early saints were constantly being warned about their deviating, and approaching apostacy.

Yes, I do believe that we are in the final days, and the Lord’s hand is over all things.  He has warned the LDS church, even in modern times that his work will continue, even if we as individuals fall away and apostatize.

I do know the promise John the Baptist made when he resorted the Priesthood of Aaron, that it would never again be removed from the earth, until Christ is accepted at his coming by the Jews.

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.”

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/13.1b?lang=eng

Hope that helps.

Hand of the Lord? The early Christians believed that the Lord guided their leaders so the teaching would remain pure. So were the early Christians evil enough to thwart the will of God in establishing a church? What keeps Mormons from going bad if God is too weak to stop those who talked with the apostles from going bad?

The problem is, the teachings DIDN’T remain pure.

They had to warn over and over, even back then.

This people draw near me with their mouth, Isa. 29:10, 13
Darkness shall cover the earth, Isa. 60:2
The Lord will send a famine of hearing the words of the Lord, Amos 8:11
There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, Matt. 24:24
Grievous wolves shall enter in among you, Acts 20:29
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him, Gal. 1:6
There will be a falling away before the Second Coming, 2 Thes. 2:3
Some people err concerning the truth, 2 Tim. 2:18
Some people have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof, 2 Tim. 3:5
The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, 2 Tim. 4:3–4
There will be false prophets and false teachers among the people, 2 Pet. 2:1
Certain men crept in denying the only Lord God, Jude 1:4
Some men said they were Apostles and were not, Rev. 2:2

I’m going to quote the entire context of 2 Thesselonians 2:2-3, as I believe it can’t get any clearer, at least to me.

2 “...the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”

Look, I know you won’t agree, and I’ve certainly outlived my welcome here.  If you want to discuss this more in-depth, there are other online methods rather than me intruding into a Catholic site.  I found the discussion interesting and offering more relevance than the original article by Mr. Shea.

I responded, but it held it as spam.  Perhaps later today it will come though.

Have a good day.

You’re right, I do not agree. It makes no sense to believe in a God who can be defeated by a group of humans and have to go “oops - lets try that again!” Then remove all historical, archeological and sociological evidence for that trial two’s civilization - not to be found until some descendent from trial 1 wants to start his own church. Such a god is not worthy of worship or honor, for he is weaker than that which he created. Zeus is more powerful than that.

No thanks, I’ll continue to worship a God who brings Life out of death and redemption out of the darkest sins. A God whom no evil can defeat, for even when evil seems most powerful, God stands victorious in His Glory. For my God was betrayed and abandoned, crucified and died, yet they could not defeat Him. Humanity killed God and God brought about their salvation.

God established a Church, to stand tall against all heresies. He has held her to His Truth, even when her members have betrayed, abandoned and killed. “To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.” (Chesterton’s Orthodoxy)

Wilford, all the bible quotes listed are historical in nature in that they deal with obstacles, persecutions, Godlessness and direct problems that will be faced by the first Christians (and Jews) in their era. Remember that they were living in times when the Roman Empire was still in power and was not either friendly or accepting of the early Christians, and as far as apostasy in those times, the Romans were preparing to do the unthinkable by setting up the statue of the Roman emperor in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem as a sacrilege, to be worshiped by all (Jews and Christians alike!) This is just one example of what those bible quotes refer to.

As for quoting from your doctrines and covenants, those are not recognized by mainstream Christianity and are not a part of the Canon of Scripture, so let us leave that aside.

Christianity has always faced and will continue to face apostasy and heretics, (ie. gnosticism, protestantim, mormonism etc.) but what has remained constant throughout is the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and protected as promised by Our Lord Jesus Himself!......but of course, you can’t accept that because Jesus is just one more god among many who rule in different planets.

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church’’ Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

Lord, may we all be one as You are One with the Father. Amen

Lady Cygnus, It’s not a matter of God being defeated, not at all. That’s impossible, and it’s not LDS doctrine. Although God is in ultimate control of the universe, He allows others…including men and fallen angels like Satan, free will and considerable freedom of action. This is true to the extent that Paul could call Satan “the god of this world!” It isn’t that God doesn’t have the power to shut down the Devil’s operation. He simply chooses not to… for now.  After He returns again, Satan will be bound for a thousand years, but now he is indeed the god of this world.

Man has free agency.  As the hymn says, God does not force man to heaven.

Early Christians had it pretty hard.  They rebelled in large enough numbers and many who did not rebel were martyred that God thought it wise to remove His priesthood authority, and leave the world with a lesser amount of truth.  The same thing happened with Moses and the Children of Israel, they were left with the lesser law because of their disobedience at Sinai.  Apostasy has happened many many times thought the course of history.

Acontra, read the context of each of those verses.  They don’t speak in such limited terms as you are setting forth.  The teachings that crept into the Church happened, just like was prophecied.  So did the restoration, and there’s a whole slew of biblical prophecies about that.  Would you like me to post them?  I’m inclined not to, unless someone wishes it.

I quoted the Doctrine and Covenants about the visitation of John the Baptist in answering a question about what we as Mormons believe about the authority NOT being taken again from the earth… it was a question to me about our specific beliefs, so yes it’s relevant.

And no, if you truly looked at and sought to understand what Mormons believe instated of your statement: “Jesus is just one more god among many who rule in different planets.”... You would see that’s not what we believe.

This is what we believe about the Savior of all mankind and the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE:

3 Nephi 9:15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.

and

Moses 1:33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

I could go on, but you get the gist…

And I agree with Ignatius, only how it’s translated straight across form the original greek.

“Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Universal Church”

Wilford - you seem like a learned fellow…have you really, really studied what it is that is taught in Mormon theology?  In-depth? 
Funny thing is, I was raised as a Seventh-Day Adventist, and they say the exact same thing that Mormons do - the Church went apostate, and they have their own visionary and prophet too, Ellen White.  So do the JW’s, the Christadelphians, and hundreds of other groups.  What’s so special about yours?  Why is that the contents of the Bible are supported by a plethora of evidence, and yet the Book of Mormon isn’t?  Mormons say they acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but it’s interesting how they never speak of his being just one of many gods.  In Mormonism, Jesus isn’t special at all - he just happened to be in the right place at the right time in Mormon theology, just another son of another god who fit the bill.  And yet the Old and New Testaments speak of there being only ONE God.  Even the Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are ONE (though you might counter with the idea that it is speaking in terms of will). 
Look, I have an immense amount of respect for my Mormon friends in terms of their faith and practice - often, they exemplify the Christian virtues far better than most Christians I know.  But this does not mean that Mormonism itself is not a seriously suspect movement in theological and historical terms.  The evidence isn’t there.  The history is absolutely sketchy - even the supposed martyrdom of Joseph Smith is a bit out there…correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression he actually died firing pistols at his attackers? 
Incidentally, this is quite the comment thread going on here…!  Yowsers!

wilford,

Again, how do you know the Mormon church is not apostate by now? By your own theory, if the men decide to go apostate God just gives up on them and starts anew with another group. The Jews rebelled after a month in the desert…and throughout their entire history. You say the Christians were apostate by 200 years. What’s to stop Mormonism from going apostate by the time it reaches 200 years old? For that matter what stopped it from going apostate by the time it was a month old?

As a Catholic I understand that God allows his children to choose, yet yet He maintains a true line. For example, the Davidic line was maintained, through evil kings, divided kingdoms and exile up until the time of Christ. The Truth of the Mosaic teaching continued unbroken, even though the nation rebelled. The early Christians did indeed often go astray, “the world woke up and found itself Arian,” yet the line of popes from Peter to now was maintained and the truth of the Christian teaching remained unbroken, even though many in the church rebelled. God is more powerful than our sin, and although he allows us to individually choose to separate ourselves from the Truth, He always keeps His promises to guide us into All Truth.

“You seem like a learned fellow… I hate to die.”

Sorry, I just thought of Princess Bride from your comment.  ;-)

You know, it’s amazing how many people who superficially study Mormonism, or even a few who dig deeper think they are the only ones who have “researched the truth”, then project their own wisdom with incredulity that other’s haven’t come to the same conclusion.

What is so special about mine?  I believe with everything I have that the Lord has a pattern for confirming truth.  He has to me, on many occasions, and I won’t nor can I deny his witness to me.  Miracles have not ceased among men, and God is real, and speaks to man today.  Angels are real, not just something of old.

The Holy Ghost is bearer of truth, not man.  It is the only sure way.

Really, despite what you hear, if you are actually sincere, there are other sides to the story.  Dig a little deeper.

Thanks for the convo.

“You know, it’s amazing how many people who superficially study Mormonism, or even a few who dig deeper think they are the only ones who have “researched the truth”, then project their own wisdom with incredulity that other’s haven’t come to the same conclusion….....Dig a little deeper.”

Exactly! Maybe you should dig a little deeper into Catholicism.

Wilford,
Princess Bride is a classic :)
Anyways, you haven’t the issues I brought up other than dismissing them - is this because they are untrue?

Deification and Grace (2007) a very good book that will do a great job of getting to heart of this topic by Dr. Dan Keating

Mark you do great work!  This would be a good book.

Well, it was an interesting discussion above. However, the Mormon church by definition cannot apostatize because they believe that each prophet’s revelation are from God and that they can be completely contradictory to the last guy. So no matter how they change, they are still correct in their definition. I live in a Brigham Young settlment. 50%+ Mormon. God doesn’t change means nothing to them. They believe in eternal progression, even God is getting better at things. I have found that logic does not work with them. They say really nice things and dress up nice on Sunday but to work with a majority of them; they are the biggest 2 faced back stabbers I have ever seen. Nothing about LDS makes any sense. I even like that fact that Big Foot is Cain and the apostle John is not dead either but that contradicts that the apostacy happened after the death of the last apostle. I would then agree. When John dies, there will be an apostacy and John is not to die until Jesus returns per LDS theology. Another one that is fun is to look up the formal LDS teaching on abortion and show it to the missionaries. They have such firm teachings on alcohol and tobacco and gambling but not so much on prolife issues. God hasn’t gotten to that stuff yet. And don’t get fooled, polygammy is still a formal teaching in their church. They will deny it but it is. It originally was said to be the only way to exultation. but since it is outlawed, well, maybe not so much. Joe Smith also predicted in D&C that Jesus would come back in his lifetime. Did not happen. Well, Deutoronomy says what to do about a false prophet that pretends to speak in God’s name. And Masonry and and and and. Go back to the basics. Know your faith! Lilve your faith! Make them want you in their church because of your morals and ethics (which they have neither). Don’t argue; pig in the mud theory.

The basic problem is that Catholics and the early Church Fathers have a different understanding of the nature of God than the LDS do. They are both using the same word “God” but with different meanings.

To understand what the early Church Fathers really meant by theosis we first need to understand their fundamental beliefs about God and man.

Irenaeus: “For it is necessary that, things that are made should have the beginning of their making from some great cause; and the beginning of all things is God. For He Himself was not made by any, and by Him all things were made. And therefore it is right first of all to believe that there is One God, the Father, who made and fashioned all things, and made what was not that it should be, and who, containing all things, alone is uncontained. Thus then there is shown forth One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God.”

“This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.”

Origen: “The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being.”

“Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured.“

Hippolytus: “The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them”

“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing”

“[Christ] both being in reality and as being understood to be at one and the same time infinite God and finite man, having the nature of each in perfection, with the same activity, that is to say, the same natural properties; whence we know that their distinction abides always according to the nature of each, and without conversion. But it is not, as some say, a merely comparative matter, that we may not speak in an unwarrantable manner of a greater and a less in one who is ever the same in Himself. For comparisons can be instituted only between objects of like nature, and not between objects of unlike nature. But between God the Maker of all things and that which is made, between the infinite and the finite, between infinitude and finitude, there can be no kind of comparison, since these differ from each other not in mere comparison, but absolutely in essence. And yet at the same time there has been effected a certain inexpressible and irrefragable union of the two into one substance, which entirely passes the understanding of anything that is made.

For the divine is just the same after the incarnation that it was before the incarnation; in its essence infinite, illimitable, impassible, incomparable, unchangeable, inconvertable, self-potent, and, in short, subsisting in essence alone the infinitely worthy good.”