“Atheism paints itself into this corner with alarming frequency, which is why it tends to emit the constant rhetoric about how its adherents are, to use Sagan’s charming self-flattery, a “candle in the dark”.”

Nice try!
Sagan didn’t refer to atheists as a candle in the dark, but rather to Science as the candle in his metaphor.
But I can see why a Catholic would not see that Science is a way of seeing reality clearly.  At least until they need a doctor.

Excellent post. It’s fashionable these days to think deliberately choosing what to believe, and doing so sincerely, is impossible. It’s a serious error because it discredits not only specific arguments such as Pascal’s Wager, but the whole concept of faith. Correcting this error needs to be a priority for apologists.

Clearly the “S/he” does not believe in the Trinity or that Jesus is God.  If this person wants to accurately know what the Catholic Church teaches, have them get a copy of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.  It will save you much time.  After this person has read the CCC then get together for a discussion.

Protestants and non-Christians will find the Catechism well-documented, with copious notes and citations to Sacred Scripture, the writings of the early Christian Fathers, and other sources of impeccable authority.

Perhaps the most useful aspect of the CCC is its accessibility. The Catechism was written with the laity in mind. Students, laymen, and the average reader alike will find it easy to read and understand. At the same time, those interested in serious scholarship will discover a treasure trove of theology, history, and doctrine. Without the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no Christian library is complete.

“Yes. But it’s a particular kind of choosing. Not shutting your eyes and willing to yourself to believe what your intellect knows to be self-contradictory nonsense (that’s insane). But choosing to believe the possibility that the God who transcends (not contradicts) reason has spoken in Christ Jesus. It is, at the very least, worth checking out the possibility.”

But if one sees the idea of a “God who transcends reason has spoken in Christ Jesus” as self-contradictory nonsense, then belief in this idea cannot be a choice.

Even though you yourself do not see it that way, millions of people do.  I don’t care if you did add in the “(not contradicts)” assertion into that sentence I just quoted, many people feel that it does contradict.

For them, it’s certainly not a choice.

“The basic approach the Church is free to take, with any religion, was outlined by C.S. Lewis some time ago.  Namely, an atheist is bound by his own principles to declare that the overwhelming majority of the human race is absolutely and totally wrong about the thing that matters to them most.”

And the basic approach that the Church takes on this issue is illogical, just like their beliefs.  We don’t take head counts before truth is decided upon.  The world didn’t turn from flat to spherical in shape once 51% of humanity believed it be so.  It was always been spherical in shape, and will always be spherical in shape regardless of what the majority thinks or beliefs.

I could pull the same card and say that when you look at education level and how religious someone is, you see a negative correlation.  When you look at education by degree level, the higher the education the less religious people are and the more atheists you have.  When you look at some foreign countries, like Japan for example, you’ll see that their general population is much smarter than our own and boasts a 65% atheist/agnostic population.  It seems that the smarter people get, the less religious people get.  Knowledge really hasn’t grown all that much save the past 150 or so years, no telling how this will change in the future.

But again, head counts aren’t taken when determining the truth value of a claim or idea.

“This is one of the reasons that atheists of the evangelical variety like Ditchkins tend to make such wooly mistakes as declaring, bumper sticker style, “Science works.  Religion doesn’t.”

While I cannot speak for Ditchkins, I can speak for the great majority of atheists.  We make statements like that because of events like this…

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2010/07/post_2.html

Faith and prayer had nearly 7 months to heal this poor child, and it failed.  Give a skilled doctor a few days and she’ll be alright.  There have been hundreds of cases like this, so it does certainly seem that science works, religion doesn’t.

“The habit of rolling all religion together and tossing it in the waste basket is inveterate among the enthusiasts for Dawkins, Myers, et al.  What they are commonly saying is, “All religions are the same, especially Christianity, which is worse.”  It doesn’t make for sensible conversation.”

No, what Dawkins, Myers, et al. have done is taken classical theism, the strongest case for theism, and demolished it.  If theism’s strongest case fails, you can safely toss it all into the trashcan.

You also misquote most prominent atheists authors, most probably so you can play the victim card, by pretending that they claim that Christianity is the worst.  Many will claim that Islam poses a much larger threat to humanity than does Christianity, but because books like “The God Delusion” and others will probably not make it to book shelves in the Middle East, they focus on their most likely audiences – Christians. 

“And so you get absurdities like Dawkins saying “I just disbelieve in one more god than Christians do.”

How is that an absurdity?  Do you believe in a god other than the Christian God?  If so, how do you reconcile the Christian teachings of there only being one god?

If you only believe in one god, and Dawkins believes in no gods at all, then that statement is correct.  It’s very simple, really.

“A Christian is, in fact, free to suppose that even the oddest religion is partly right, and that there is a rather complex hierarchy of truth which can grant to other religious and philosophical traditions all sorts of real perceptions of truth (rather like the insightful Hindu tale of the blind men and the elephant).”

Odd, non-mainstream, religions being partly right doesn’t necessarily equal that there must be more than one god.  So, again, unless you and most other Christians believe in more than one god, Dawkins is right.

“But the point is that the Church never has to pretend “We alone are solely right and everybody else is completely wrong.”

What!?  Where have you been?  Do I actually have to pull out your own holy book and tell you what claims it makes?

“Atheism paints itself into this corner with alarming frequency, which is why it tends to emit the constant rhetoric about how its adherents are, to use Sagan’s charming self-flattery, a “candle in the dark”. “

Actually, Atheism doesn’t paint itself into a corner.  Most atheists are also agnostic, and admit that there is a small possibility that they are wrong.  Even Dawkins said that he isn’t 100% sure that God doesn’t exist – perhaps you should actually read his material before you disagree with him.  The term atheism deals with belief, the term agnosticism deals with knowledge.  I can lack a belief in God (atheist), but still be unsure of his existence (agnostic).  Most atheists are agnostic, and most agnostics are atheists.  We do not paint ourselves into a corner because the vast majority of us do not claim certainty on this issue.

“Atheism is forced to simply denounce Islam toute courte as it denounces all religion.”

You clearly do not understand the topic at hand.  Classical theism = both Islam and Christianity.  Most of the arguments atheists use against the Christian God, in their books and articles, are actually arguments against classical theism – which apply to Allah as well.  If we’ve demolished classical theism, we’ve hit Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – and by default a lot of the sects that branched off of these three main religions.

You don’t understand atheism, its arguments, or its popular spokesman; and I’d venture to say you don’t understand your own side of the fence either.

Chris, your post obviously needs another even longer for a full answer, but frankly it’s hard for me to get past this assertion of yours:
“Knowledge really hasn’t grown all that much save the past 150 or so years.”

Presumably you don’t have much respect for theology. Perhaps you also have none for philosophy, history, political science, or any of the arts. But do you think science was invented in the past 150 years? Do you dismiss the mathematical achievements of Euclid and Pythagoras as the ravings of a couple of religious nut jobs? Are you totally indifferent to Archimedes’ invention of the screw and the lever? Do you think the ancient Mayan calendar that was more accurate than ours somehow doesn’t count because it was a religious one? Were Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton wasting their time? Was the invention of calculus of no more profit than a haggard mystic’s tortured attempt to make sense of some apocalyptic poppycock filled with random numbers? Might Pascal just as well have spent his time working out the details of the hierarchies of mythical angels like pseudo-Dionysius as discovering the existence of microorganisms?

There’s no point in going on. You can’t possibly have meant what you said. What I understand you to mean, and I would be delighted to receive a correction if I am wrong, is: “Some of those poor fools in the first 5000 years of recorded human history may have thought they were educated, but in fact, they disagreed with me and my modern, enlightened worldview, and therefore they must have been - by the very nature of things could not have been anything other than - mere charlatans who multiplied their words and lengthened their phylacteries and wafted their Delphic incense while speaking the voice of God from a smelly hole in the floor, taking advantage of the naivete of their countrymen to gain prestige for themselves, while deluding themselves into imagining that they knew what it was to think or to know anything. Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas - poor sad ignoramuses, if only they could have imagined doing themselves the things I do every day, driving an automobile and turning on a light with the effortless flick of a switch!”

If the illustrious names I have mentioned are so easily dismissed, it is hardly surprising that Mark Shea doesn’t come off very well (since he “doesn’t understand” Christianity). But even there, I find myself wondering if you would admit to anyone who believes in God understanding anything. There is no arguing with that kind of arrogance. You have cut yourself off from all intellectual engagement with any outside ideas until and unless you change your ways. Nothing, least of all reason, is compelling you to take the attitude you are taking. You have chosen to do so, and the belief you have chosen is of a very narrow-minded kind.

Chris
No, what Dawkins, Myers, et al. have done is taken classical theism, the strongest case for theism, and demolished it. 

YOS
They haven’t even addressed them.  Consider the following column by Dawkins, in which he gets Aquinas’ arguments laughably wrong:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article618796.ece
(It’s in the second half.  In the first half he lectures people who have had a personal experience that they could not have had those experiences.)  Even a skeptic like Midgley has commented that Dawkins does not know how to do metaphysics. 

Chris
“And so you get absurdities like Dawkins saying “I just disbelieve in one more god than Christians do.”

How is that an absurdity?  Do you believe in a god other than the Christian God?  If so, how do you reconcile the Christian teachings of there only being one god?

YOS
That there can be only one God follows logically from God as a being of pure act.  That other folk dimly perceive this God from other angles or different perspectives should not be surprising.  After all, if something is true, is it surprising if different people have glimpses of it?  How much more so, when it is only a term used in the language that differs.  God is not a different being from Gott or Dieu or Dios or ??? or Allah or Yahweh. 

According to the story, when God introduced himself one time and Moses said, “So, Dude.  What’s your handle?”  He answered “I AM.”  IOW, he was Existence Itself.  And since “Existence exists” and “A = A” there you have it.  (Don’t worry: that Existence is the same as the Godhead is logically deducible.) 

Chris
Do I actually have to pull out your own holy book and tell you what claims it makes?

YOS
Doubt you are qualified to do so.  Unless you are one of those fundamentalists who think that naive literalism is the only requirement to read a text.  But even the Constitution needs a Supreme Court now and then to explain its meaning. 

Besides, the Christians did not discover their beliefs in the books.  They chose the books in light of their beliefs.  And that means they read them and interpreted them in the light of those beliefs.  For some guidance in this area, refer to:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1202.htm

The Pachyderminator,

My comment about knowledge growing over the past 150 years wasn’t saying that great inventions and ideas all came about within the past 150 years, but rather we’ve gone further in the past 150 years then we have in all of human history.  Knowledge has grown several times more in the past 150 years then it has in all of human history.  Many great concepts have come about prior to the past 150 years, but the vast vast vast majority have come recently.

You’re entire post seems to be putting words in my mouth, as none of it was said or implied by what I said.  The advances within the last 150 years dwarfs everything else we’ve discovered, not in importance but in sheer size.

“They haven’t even addressed them.  Consider the following column by Dawkins, in which he gets Aquinas’ arguments laughably wrong:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article618796.ece
(It’s in the second half.  In the first half he lectures people who have had a personal experience that they could not have had those experiences.)  Even a skeptic like Midgley has commented that Dawkins does not know how to do metaphysics.”

Your opinion that Dawkins got it wrong isn’t what’s being discussed here.  Aquinas’ 5 proofs relate to classical theism – which is exactly what I said.  Whether or not Dawkins demolished classical theism is up for discussion, but the idea that he wasn’t addressing classical theism is not.  If you disagree, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with exactly what classical theism is.  I’ve even had a debate at the University of New Orleans with a very popular Christian apologist who, while disagreeing that Dawkins succeeded, agrees that Dawkin’s critique spans the three Abrahamic religions.

“That there can be only one God follows logically from God as a being of pure act.”

If you define God as that, then sure.  Not everyone does, though.  I do not see the absurdity with Dawkins saying that atheists just go one God further.

“Doubt you are qualified to do so.  Unless you are one of those fundamentalists who think that naive literalism is the only requirement to read a text.  But even the Constitution needs a Supreme Court now and then to explain its meaning. 
Besides, the Christians did not discover their beliefs in the books.  They chose the books in light of their beliefs.  And that means they read them and interpreted them in the light of those beliefs.  For some guidance in this area, refer to:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1202.htm “

So absolute certainty of Yahweh’s existence and power doesn’t manifest itself in the Bible?  While I’m not the most knowledgeable person on earth with regards to the Bible, I certainly know enough to make this statement.

Chris
we’ve gone further in the past 150 years then we have in all of human history.  Knowledge has grown several times more in the past 150 years then it has in all of human history.

YOS
That would be World War 1 and World War 2, nerve gas, nuclear bombs, biological weapons, tailored plagues, and what else? 
+ + +
Chris
Your opinion that Dawkins got it wrong isn’t what’s being discussed here.  Aquinas’ 5 proofs relate to classical theism – which is exactly what I said.

YOS
But what you said exactly was:
Chris
No, what Dawkins, Myers, et al. have done is taken classical theism, the strongest case for theism, and demolished it. 
All I pointed out is that they haven’t.  They haven’t even gotten the arguments right, let alone “demolished” them. 
+ + +
“That there can be only one God follows logically from God as a being of pure act.”

Chris
If you define God as that, then sure. 

YOS
God is not defined that way.  It is simply a logical deduction from the fact that there is motion in the world.  It doesn’t matter if someone else fails to recognize the fact or the deduction.  You should hear how some folks define “evolution.”  Supporters and opponents alike. 
+ + +
Chris
So absolute certainty of Yahweh’s existence and power doesn’t manifest itself in the Bible?  While I’m not the most knowledgeable person on earth with regards to the Bible, I certainly know enough to make this statement.

YOS
Your original statement was to oppose the traditional teachings that other religions might have glimmerings of the truth, some more than others.  Like many outsiders, you took the fundamentalist stance and claimed that the contrary was “In The Book!” and claimed to know it better than those who actually use it.  Whether God’s existence and power is “manifested” in the Bible is another issue entirely.

If one is patient, persevering, simcere in searching for truth, as far as religion is concerned, he may land in catholicism Catholicism has its rationality, openness and nothing to hide. It has firmness in its dogma and the faith that it is founded by God

Chris,

Notice that in my original post I said “what I understand you to mean,” and indicated that I would be open to correction if my interpretation was wrong. I didn’t mean to imply that you would ever have written the paragraph I put in your mouth, but it did seem to me that that kind of intellectual attitude was implied in your post. You cited a statistic that religiosity decreases as religion increases, and, with an implied admission that this statistic applies only to the modern era, bolstered its significance by stating that “knowledge really hasn’t grown all that much save the past 150 or so years”. In other words, I understood you to mean: In modern times, highly educated people are less likely to be religious; and our knowledge is much greater in modern times than in any other era; so the religious habits of the intelligentsia of our day are more indicative of the value of religion than those of any other time. This logic is not valid, but what got my dander up was not the invalidity of the syllogism, but the blinding arrogance which tends to accompany it. If my interpretation of your post is wrong, what did you mean?

But of course, this whole question is a side issue. You said “we don’t take head counts before truth is decided upon,” and I couldn’t agree more. Since the Church has never done anything of the kind, however, I don’t understand your charge that the basic approach the Church takes on this matter is illogical. Recognizing partial truths in non-Christian religions does not amount to taking a head count to determine truth. Related to this is the “one less God” statement by Dawkins that you keep harping on. In the literal, narrow sense, the statement is impeccably true. However, that doesn’t keep it from being absurd, because of the assumption behind it: that when an atheist rejects a religion like, say, Hinduism, and when a Christian rejects the same religion, they are doing the same thing for the same reason. This false assumption is a result of the colossal misstatement of the case that it is the Catholic Church that claims an exlusive hold on truth (“We are completely right and everyone else is completely wrong”). Atheism is indeed compelled to take this position with regard to all religions, but Christianity is not. The Bible does not teach it and neither did any of the greatest Christian writers and teachers. None of your rhetoric can alter this immovable fact. No need to shake that Bible in my face; I know it as well as you.

Your characterization of Dawkins as a misunderstood agnostic is laughable. I have read Dawkins, as Mark Shea has undoubtedly done also, and he is uncertain about the nonexistence of God only in the sense in which he is uncertain about heliocentrism or (dare I bring it up) evolution - he considers the evidence so strong that his doubt is utterly negligible and need be mentioned only for the sake of logical comprehensiveness. I think it would be fair to say that Dawkins, on the basis of the evidence as he sees it, has chosen to believe in atheism just as others choose to believe in God. If he sees Christianity as contrary to reason, then of course the choice to believe in it is not open to him. What is open to him, but I get the strong impression he is rejecting, is the sort of fair-mindedness that could open the possibility of his ever revising his views on the matter. One piece of evidence for this is his propensity to throw around slogans like the one Mark Shea quoted. It is true to the extent that faith healing cults such as the one in the story you link are discredited by the evidence. But these are the lunatic fringe, not the main body of Christianity. These stories leave the religion which Mark Shea, Thomas Aquinas, and I have in common completely untouched. So does your post.

You have an extremely naive view of Mormonism.

You write:
Christianity is not Mormonism.  It is not a thing composed of warm feeling in the heart and burnings in the breast.

While not all Christians are Mormons, Mormons do believe in Christ and worship Him, and are Christians.  That’s despite our beliefs on the nature of God differing somewhat from other Christian faiths.

If we also have personal feelings of revelation about Christ being our Lord, and for some people that comes from “a warm feeling in the heart and burnings in the breast” why would that discredit the truth of it?

I agree that Christianty is not a ‘thing’ composed of a warm feeling in the heart. It is more than that. IF not, then please explain the ‘warm feeling’ the two men testified of in Luke 24. When you deny this ‘warm feeling’ you are denying the Holy Ghost who testifies of the truth.
Sad you ‘feel’ inclined to do so.

You are bearing false witness against Mormons. We believe in the combination of faith and reason just as much as you. Please study and dialogue a little more with Mormons before you think you’ve got us figured out.

JDD/Eileen/Brian/Derek:

Far be it from me to sit in judgment on the genuineness of your spiritual experiences or the reasonableness of your faith. However, my understanding of Christianity is that one of its central, indispensable, absolutely essential teachings is that there is one God - “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity” as the Athanasian creed says - and no more than one. This point seems to me to be as clear as any point of doctrince whatsoever. My understanding of Mormonism - which is not deep and could be mistaken - is that you do not affirm this, at least not with the certainty of faith. If I am correct on both points, then Mormonism cannot be doctrinally Christian. If I am in error, can you correct me?

PachyD

The answer to your question is in your question.  You cite the Athanasian creed which was written long after Christ came.  I would assert that the creed is the problem and that the “Trinity” is NOT Biblical doctrine.  In the Bible are many instances of Christ praying to his Father, of his asking God to “remove this cup from me,” and otherwise acknowledging a separate being.  A vision in Acts speaks of Christ on the right hand of God. He calls himself the “Son of God” who in every way was obedient and therefore in perfect harmony with his Father.  He is like his Father in all essentials and therefore, to know Christ is to know God.  I could go further, yes there is much more depth, but PLEASE know that Mormons DO love and believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World.  The fact that you believe differently doesn’t make me call you NON-Christian.  Think about it.  Thanks!

My understanding is that the Trinity belief only surfaced about the time the Nicene Creed was developed, close to 300 years after the crucifixtion. The early Christians did not learn that concept from the Saviour while He was on Earth.

Pachyd and Mr. Shea,

Christianity is a belief in Christ.  The official name of the “Mormon” church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  They believe in Christ and thus are Christians.  Many of the “fundamental” beliefs you are referring to, such as the Trinity, were decided by creeds, such as the Nicean Creed.  They were not taught by Jesus nor found in the Bible.  These beliefs WERE decided based on things written in the Bible, but the creed itself was the committee’s INTERPRETATION of those writings.  Mormons do not believe in the Trinity because the Bible states that we are children of God, created in His image.  As His children, we can eventually become like Him.  We are not multiple beings in one.  We are individuals.  He is also.  The Bible states that, when Jesus was baptized, God spoke from heaven while the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove.  All three were there in separate forms.

Mormons believe that God is all knowing and thus, as Mr. Shea said, He transcends our own reasoning.  Religion in general could be considered a belief in something contrary to reason.  I disagree with this view and in the same way feel that Mormon beliefs are founded very solidly in reason.  I have spent a lifetime studying them and found them to be very accurate.  How much time have you spent studying the beliefs of Mormons?  As well as a foundation of reason, I also have the witness of the Holy Spirit that they are true.  It is much more than just a “warm feeling in the heart” as you described.  It is a witness or testimony.  You can have the same witness and surety if you seek it.

Yet the very books to be included in the Bible were decided by those same Trinitarians.  Those who buy into modern-day materialism find it hard to understand how three separate persons can be one being; but that is materialism for you.  It’s like the notion that God is some sort of super-being within the material universe, like an SF alien.  This confuses “all powerful” with a Marvel Superhero.  Or that the history of North America was quite different from what archeology and ethology tells us.  Why abandon conclusions and consensus reached before a mere 300 years had passed in favor of a book 1800 years later?  Not content with the original quadrilogy, they must invent a Sequel.

Parthenon and Eileen,

The concept of the Trinity is much older than the Athanasian Creed or the Council of Nicea. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 110 A.D.: “There is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word.” And Justin Martyr wrote in 155: “I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages.” And if these are not early or not clear enough, we read in the Didache in 70 A.D., well within living memory of the earthly life of Jesus: “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . . . pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” - exactly the same Trinitarian formula that the Church uses to this day. The Trinity has been the universal teaching of the Christian Church for the Church’s entire history.

It also is biblical. No, it is not taught explicitly in the Bible, but it is not much of a leap to draw it out: there are clearly three persons - Jesus, his Father, and the Holy Spirit or “Spirit of Truth” (Jn. 16:13) - who are to be worshipped as God. And yet the Bible forbids us from concluding that there are three Gods: the teaching of which it is said “And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deut. 6:6-9) is: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4). This teaching was affirmed in unequivocal terms by Our Lord himself (Mk. 12:29). Furthermore, Paul teaches: “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one” (Rom. 3:29-30). The only solution is the one expressed in the Athanasian Creed, reflecting what was even then the ancient and venerable testimony of Christendom, in these words: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.”

JohnN, you wrote:

“Mormons do not believe in the Trinity because the Bible states that we are children of God, created in His image.  As His children, we can eventually become like Him.  We are not multiple beings in one.  We are individuals.”

But the mystery of our divine sonship cannot be captured in such a pat formula as this. There is no getting around the fact that he is God, and we are not. We should not expect to be able to map our existence perfectly onto his. However, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the love shared between the Father and the Son is reflected in our human nature in the love of husband and wife which brings forth a child.

You have spent a lifetime studying the teachings of Mormonism and are convinced that they are true, with the help of the “witness or testimony” of the Holy Spirit. I can say the same about the teachings of Catholicism. Who’s to judge between us? In this life there is no one. We can only appeal to God as he speaks in his inspired word and in his church. But before we can do this, we must make the decision, on the basis of whatever knowledge of Him we have been able to gather, and perhaps in contravention of a mind which will never stop coming up with reasons to doubt, to believe whatever He says, and to discern his word as honestly and follow it as fearlessly as is in our power. We may be called to martyrdom, or, what is sometimes even harder, we may be called to admit that during a lifetime of certainty we have been wrong, and yet, like Christ getting up after his third fall, still choose to be certain again. This is not a one-time decision, but takes a lifetime of cultivation. That is what is meant by the will to believe.

By the way, Mr. Shea, I realize my posts are getting ridiculously long. Sorry to weigh down your combox.

But the mystery of our divine sonship cannot be captured in such a pat formula as this. There is no getting around the fact that he is God, and we are not. We should not expect to be able to map our existence perfectly onto his. However, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the love shared between the Father and the Son is reflected in our human nature in the love of husband and wife which brings forth a child.

In 2 Corinthians 3:18, we read, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”

In this verse, one Greek word - “katoptrizomenoi” - is translated “beholding as in a glass” (That is, “looking in a mirror”.) In other words, Paul is saying that those who are in the spirit of the Lord (v.17) will see the Glory of the Lord. Why? Because they have been “changed into the same image from glory to glory.” What does that mean?  Well the Greek word translated “changed” is “metamorphoumetha,” as is the English “metamorphosis” the suffix indicating that this is an incomplete, ongoing process. “Image” is translated from the Greek word “icon” which means, well, image. The kicker is that this metamorphosis will be “from glory to glory,” “doxa eis doxa.”

So let’s summarize, When we look in a mirror, we see the glory of the Lord.  We are metamorphosed into the same image as God. This includes “glory to glory” or every glory that God possesses.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Guy, though that one passage may “seem clear” to you.  Your interpretation does not have continuity with the rest of what is revealed in scripture.  Scripture must be interpreted as a whole otherwise you run the risk of taking its meaning out of context.

Scripture must be interpreted as a whole otherwise you run the risk of taking its meaning out of context.

I agree completely! But, as a practicing Mormon, I think it fair to say that my idea of what is “revealed in scripture” is vastly different than yours. Mine is not trapped inside the Neoplatonic straight-jacket imposed by the Early Church Fathers.

Guy, how do you respond to the Scripture verses in my earlier post showing that there is one God? Is that part of the neo-Platonic strait-jacket? But the fact is, the conception of God as a being who is essentially different from men, who we can never be, is not neo-Platonic, it’s very basic to both Judaism and Christianity. Thinking you can escape it while sticking to the Bible is just wishful thinking.

By the way, it would be much more natural to interpret 2 Corinthians 3:18 not as a statement of what we see when we look in the mirror, but in the light of 1 Cor. 3:9-12: “For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away . . . For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.”

PachyD

Eileen and others:

Perhaps of interest.

The notion of a Great Apostasy (without which Mormonism is pointless) and that people who are much closer to the apostles in language, worldview and culture got it all all wrong while some guy who claims to read a magic book with magic glasses is right is a tough sell for me.  Sorry.

And no, Mormonism is not Christian, though it is a very peculiar heresy from the Christian tradition.

Mark,
The reason I commented in the first place was to correct that misconception.  As a former Catholic, now Mormon, I know what I believe.  I know Jesus Christ is my Saviour, and that He died for my sins.  I know that He is the Son of God.  And I do worship Him.  I strive to live my life in a way that is pleasing to Him.  I do not believe that you have a better look into my heart that I do.  I am Christian.

I do not believe that you have a better look into my heart that I do.  I am Christian.

Perhaps we don’t mean the same thing by the word “Christian”. Christianity does not mean having a good heart. It is a matter of doctrine and the beliefs you profess. No matter how sincere your striving to live in a way that is pleasing to Christ, the beliefs you hold are not compatible with the Christian faith - unless you are prepared to redefine the Christian faith in a very radical way, which neither you, nor I, nor Joseph Smith, nor anyone has the authority to do.

Mine is not trapped inside the Neoplatonic straight-jacket imposed by the
Early Church Fathers.

No, it is trapped within the scientistic revivalism of early 19th century backwoods America.

Eileen:

I do not claim to see your heart.  I claim to know enough about Mormon theology to know that it is Christian only in the most tenuous sense and that it has no actual basis in fact.  Sorry, but there never was any Great Apostasy.  No Great Apostasy, no need for Jesus to re-establish his Church via the fake revelations of Joseph Smith.  I have no knowledge of or interest in whatever personal history of yours that may have persuaded you to embrace the claims of the Mormon Church, but no amount of your personal history will persuade me that those claims are something other than hogwash, since there never was a Great Apostasy.

Mark,
What exactly defines Christianity to you?  Does a belief in the teachings of the Bible?  Does a belief that Christ is the Son of God?  Or, is it only a belief that the heavens are closed and God no longer speaks to man through prophets?  Your comments about Mormonism don’t make that clear.  You mentioned heresy, yet all “Christians” except Catholics would be heretics because they broke from the original church.  Please explain your definition so you don’t sound quite so close-minded and biased.

Mark, Eileen and Others,
I would have you know that the book Joseph Smith translated was not “magic” and neither were his glasses, any more than Moses used “magic” to part the Red Sea.  The book was translated by the power of God, which some may perceive as “magic”.

I have often wondered what the Catholic faith believes in relation to the Apostles.  In Acts Luke tells how a new apostle was chosen to replace Judas.  Later, we know that Paul became an apostle as well.  What is the Catholic explanation for the reason that apostles were no longer replaced to maintain twelve apostles?  Why do apostles no longer exist in the church?

What exactly defines Christianity to you?

The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to Paul.  It stands in union with the bishops and Pope in succession to the apostles and Peter.  There was no Great Apostasy, and so no need for Jesus to refound the Church in backwoods America in the early 19th Century.

Why do apostles no longer exist in the church?

Because there are no longer living witnesses of the Resurrection.  The task of the bishops is to guard and develop the revelation entrusted to the Church, not to promulgate new revelation.  The only public revelation the Church has yet to wait for is the Second Coming.

Are you saying that all the denominations that are considered Christian follow the bishops and Pope?  I understood that Catholics are the only ones that would fully fit the definition that you just gave.  As I said earlier, all other denominations broke away from “the Church” at one time or another and that is why they are a different religion.  Do you believe that only Catholics are Christian?

In the dictionary, a christian is one who: 1.  One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.  (There is also a definition that says, “a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906”. 
So, as far as the definition about a Christian being “a member of one of the churches of Christ separating ...”, goes, then a Mormon would not be considered a Christian.  But, based on the the first two definitions, Mormons are Christian because they believe in Jesus Christ and follow a religion based on His teaching.  They also strive to live according to Jesus’ teachings.  After the restoration of the Church, there was a preacher who was being taught the teachings of the Mormon church.  He said something to his congregation to the effect of, don’t brush off these teachings lest they turn out to be true.  If you never really learn what Mormons believe or really try to find out whether the teachings are true or not, you may be denying yourself something that could be a great blessing to your life.  We do believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior.  We do believe also that after He died that there was an apostasy.  We believe that we have living prophets and apostles today and that God can speak to us today through those men.  I can’t think of any greater blessing than to know that God did not just leave us without revelation in this day.

Paul, speaking to the Ephesians who were Christians, also said that they were “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”.(Ephesians 2:20)  It seems to me that Jesus Christ is the true foundation of Christianity, not the Church.  Paul also mentioned the apostles and prophets—some would consider that to be referring to the Bible.  Mormons believe in all of those things—Jesus Christ, apostles, prophets, and the Bible.

It seems to be that the ultimate disagreement here is with the idea of an apostasy.  Does the belief that there was a general apostasy make a person non-Christian in your mind?  I’m not sure how you see that belief as contradicting the teachings of Christ or anything else found in the Bible.  The Israelites had numerous periods of apostasy.  They were in a period of general apostasy when Jesus was born.

John: “Do you believe that only Catholics are Christian?”

Mark: Nope.

It seems to me that Jesus Christ is the true foundation of Christianity, not the Church.

Paul, not being a Mormon who believes in Great Apostasy, does not conceive of the Church and Christ as opposites.  That’s why, whether you like it or not, he says that the Church of the living God is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Does the belief that there was a general apostasy make a person non-Christian in your mind?

No.  It merely makes him ignorant of history.  However, one way in which ignorance of history can affect people is by making them gullible enough to believe that a re-establishment of the Church was necessitated by the non-existent Great Apostasy.  No such apostasy occurred.  Therefore, there was no necessity for Joseph Smith’s fake revelation.

How do you consider other denominations to be Christian if they don’t accept the Pope, Bishops, or Catholic church?

I can’t think of any greater blessing than to know that God did not just leave us without revelation in this day.

I can.  The Real Presence of Jesus Christ with his Church in the Eucharist every single day since Pentecost.  Because of this, and the guarantee that Jesus will be with us always, till the end of the age, plus the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church founded on Peter and the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all truth, plus the fact that there is zero evidence of a Great Apostasy… well, I find that a great blessing since it means there was no Great Apostasy and therefore no need for God to artificially apply the electroshock paddles to the a clinically dead Body of Christ in 19th century backwoods America via the fake revelation of some guy named Joseph Smith.  The Church never died, and so never needed to be re-founded.  Until you squarely face that fact and stop cherry-picking a few Bible verses and St. Athanasius to construct a half-backed case for Mormonism, you will be stuck believing that cock and bull story.

How do you consider other denominations to be Christian if they don’t accept the Pope, Bishops, or Catholic church?

If you aren’t going to read the links I supply, why should I drop everything and repeat it in a combox?  Read the link,then get back to me.

I am going to take it that you agree with what your link said, “Most Protestant groups affirm with Catholics the belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who is One God in three persons. (WE BELIEVE THIS. We believe they are “one”, meaning one in purpose, but they are 3 different beings.) They acknowledge that Jesus is God and Savior of the world. (WE BELIEVE THIS) They acknowledge the reality of the forgiveness of sins by the saving death and resurrection of Christ, (WE BELIEVE THIS)  and (usually) the necessity of baptism, (WE BELIEVE THIS) though not necessarily its regenerative power. Therefore the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, again affirming what can be affirmed in common, says:

“... it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

If that is the case, then Mormons also have a right to be called “Christian”.  The interesting thing though is that that the Catholic church decided not to recognize Baptism of those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even though we are baptized through faith in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.  We also partake of the Sacrament (or communion as I believe you call it) weekly.  When a person is baptized, they are indeed baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost into the Mormon church. 

I have noticed through many of your emails above you are very adamant that there was no apostasy.  I wondered why that mattered so much to you, then I realized that the whole validity of the Catholic church lies in the fact that there was no apostasy.  The only two churches that claim to have Christ’s authority are the Catholic church and the Mormon church.  The Catholic believe that it was handed down from the time of Christ, the Mormon’s believe that the Priesthood (God’s authority) was taken from the earth because of apostasy and that it was restored to the earth.  Either one being true would mean that the opposite could not be true.  Perhaps that is why the Catholic church does not accept the Mormon’s as Christian.  We consider ourselves Christian though, and consider Catholics to be Christian as well. :-)

My point was not to stir up contention here. I respect that Paul has the right to believe what he wants.  This is his blog we are commenting on.  It is on a Catholic website, and he is identified as a Catholic.  I would not expect a Catholic to accept that an Apostasy occured (even though I believe it did.)

What I was writing to say was that Paul was incorrect about Mormons not also being Christians.  One of the tenets of our faith is that we each have the right to our own sincere beliefs.

And I was trying to be so eloquent.  Sorry, Mark, I got your name wrong. blush.

I didn’t realize that some of Mark’s words were links.  I still don’t feel like my questions were answered in them, though.

Like Eileen, I also have been trying to avoid contention.  However, after so much said about there being no evidence for an apostasy, I have to share a few things so that readers don’t go away with misinformation.
There is evidence of an apostasy.  Among other things, a close study of the New Testament will show that the current catholic church organization is not the same as the organization of the primitive church—the church in the time of Christ and the apostles.  Paul speaks of being baptized for the dead. (1 Cor 1:29)  That is not a part of the Catholic church.  What of miracles?  The apostles performed numerous miracles.  Reading the Bible, it seemed to be a regular part of the church.

These are a few of the evidences.  You may not agree with them.  However, whether you agree with it or not, a Mormon’s beliefs are not unfounded; nor are they un-Christian.

“Most Protestant groups affirm with Catholics the belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who is One God in three persons. (WE BELIEVE THIS. We believe they are “one”, meaning one in purpose, but they are 3 different beings.)

Meaning “We are polytheists”.  Christianity is monotheistic.  That’s why you are not Christian and that’s why your baptisms are not recognized as valid by the Church.

I have noticed through many of your emails above you are very adamant that there was no apostasy.

No big mystery.  That’s the premise upon which Mormonism builds.  There was (allegedly) a great apostasy, necessitating the refounding of the Church via Joe Smith’s fake revelation.  However, in fact, there was no Great Apostasy.  Most Mormons are too ignorant of history to know this, so they buy the fake revelation because they buy the premise upon which it is built.  But the the premise is false, as somebody who know Church history is aware.

And no, the mere acceptance of the notion of a Great Apostasy does not necessarily render you a non-Christian.  Lots of Protestants (also deeply ignorant of history, many of them) believe in a Great Apostasy.  But they don’t embrace Mormon polytheism and retain the basics of the Nicene creed.  So their baptisms are valid.

One of the tenets of our faith is that we each have the right to our own sincere beliefs.

Ours too.  See the Decree on Religious Liberty.  However, common sense says that, while you are entitled to your own beliefs, you are not entitled to your own facts.  There is, in *fact*, no evidence for the Great Apostasy.  One of the problems Mormons need to face is that their fave rave Father of the Church, Athanasius (whom they perpetually quote since love to torque his “God became man that man might become God”) into “proof” of an early Church that was originally Mormon) was emphatically an orthodox Trinitarian Catholic and not a polytheist like Joe Smith.  Most Mormons don’t know the slightest thing about Athanasius beyond that quote and so are simply ignorant of the fact that he was *the* champion of the despised Council of Nicaea.

There was no Great Apostasy.  Therefore, there is no need for Joe Smith’s fake revelation.

Don’t you see how you are just playing with words here? What you call polytheism just refers back to the same trinity issue we have been discussing all along.  Mormons believe in a Godhead comprised of three distinct personages.  Hence - Jesus praying to His Father.  Why does this fine point define Christianity?

As for the Apostasy - how do you know that through the dark ages, or some less than seemly middle ages, the line of authority was not lost?  Proving the line of authority stayed intact is a lot harder than believing some truths were lost.  Even different factions within Catholism battle doctrinal points. 

Mark, I am trying to respect your beliefs - but your being judgmental of mine is bringing a spirit of contention that isn’t strengthening either of our spirits.  Adieu.

John: Among other things, a close study of the New Testament will show that the current catholic church organization is not the same as the organization of the primitive church—the church in the time of Christ and the apostles. 

Sure there is.  We see episcopoi and presbuteroi being appointed by the apostles in every town (Acts 14:23).  We see Paul instructing two bishops (Timothy and Titus).  We see deacons. We see primitive liturgies being celebrated in 1 Cor 10-11.  And as the Church grows, we see priest appointed by bishops to celebrate these liturgies.  We see an account of the liturgy as it stood c. 150 AD which, in its basic structure, looks like the Mass (cf Justin Martyr).

John: Paul speaks of being baptized for the dead. (1 Cor 1:29)  That is not a part of the Catholic church.

So what?  Nobody knows what Paul means.  And Paul does not mention it by way of instruction.  There are numerous passages in Scripture that refer to some local custom that is not indicative of some eternally binding instruction of the Church.  The fact that Mormons read a verse and decided to invent a doctrine means nothing.

John: What of miracles?  The apostles performed numerous miracles.  Reading the Bible, it seemed to be a regular part of the church.

Ever hear of St. Christina the Astonishing, St Martin de Porres, St. Pio of Petrelcina, Lourdes, Fatima….?

John:  These are a few of the evidences.  You may not agree with them.

They are not evidence of any “Great Apostasy.”

John: However, whether you agree with it or not, a Mormon’s beliefs are not unfounded; nor are they un-Christian.

Yeah, they are unfounded because they are not evidence of a Great Apostasy.  No GA, no Mormonism.

Eileen: Why does this fine point define Christianity?

Because the difference between polytheism and monotheism and the difference between saying God the Father was a man and saying God the Father was never a man is not a fine point.

Eileen: As for the Apostasy - how do you know that through the dark ages, or some less than seemly middle ages, the line of authority was not lost?

Because I know Church history.  Mormons do not.  To paraphrase Newman, To be deep in history is to cease to be a Mormon.  The typical Mormon method for coping with that fact is, as you are doing here, to run away from a good hard look at the fact that there is no evidence for a Great Apostasy.

The problem you face is that revelation is not like the telephone game with one Pope whispering the Tradition to the next one till it get “lost” in the Middle Ages.  The revelation is symphonic.  Lots of sources attest to it.  Bunk about the Great Apostasy is only believable to historical illiterates, with which Mormonism abounds and which it constantly reinforces.

Eileen,

Having online discussions such as this with strangers, it is quite difficult at times to keep them from devolving into personal attacks and antagonism. I think a help toward this end is to refrain from accusations of judgmentalism when not absolutely necessary. While one must respect other people and their faith, one cannot respect falsehood. Part of the “judgmentalism” you see may simply be a function of the fact that from the Catholic perspective, this is not a “fine point” at all. What we’re talking about is the basic nature of God himself. God spent more than half of the Bible trying to hammer into Israel’s head the all-important truth that He was God, and there is only one of Him. Both St. Paul and Our Lord affirmed this in unambiguous terms, as I showed in my previous posts. Until you explain how you reconcile your polytheism with these facts, the discussion cannot progress.

I am sure there are Mormons who know a great deal more about Catholic history than I do. 

What I know is what I believe.  And that is that Jesus Christ is who I worship.  The same Jesus that my mother taught me about when I was growing up Catholic.  That was the point I was making when I began this discussion.

My linking abilities seem limited, but here’s one for you as well…

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/commentary-historic-
speech-at-byu-by-catholic-cardinal

You have an incorrect perspective of what Mormon’s believe.  1 Corinthians 8:5-6 says, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 
We believe that God the Father, is the god of gods.  We worship God the Father as God.  We pray to God the Father.  Also we also believe in His Son Jesus Christ who created this earth and who is our Savior. He is our Lord of Lords, but He is not God the Father.  Yet, we also worship Jesus Christ.  We worship Him as our Savior and Redeemer.  We also worship Him as our father in the sense of God the Father giving us to Him and thus him becoming our father.  So, I suppose you can say that in a sense we are polytheistic.  We worship God the Father as the only true God, and we worship Jesus Christ as His Son that He sent into this world.  But, the two beings we worship are God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.  We might worship two different beings, but other Christians are worshiping the same two people as one person.  I guess ultimately we believe in the same God you believe in, but we believe that he has different attributes than you believe.  Still, ultimately our belief is in the same being (beings). 
But, we worship the Father as the God of all.  In the Bible Jesus taught us to pray as He prayed, to His Father, God the Father.  He showed us how to worship the Father, by letting His will become our will.  As I said before, they are “one” in purpose.  God the Father is perfect.  God the Son is perfect.  Jesus Christ spent His life on earth, doing His Father’s will.  To know Him is to know the Father.  Yet, for us on this earth, we know more about Jesus Christ than we do of the Father.  Jesus is our Savior and Redeemer.  He died for us that we could become clean from our sins.  He showed us the things that we must do and how we must act.  He taught us about the Father because He spent His life doing the will of the Father.  It is through Him that we worship the Father.  We pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ.  We can return to live in the presence of the Father through that Atonement and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  We can know the Father by living as Jesus Christ lived. 

http://www.jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/

PachyD stated: God spent more than half of the Bible trying to hammer into Israel’s head the all-important truth that He was God, and there is only one of Him. Both St. Paul and Our Lord affirmed this in unambiguous terms, as I showed in my previous posts. Until you explain how you reconcile your polytheism with these facts, the discussion cannot progress.

PachyD,
The “facts” you mentioned were disagreed with and reconciled through the Bible in previous posts.  Although you don’t agree with the reconciliation, it comes from the same source as your “facts”.  Jesus said many things that could be understood to mean that he is a separate being from God the Father, as I have stated.  Jesus also said many things that could be understood to mean that he and God the Father are a single being, as you have stated.  However, both perspectives come from the same source—the words of Jesus Christ found in the Bible.

Mark,
You seem to believe that all or at least most Mormons know very little about history.  You are welcome to believe that.  However, I know that there are many that not only know about history, but study it professionally.  Of those, many focus specifically on religious history.  I am not sure what your purpose in writing all of this has been, but your constant stereotyping and name calling do not convince or persuade and they do not move the work of God forward.

2 Thes. 2:3 says, “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”. 

Our belief in an apostasy of the church is also founded in the Bible, in the above verse.  If you were to look at the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, our beliefs come straight out of the scriptures.  Whether you agree with what we believe or not, you cannot say that the scriptures do not support these beliefs.  As was said, there are many scriptures claiming that God the Father and God the Son are separate, as well as many others that claim they are one.  It might be of interest to you that in the Book of Mormon, there are many scriptures that seem to say they are one as well, while others show them as separate.  We know that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings though because Joseph Smith saw them in a vision.  He spoke to them.  You may say that Joseph Smith made up all those things, but no matter what you say, he died for those things that he knew to be true.  He was persecuted, but never did he deny what he saw.  He sealed his testimony with his blood.  I have read the Book of Mormon, I have read the Bible.  The teachings in the Book of Mormon compliment the Bible.  They lead people to Christ.  I believe that Jesus Christ did live; that same Jesus Christ that you believe in.  I worship God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.  I am living my life the best I know how to, following the example of Jesus Christ.  He is my Savior and I am grateful for the sacrifice that he made for me.

As far as the “great apostasy” goes.  Wikipedia actually has a very good explanation of what we believe in terms of that.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy It is under the heading, “church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It surprisingly has a very accurate explanation.

@PachyD

Guy, how do you respond to the Scripture verses in my earlier post showing that there is one God? Is that part of the neo-Platonic strait-jacket?

1) In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ prays to the Father.

“Father,” says he, “I’m so grateful for the disciples You have given me. I pray that /they/ may be one in the same way that You and I are one.”

Certainly the disciples cannot said to be ontologically one, yet the Christ is praying that they might be one. Could not this same interpretation apply to Father and Son?

2) In the US, our laws are created by a body collectively known as “Congress.” Certainly it could be argued that there is only one Congress, without insisting that all US Congressman are ontologically one.

We believe the same can be said for God.

3) In the Mormon scheme of things, Christ created, under the direction of His Father, this universe. The Bible, being the handbook for this universe (part of the handbook, anyway,) refers to its creator and ruler as the one God in this universe, and the only one so appointed. That does not, however, rule out the existence of other universes.

Is that part of the neo-Platonic strait-jacket?

The difficulty we see with the traditional, creedal view is that it invents a concept - that of a triune God - to reconcile the seemingly contradictory statements showing three beings, and at the same time, only one being.

We Mormons must reconcile the same statements, of course.  But we’re not held to Platonic notion of uncreated/necessary being vs. created/dependent being. We feel no compulsion to map the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity into Plato’s concept of the mind, word, and spirit of God. We’ve tossed the idea that creation must be ex nihilo.

We posit that there is more than one thing that is uncreated - and therefore co-existent with - God. “Good” and “evil” as examples. While this might seem “scientistic” to some, if deftly answers the question of why a loving God created evil in the first place (He didn’t) and why He allows it to continue.

how do you know that through the dark ages, or some
less than seemly middle ages, the line of authority was not lost? 

Because we did not lose track of history.  Things did get written down, even when Saracens, vikings, and Magyars were scurrying about burning things up. 

Proving the line of authority stayed intact is a lot harder than believing some truths were lost.

But not that hard.  The records of councils and decrees, the nearby secular histories, etc. when matched against what is known about earlier centuries is entirely consistent.  There may be differences of emphasis in different eras, but then different eras engage in different errors. 

Even different factions within Catholism battle doctrinal points. 

Why be surprised when people act like people.  We know how these doctrinal differences played out.  No worries.

Hi All,
I posted Sunday evening and had to run before I could respond.  I was happy to see the conversation continuing, and for the most part in a “Christian” way!  The comments made by the Mormons, essentially echo my views.  I do respect Catholicism and Catholics and admire the good they have done in the world over the years, and those areas where we share common practices and beliefs – I can think of many.  I also respect the Christian martyrs of any age.  Just want to add a comment or two:  The council of Nicea, as I recall was convened by Constantine, certainly a friend of Christianity, and later convert, but a Sun Worshipper, and erstwhile political opportunist – if you can’t beat em, join em – or have them join you!  This council was definitely held because the definition of God and doctrines of God were in conflict AMONG church officials.  It had been 300 years or more (longer than the USA has been around), and confusion had entered into the Church, along with Greek philosophy.  This and other related councils resulted in the development of Creeds, which unfortunately were like Gordian knots, leaving a result with a somewhat illogical statement about God and Christ’s nature that blended various elements but appealed to mystery to explain it.  In my opinion, these creeds distanced people from knowing truths about God.  Did the church suffer an apostasy?  You can argue otherwise, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting it did, and the whole Protestant movement (i.e. Luther et.al) started when people started trying to square the practices of the church with the Bible and finding a great deal of discrepancy.  Despite all the fractionation and sectarianism in Christianity, on the whole, many true and good beliefs continue to exist among Christian believers, but essential truths were lost.
Enter Joseph Smith.  He was no fake – the Book of Mormon simply could not have been written by a person of his background without divine help.  Years of scrutiny have in not toppled it in any way.  He learned that God can speak to the common person – you and me, and learned more about God in his first vision of God than had been known for centuries.  His other revelations offer very satisfying answers to many of the questions in Christianity and to the claims of those who do not believe in God at all.  The claim of Mormonism is that you can know for yourself of the truth of our doctrines – you do not have to take anyone’s word for it.  I can offer you and do offer you my testimony that I have experienced a witness of these things, but you need to read and pray for yourself.  I also believe that Christians, and good people of any stripe, need to work together when we can for the common good.  Usually discussions like this tend to point out our differences rather than affirm our commonalities.  Thanks for listening, and God bless.

The council of Nicea, as I recall was convened by Constantine, certainly a friend of Christianity, and later convert, but a Sun Worshipper, and erstwhile political opportunist

So what?  He did not attend the Council aside from the opening ceremonies, and took no part in the debates.  The result was that by an overwhelming vote—I think there were two dissenters in the end—the Council affirmed the traditional view of Christ and God as against the Arians.  This was bad politics—Constantine and his family favored Arianism and they persecuted the orthodox church, exiled her bishops, etc. 

the definition of God and doctrines of God were in conflict AMONG church officials.

Again, so what?  The Council went with the broad majority, not the handful of cranks.  (An irony: It may well be that Arius himself was not an Arian.)  Most of the hoo-hah came from the German tribes and the imperial elite, not church officials, since the overwhelming majority of bishops spoke in favor of orthodoxy. 

It had been 300 years or more (longer than the USA has been around), 

Yeah, but they didn’t have the short attention span moderns do. 

and confusion had entered into the Church, along with Greek philosophy. This and other related councils resulted in the development of Creeds, which unfortunately were like Gordian knots, leaving a result with a somewhat illogical statement about God and Christ’s nature…

The Greeks were not confused by Greek philosophy.  At times Syriacs, Egyptians, and Latins were confused by Greek grammar and vocabulary; but most of that was worked out.  A great deal of the disagreement was national underneath.  Nestorianism was the objection of the Syriac-speakers to Greek rule.  Monophysitism was the objection of Egyptian-speakers to Greek rule.  Political unrest often manifests as other issues. 

Explain how “Greek philosophy entering…” squares with “illogical.”  That should be good.  “I don’t understand it” is not an adequate reply. 

Did the church suffer an apostasy? You can argue otherwise, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting it did

Although, oddly, no one has put forward any of this evidence.  After the “time of confusing Greek philosophy” (the ToCGPh) Christianity became the primary religion not only of Syrians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Greeks, North Africans, Armenians, Ethiopians, Romans, Gauls, Britons, Irish, Germans, and Slavs.  That’s some apostasy, dude.  Perhaps the Irish or the Germans were confused by Greek philosophy. 

people started trying to square the practices of the church with the Bible and finding a great deal of discrepancy.

If they forgot stuff after 300 years, can you imagine what they forgot after 1500 years?  For example, they forgot that the Church preceded the Bible.  And it was the practices of the Church—the community of believers—that formed the scriptures.  That’s why Luther and Calvin threw books =out= of the Bible.  (Luther even wanted to drop the Epistle of James!)  And of course Luther and Calvin could not even square their Bibles with each other.  The error was the error of the Age of Science that informed the 19th century novelty religions: the notion that a text was self-explanatory—to people who knew no Greek or Aramaic. 

Joseph Smith… was no fake – the Book of Mormon simply could not
have been written by a person of his background without divine help. 

Do you regard that as persuasive?  Because the same thing is said about Mohammed: he could not have written Holy Qur’an because he was illiterate. 

I think you will find that pseudo-King Old Testament fanfic can be written by anyone familiar with the real KJV OT.  Maybe with some help from a literate friend.  No divine help is needed to create a totally fictitious prehistory for North America.

Hi Old Stats!

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  I appreciate your scholarship, and I think you have a very strong intellect.  I was hacking out a response to your questions, and wanted to check a couple of references, when I came across this article, much better written than I could personally write, that responds in a more in-depth way, with excellent references.  You may have to cut the link and paste it in to your browser, but it works – at least it worked for me.  I think Nelson really captures the essence of the LDS arguments on these issues.  I couldn’t really add much to the points he makes – he details some of the issues we touched on regarding Greek philosophy in a much more specific way.

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?,” Ensign, Jul 1987, 56

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

The one thing I do want to reiterate is that I really do respect your faith and the faithful of your faith.  The Catholics have been the guardians of lots of good over the years, and brought awareness of and love of God to many.  I belong to a national organization which includes lots of Mormons and Catholics and interface with Catholics regularly, and feel a great deal of mutual respect.  My hope would be that the inspired writings of Joseph Smith, would not be so summarily dismissed, but that you would find they truly can add to the truths and knowledge you have.  Thanks again for the respectful dialogue.

~ Parthenon

Old Stats,

One thing we all must keep in mind with this conversation is that evidence can point to the possibility of something, but not make it absolutely certain.  Thus, although you don’t agree that the evidence presented shows that there was an apostasy, it is still evidence of the possibility of an apostasy.  You lose credibility by refusing to acknowledge that evidence has been presented, whether you agree with it or not.  You also lose credibility when you insult someone’s intelligence without directly addressing the subject, as was done when you said that someone that believed Greek religious philosophy to be illogical just didn’t understand it.

it is still evidence of the possibility of an apostasy.

No, actually it was not. 

You lose credibility when you base your whole world view on something that is only a “possibility.”  It is a “possibility” that there are purple platypuses on Pluto, but the smart money doesn’t bet that way.

you insult someone’s intelligence without directly addressing the
subject, as was done when you said that someone that believed Greek
religious philosophy to be illogical just didn’t understand it. 

The Greeks invented logic.  It was fundamental to their philosophical approach.  You lose credibility when you accuse the Greek philosophers of illogic without actually citing anything in their philosophy that is illogical.  Like for example an entire made-up prehistory of North America at odds with the archeological record.

Hi there. Did you get a chance to read Nelson’s article before you posted?  He gives specific examples of Greek philosophy that specifically became a problem when meshed with Christ’s doctrine, such as the idea of “immaterial matter”.  Here’s a small section, but I’d suggest you read the whole article:The early Apostles took the gospel into a Greco-Roman world that espoused Neoplatonism—a philosophy derived from Plato’s teachings on idealism. One idea that came down from Plato was that matter is essentially evil. (James L. Barker, Apostasy from the Divine Church, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960, pp. 229–35.)

As long as Apostles led the Church, they opposed the philosophies of the day. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is an example of this. Apparently, some who held to the belief that matter was evil were baptized but had difficulty accepting the physical resurrection of Jesus. They reasoned that since Jesus was perfectly good, he could not have a material body. In his letter, Paul addressed the Greek belief in the body’s corruptibility by bearing testimony that a resurrected body, like Christ’s, is incorruptible(1 Cor. 15:3–8, 12–20, 35–42.)

Likewise the Apostle John asserted in his gospel and epistles that Jesus was a divine being of flesh in mortality to counteract the heresy that he was not or could not have been flesh because matter was evil. (John 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1–3; 1 Jn. 4:3.)

Also, you are dismissing the Book of Mormon on an supposed archelogical basis, when there are many evidences to support it.  Ultimately, however it can only be truly realized on the basis of personal revelation.

Here’s a great article regarding archeology and the Book of Mormon. You throw out ideas like “made-up prehistory” without any real evidence or context.  Since when did the Book of Mormon claim to be a comprehensive pre-history of North America?  We’re not sure exactly where these places were—the Book is a spiritual history.  I would suggest you read it through cover to cover before you make these types of comments. These are things that Mormon critics like to repeat, but really have not substantiated.

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

One idea that came down from Plato was that matter is essentially evil.

Not evil, simply less worthy than the ideal.  The material world was perceived as flawed approximations of the pure ideal.  For example, no circular object in fact matches the ideal circle known through mathematics.  People too fall short, as if there had been some ancient Fall from grace that deprived them of the perfections that might have been theirs. 

Now, the Gnostics bought into a material-is-evil Weltanschauung; but this gnostic wink-wink, nudge-nudge was specifically rejected by the Church Fathers and the Traditions, precisely because “God so loved the world,” i.e., loved his material creation, which he had looked at and saw it was good.  Gnosticism afflicted Christians, Jews, and pagans alike (and was rejected by all three).

Since when did the Book of Mormon claim to be a comprehensive
pre-history of North America?

Doesn’t have to be comprehensive.  It only has to be right or wrong about what it does cover. 

We’re not sure exactly where these places were—the Book is a spiritual history.

That’s convenient.  When it fails to match the history of the North American Indians. 

I would suggest you read it through cover to cover 

Been there; done that.  There were a bunch in the dorm and we went through all the novelty religions: Mormonism, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. 

BTW
It was proposed that Joe Smith’s basic ignorance was proof of Book o’Mormon’s bona fides.  Smith could not have written it without “Divine” help.  The same thing is said of Mohammed and Holy Qur’an.  Do you accept Holy Qur’an as written with divine help on the same evidences?

Just curious, but where did you get a history of the North American Indians that went back far enough to compare with the history written in the Book of Mormon?

Atlas of the North American Indian
Encyclopedia of North American Tribes
The Indian Heritage of America
The Settling of North America

You know, the usual.  These do not compare to the “history” in the Book of Mormon since they are based on actual evidences. 
+  +  +

Do you regard Mohammed’s illiteracy as proof of Holy Qur’an’s divine origin?

I guess I have to question what determines, “actual evidence”.  There were many journals written when people came over about the Indians as they met them.  Some stories were probably written that had been passed down through Indian tribes.  But, you recognize that when people write history, they write about what they know about.  For example, I would not expect the Cherokee Indians to know the history of the Blackfeet.  Some may have crossed paths with others at different times, but would not really know what went on in every day life.  The Book of Mormon, as was said above, is a spiritual history of a people.  These same people became extinct.  Where would you find someone that could carry on the stories of a people, when all those people are dead?  Also, no historian can be all-inclusive, or the book would never end.  Authors have to choose what they think is important or not.  Stories passed down by word of mouth also tend to change as time gets farther away from when something happened.  You might be interested to know though that there are legends in South America that tell of a day and a night and a day with no darkness.  Also, is Japan there is a similar legend.  I guess some legends count as fact and others don’t?  As far as archeology and other “facts” as you would call them.  Archeology is a lot of guessing.  I’m not saying that the fact that things are found is guesswork, but what it was used for, who used it, etc..  There is much in archeological findings that would show the truth of the Book of Mormon, but God’s intent is not that science proves the truth.  As far as science goes, there are some things that can be said with accuracy, but science is constantly changing.  A scientific theory is just that, a theory.  As new science emerges, sometimes the old is no longer relevant.  Also, sometimes, it is found that what they thought once with surety, is now with surety proven wrong.

As far as authority goes, many of the responses from Catholics show clearly why Mormons believe that authority was lost.  When did the majority of people agreeing on something become God’s word on it?  Then later when more inconsistencies develop, another counsel is called to decide what God’s doctrine is?  God calls prophets to speak.  There is no confusion on His doctrine.  Mormons are taught that we can pray to Heavenly Father to receive a witness of truth.  I know that God does have a living prophet today.  His name is Thomas S Monson.  He is God’s prophet on the earth.  Through the Priesthood power that was restored to the earth, families can become eternal.  The Book of Mormon is God’s word.  I have read it.  I have prayed about, and I have tried to follow its teachings and I know that doing so has brought me nearer to God.  That is what the Book of Mormon claims.  It does not claim to be a history of a people, although some history is recorded in it.  It claims that “a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book”.  The only way to know for yourself whether or not the Book of Mormon is God’s word is to follow the teachings contained in it.  If those teachings bring you closer to God, then Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon is indeed, “another testament of Jesus Christ”.  Every person can ask God for themselves.  We can know the truth through the Holy Ghost.

I would not expect the Cherokee Indians to know the history of the Blackfeet.

But I would expect the Blackfeet to know.

The Book of Mormon is a spiritual history of a people. These same people became extinct. Where would you find someone that could carry on the stories of a people, when all those people are dead?

Where, indeed.  Of course, an argument from the absence of evidence is not very convincing in this case.  There were supposed to have been cities, no?  These. too, vanished without a trace apparently. 

many of the responses from Catholics show clearly why Mormons believe that authority was lost.  When did the majority of people agreeing on something become God’s word on it?

Something about the Holy Spirit not allowing the Church to fall into error.  A matter is not true doctrine because all the bishops agree; all the bishops agree because it is true doctrine. 

Then later when more inconsistencies develop, another counsel is called to decide what God’s doctrine is?

What inconsistencies?  Name them. 

Every person can ask God for themselves.

Talk about inconsistencies!  Luther and Calvin and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Bible Shack are inconsistent with one another.  The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are what they have always been.  (And the differences between them are largely liturgical and governance.  Doctrinal differences are but a matter of emphasis and mode of expression.)

Old Stats,

First, to answer your question:
It was proposed that Joe Smith’s basic ignorance was proof of Book o’Mormon’s bona fides.  Smith could not have written it without “Divine” help.  The same thing is said of Mohammed and Holy Qur’an.  Do you accept Holy Qur’an as written with divine help on the same evidences?
No.  I think that Mohammed’s situation was different.  He had a long life of religious experience to draw upon.  However, Joseph Smith’s lack of schooling is a simple side-note.  The real evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon comes from the witness of the Holy Ghost. Academic evidence will never be sufficient, just as it is not for the Bible.  However, they are both true.  I recognize you disagree with this, so this will be the last that I say about it.

I also have just one last question: What in these histories of the North American Indians do you see as not matching the history of the Book of Mormon?

I noticed it didn’t seem clear in my last comment, but I agree that you make a good point in that Joseph Smith’s lack of schooling is not a strong evidence that the Book of Mormon was written by the power of God. Thus, the importance of the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Thus, the importance of the witness of the Holy Ghost

And so we come full circle.  There’s no evidence for the historical claims of Mormonism (and especially no evidence for the Great Apostasy that is the sole basis for a supposedly re-established Church).  The quack history of Native Americans and the linguistic rubbish about “reformed Egyptian” also don’t bode well for the claims on behalf of this piece of KJV fanfic.  So what are we left with?  The burning in the bosom.  It’s true because you feel it is.

Mhmm.

Old Stats,

You still didn’t answer my question and misquoted me.  I said it wasn’t strong evidence.  It is still evidence, though.  Please answer my previous question.  Thanks.

I apologize. I just realized the last post should have been directed to Mark instead of Old Stats, since he posted just prior to myself.