A Mormon Scholar’s Journey to Catholic Faith
August 30, 2012
Richard Sherlock
Early in the evening of May 28, 2010, I am attending Mass in the majestic Basilica di Sant’Apollinare next to the Pontificia Università della Santa Croce in Rome. From Utah I have come as a scholar to deliver a paper at an international conference on the work of the great Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, and I have come as a tourist to see the Eternal City for the first time. Mass is being celebrated in the basilica for those attending the conference.
I am not Catholic—in fact, I was raised a Mormon, though I have had serious doubts about the Latter-day Saint faith for decades. Yet my journey of the heart—which ultimately ended in the Catholic Church—came long after I had intellectually departed—so I cannot receive Holy Communion. But when Archbishop Raymond Burke places his hand on my head in a blessing, the extraordinary presence of Jesus Christ moves my soul to tears. I now know, in my head and in my heart, that I have come to Rome as a pilgrim. I have finally heard his voice, and I will not turn away.
Of course, I was awestruck by the beauty of Rome. The conference was wonderful, and I made important contacts and great friends. But infinitely more important, I found a priceless gift: the God of truth I had ignored for decades. I found my soul, which had been lost in the fog of my pride and stubbornness. Thus began a journey that took me to the waters of Catholic baptism, the anointing of confirmation, and first Communion at the Easter Vigil of 2012. You do not need to travel thousands of miles to have a real encounter with Christ. But your soul does need to be open in a way mine had not been for years.
Mormon friends ask how I could leave the LDS Church. Catholic friends ask why the pilgrimage to Rome took me so long. My brother, a rabbi, was the first person I told I was converting. When we talked, he said simply, “You were a Catholic thinker when you were a graduate student at Harvard in the 1970s.”
Intellectually, there are two beliefs at the core of the LDS faith that I eventually realized I could not accept. The first is the doctrine of a “great apostasy” afflicting the church. Mormons do not deny that Peter led the church after Jesus’ Ascension. They deny that the Holy Spirit continued to guide it. Mormons believe that after Peter the patristic church lost its way.
And by “losing its way,” Mormons do not mean that the church suffered from human sinfulness or became too wedded to secular power. Christianity supposedly strayed so far that it was no longer Christianity. It did not merely require renewal, as St. Francis preached. It did not merely require a new vocabulary to express timeless truths, as Vatican II proclaimed. Mormons believe that the church—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant visions alike—completely died and that Christianity required a “restoration” by God himself.
My intellectual journey was inspired in large part by my study of patristics. Reading the Church Fathers in my first year at Harvard in 1970–71, I realized that this story was false. Even my meager study of the Fathers allowed me to see what Newman had seen—that there was a development of Christian thought, a deepening of our understanding of such truths as the Incarnation and the Trinity. There simply was no evidence of a fundamental break from the church Jesus established. As one of Mormonism’s most brilliant minds of the last half century, Edwin Firmage, wrote after he left the LDS Church: “The idea that God was sort of snoozing until 1820 now seems to me absurd.”
Two passages from the Gospel of Matthew are particularly difficult to reconcile with the Mormon doctrine of the great apostasy. Jesus promised Peter that “the gates of the netherworld” would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16) and he promised the Apostles that he would be with the Church until the end of the age (Matthew 28).
The other fundamental Mormon teaching that I cannot accept is the absence of an existential distinction between God and man. In an 1844 sermon, Joseph Smith made a claim that profoundly shapes the way Mormons see the world: “God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man.” Parse this out and God himself becomes a finite, physical being. How, I wondered, can we have absolute confidence in a God whose power and knowledge are limited, not just by the rules of logic, as St. Thomas would have said, but by unknown barriers? A limited God cannot be our anchor in the face of extreme horrors or profound personal loss. In the face of terrible, inexplicable loss, Job did not place his trust in an “exalted man.” The God who spoke to Job did not start out on a world like ours. This God, who comforted Job and comforts millions of others every day, to whom we can truly pray “not my will but yours be done,” cannot be the limited being Mormons call “god.”
The Mormon “god,” who came from a world like ours, cannot be the creator of all worlds, as Scripture and reason tell us he is. The physical god of the Mormons cannot have been present at creation, when there was no matter. Furthermore, if all of us can become “gods,” then Mormonism is incompatible with Christian Trinitarianism and Jewish monotheism. It is polytheism.
Compounding all this, in my experience, is the fact that Mormons generally do not seek for serious answers. In fact, Mormon authorities actively discourage the marriage of faith and reason that we Catholics celebrate. I now profess openly what I always too silently believed: If a faith cannot be sustained in the face of serious questions, it is not a faith worth having.
If these reasons to reject Mormonism were sound for me over forty years ago, why did I stay? I could say it was culture, friendship, or inertia, and those reasons are accurate in a certain sense. But the full truth is found in Psalm 95: “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” I now know that at least four times in those forty years I specifically heard God calling me to his Church, but I turned away. My oldest and closest friend since 1970 told me twice directly that, like him, I should be a Catholic. I knew he was right. Yet I did nothing.
In one instance, the turning was literal. I had invited a Catholic theologian to speak at Utah State on religion and science, and I arranged a lunch for him with the Newman Club. After lunch, the parish priest and I talked for a long time. As our conversation wound down, I felt strongly that I should go with him to his office and talk about my faith. Yet I turned away and walked back to my office.
In the past two years, my journey towards the Catholic Church has brought me to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ than I have ever had. I have not “given up my faith.” Leaving Mormonism for Catholicism is a journey many others are making, and it has allowed me to experience God’s love in a profoundly richer way.
Richard Sherlock is a professor of philosophy at Utah State University. He has taught philosophy at Northeastern University and the University of Tennessee and moral theology at Fordham University.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.30.2012 | 4:15am
Wendell says:
Succinct. Profound. Inspirational. True.
Thank you for your witness to the truth.
Welcome home!
Thank you for your witness to the truth.
Welcome home!
8.30.2012 | 5:39am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Although I can certainly say that I admire Richard Sherlock, and the journey he's made, and I, too, admire the profound beauty of the Catholic Church, I think that he's being, unintentionally I'm sure, unfair to Mormonism.
First of all, although I grew up LDS, and believed in its doctrines at one point, I no longer do. With these cards flatly placed against the table, let me point out that Mormonism does not, I repeat, does not, consider other forms of Christianilty to be really nonchristian. Sherlock appears to misunderstand the Mormon notion of the "apostasy.'' Within Mormonism, it's true that the notion that there was an apostasy that occurred subsequent to the death of Christ's apostles is central to Mormonism. But Mormonism does not teach that this apostosy has rendered all nonmormon Christian faiths to be nonchristian. Mormonism does not teach this. Mormonism teaches that, at some point after all of the apostles died, the fullness of the Christian gospel was lost, but a very large portion of it remained true to Christ, and His teachings. This is why Mormon Church leaders do NOT consider nonmormon Christian churches to be "really'' nonchristian. Some might consider the assertion of the Mormon Church that all other nonmormon Christian churches contain much truth, indeed enough truth to be legitimately considered Christian, to be a shrewd political move. But this is not correct. Mormons consider the apostolic tradition, in leadership, that the Catholic Church adheres to, to be largely correct. It also considers what nonmormon Christian Churches teach, concerning the Bible, to be mostly correct, without the Trinitarian covering. Mormons, in short, believe that what gives Mormonism the full truth with respect to Christianity, is the addition of other sacred works, THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, and THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, to supplement the Bible. And, the subtraction of the doctrine of the trinity. Everything else that nonmormon Christianity adheres to, is Christian.
No Mormon believes that God was silent until 1820. Their beliefs concerning God's plan are much more nuanced and subtle, and sophisticated for that. Mormons don't believe that everything after the death of the apostles, up to 1820, was unimportant; they believe that what occurred within what we could call partial Christianity, to reflect their belief that Christianity, although incomplete, still existed, was a wonderful and important period in human history. Mormon don't consider this period to be stagnant. They believe that spirits were constantly being born, and God was very active in His world, but just not active in restoring th fullness of the Gospel yet.
With respect to becoming "gods'' in Mormonism, the latter does not teach that everyone, will or can, become gods, or that most will. It teaches that only a very small number MAY become gods.
Could it be that Sherlock has misunderstood the teachings of a Church that he chose to reject?
First of all, although I grew up LDS, and believed in its doctrines at one point, I no longer do. With these cards flatly placed against the table, let me point out that Mormonism does not, I repeat, does not, consider other forms of Christianilty to be really nonchristian. Sherlock appears to misunderstand the Mormon notion of the "apostasy.'' Within Mormonism, it's true that the notion that there was an apostasy that occurred subsequent to the death of Christ's apostles is central to Mormonism. But Mormonism does not teach that this apostosy has rendered all nonmormon Christian faiths to be nonchristian. Mormonism does not teach this. Mormonism teaches that, at some point after all of the apostles died, the fullness of the Christian gospel was lost, but a very large portion of it remained true to Christ, and His teachings. This is why Mormon Church leaders do NOT consider nonmormon Christian churches to be "really'' nonchristian. Some might consider the assertion of the Mormon Church that all other nonmormon Christian churches contain much truth, indeed enough truth to be legitimately considered Christian, to be a shrewd political move. But this is not correct. Mormons consider the apostolic tradition, in leadership, that the Catholic Church adheres to, to be largely correct. It also considers what nonmormon Christian Churches teach, concerning the Bible, to be mostly correct, without the Trinitarian covering. Mormons, in short, believe that what gives Mormonism the full truth with respect to Christianity, is the addition of other sacred works, THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, and THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, to supplement the Bible. And, the subtraction of the doctrine of the trinity. Everything else that nonmormon Christianity adheres to, is Christian.
No Mormon believes that God was silent until 1820. Their beliefs concerning God's plan are much more nuanced and subtle, and sophisticated for that. Mormons don't believe that everything after the death of the apostles, up to 1820, was unimportant; they believe that what occurred within what we could call partial Christianity, to reflect their belief that Christianity, although incomplete, still existed, was a wonderful and important period in human history. Mormon don't consider this period to be stagnant. They believe that spirits were constantly being born, and God was very active in His world, but just not active in restoring th fullness of the Gospel yet.
With respect to becoming "gods'' in Mormonism, the latter does not teach that everyone, will or can, become gods, or that most will. It teaches that only a very small number MAY become gods.
Could it be that Sherlock has misunderstood the teachings of a Church that he chose to reject?
8.30.2012 | 7:43am
Patrick Lawler says:
Dear Professor Sherlock
I too was recieved into the Faith at this year's Easter Vigil; I had been a Buddhist (religious teacher and meditation instructor) for thirty years.
In fact, I was living and working at a meditation and retreat centre (and planning on spending the rest of my life working for the Buddist organisation I was a part of) when I felt I was being called by Christ.
I am still in something of a bemused state of wonder, humility and thankfulness!
Please keep telling your story, I am sure conversion narratives often have a real impact on those who are being led to the Faith by the Holy Spirit.
May Our Lord bless and keep you.
Patrick Lawler
I too was recieved into the Faith at this year's Easter Vigil; I had been a Buddhist (religious teacher and meditation instructor) for thirty years.
In fact, I was living and working at a meditation and retreat centre (and planning on spending the rest of my life working for the Buddist organisation I was a part of) when I felt I was being called by Christ.
I am still in something of a bemused state of wonder, humility and thankfulness!
Please keep telling your story, I am sure conversion narratives often have a real impact on those who are being led to the Faith by the Holy Spirit.
May Our Lord bless and keep you.
Patrick Lawler
8.30.2012 | 8:11am
Jim from Utah says:
Dr. Sherlock was a neighbor of mine and a peculiarly humble man. One might ask his colleague Dr. Kleiner, of mighty wit, to also write an article on some aspect of his own conversion.
8.30.2012 | 9:07am
R says:
Thank you for sharing this. You describe a journey that I have made in my mind, but have yet to make outwardly (family ties make such a move very daunting). Beyond family ties, I can't escape a strong sense that growing up Mormon was very good for me, and at critical junctures in my life actually helped me avoid making disastrous mistakes, so there is a lingering sense of indebtedness. But I no longer accept its exclusive truth claims, and when I attend services, I find myself just trying to focus on those aspects of the religion that are genuinely Christian, and ignore the rest. Reading your account persuades me that I ought to rethink my cowardice.
8.30.2012 | 10:31am
Joe DeVet says:
I think this is the first witness that I have heard or read of a convert from LDS to RC. Very heart-warming. Welcome!
I should think that in certain ways Mormons would find a comfortable home in Catholicism, and enrich us as well. The great example that Mormons give us of strong family life is one we could all benefit from emulating. It's a Catholic value as well, of course, but the Church needs to recover its ability to articulate it and inspire its flock to follow it.
I should think that in certain ways Mormons would find a comfortable home in Catholicism, and enrich us as well. The great example that Mormons give us of strong family life is one we could all benefit from emulating. It's a Catholic value as well, of course, but the Church needs to recover its ability to articulate it and inspire its flock to follow it.
8.30.2012 | 10:57am
Bea from Montana says:
It takes courage to look and explore things outside of the way you are led to believe. If one were to study the Church Fathers as you did and really ask themselves was Christ lying when he said he would not let the gates of hell prevail the Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth. I read "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" and have to say it's a wonder anyone is still a believer of Joseph Smith's invention. The testimony that they do each week is another telling sign....convince the sheep that what they are doing is right because they say it is. Kind of like if you tell a lie enough times people will start to believe. Welcome home to the truth brother!
8.30.2012 | 11:26am
Dean Wilson says:
Patrick Lawler, please excuse me for hijacking this thread, but it you're still reading would you mind discussing your journey from Buddhism? I have a good friend who is a very enthusiastic Buddhist and I find it hard to even talk to her about religion because of the way she uses words and discusses concepts. Please feel free to email me if you would like.
She and I work, ironically enough, for a small company of mostly Mormons...
bryan.dean.wilson@gmail.com
She and I work, ironically enough, for a small company of mostly Mormons...
bryan.dean.wilson@gmail.com
8.30.2012 | 11:45am
Pastor Spomer says:
Thank you, Dr. Sherlock for this candid account of coming to Christ. The difference between the finite and the Infinite is a difference of kind, not degree. There is no such thing as ‘almost God’.
I offer a three fold prayer: One, that both Mormons and Christians recognize the fundamental difference between the two faiths and not water down or dismiss the teachings of Christianity so that they blend into one ecumenical mush.
Two, that more Mormons come to know the One, true, almighty God, Who descended to His creation and redeemed it on the Cross. and
Three, that the LDS church as a whole, reexamine her faith and come to a Nicene confession of their beliefs. In the past, they have changed doctrine, such as their regard of Blacks and of polygamy. They, I hope, have the apparatus to transform their faith into a Christian one, which is something that they seem to want to do.
If a Mormon were to ask, “What must we do to be accepted as part of Christendom, let us respectfully, and lovingly lead them words of the Nicene Creed which best express the revelation of the Bible. “Hear Oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One.” And “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
I offer a three fold prayer: One, that both Mormons and Christians recognize the fundamental difference between the two faiths and not water down or dismiss the teachings of Christianity so that they blend into one ecumenical mush.
Two, that more Mormons come to know the One, true, almighty God, Who descended to His creation and redeemed it on the Cross. and
Three, that the LDS church as a whole, reexamine her faith and come to a Nicene confession of their beliefs. In the past, they have changed doctrine, such as their regard of Blacks and of polygamy. They, I hope, have the apparatus to transform their faith into a Christian one, which is something that they seem to want to do.
If a Mormon were to ask, “What must we do to be accepted as part of Christendom, let us respectfully, and lovingly lead them words of the Nicene Creed which best express the revelation of the Bible. “Hear Oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One.” And “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
8.30.2012 | 11:47am
Carson Chittom says:
@Bret Lythgoe:
I am for the most part unfamiliar with LDS teaching. Because of the limits of Internet communication, I want to make clear that the below is asked in a curious, not argumentative, intent.
Wikipedia says
"The faith itself views other modern Christian faiths as having departed from true Christianity[81] via a general apostasy and that it is a restoration of 1st century Christianity and the only true and authorized Christian church.[82]"
Cite 81 says
"^ Smith, Joseph, Jr. (March 1, 1842), "Church History [Wentworth Letter"], Times and Seasons 3 (9): 706–10 (traditional Christian denominations "were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as His church and kingdom"). Smith, Joseph, Jr. (April 1, 1842), "History of Joseph Smith", Times and Seasons 3 (11): 748–49 Stating that Jesus told Smith that all existing Christian creeds "were an abomination in his sight"."
and cite 82 says
"^ D&C 1:30 (LDS Church is the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth")."
How does one reconcile these quotations ("abomination"?) with your statement that "Mormonism does not, I repeat, does not, consider other forms of Christianilty to be really nonchristian"?
I am for the most part unfamiliar with LDS teaching. Because of the limits of Internet communication, I want to make clear that the below is asked in a curious, not argumentative, intent.
Wikipedia says
"The faith itself views other modern Christian faiths as having departed from true Christianity[81] via a general apostasy and that it is a restoration of 1st century Christianity and the only true and authorized Christian church.[82]"
Cite 81 says
"^ Smith, Joseph, Jr. (March 1, 1842), "Church History [Wentworth Letter"], Times and Seasons 3 (9): 706–10 (traditional Christian denominations "were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as His church and kingdom"). Smith, Joseph, Jr. (April 1, 1842), "History of Joseph Smith", Times and Seasons 3 (11): 748–49 Stating that Jesus told Smith that all existing Christian creeds "were an abomination in his sight"."
and cite 82 says
"^ D&C 1:30 (LDS Church is the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth")."
How does one reconcile these quotations ("abomination"?) with your statement that "Mormonism does not, I repeat, does not, consider other forms of Christianilty to be really nonchristian"?
8.30.2012 | 12:52pm
heinz wurzburg says:
There will come a day when we all will marvel at the different ways Christ drew his people to himself and your story will have it's place with many others.
I trust that your journey has led you to a living Christ and not just another religion or denomination,since Jesus pays little attention to those details as He looks at our heart.
It has always been true when He told us to "keep on knocking and the door will be opened".......and He is the door.
I trust that your journey has led you to a living Christ and not just another religion or denomination,since Jesus pays little attention to those details as He looks at our heart.
It has always been true when He told us to "keep on knocking and the door will be opened".......and He is the door.
8.30.2012 | 1:12pm
Margaret Crandall says:
I particularly appreciate your honesty in explaining why you were reluctant to act upon the call within your heart.
I experienced a Damascus Road experience - having been an atheist for 23 years.
Most of my family was "socially Protestant Christian" -- that is, they thought religious people were foolish & uneducated. However "church was a good place to teach proper behavior to the lower classes."
Conversion from such a background means a social uprooting.
But how can we consider this a price to be paid - when we compare the losses and & ridicule we endure to the persecutions of early Christianity, and the persecutions that continue around the world. Yes we lose family & friends (I attended a well known divinity school and now visit prisons & juvenile facilities) -- but we see the Holy One of God who calls us friend and brother/sister. Nothing compares to this privilege.
I experienced a Damascus Road experience - having been an atheist for 23 years.
Most of my family was "socially Protestant Christian" -- that is, they thought religious people were foolish & uneducated. However "church was a good place to teach proper behavior to the lower classes."
Conversion from such a background means a social uprooting.
But how can we consider this a price to be paid - when we compare the losses and & ridicule we endure to the persecutions of early Christianity, and the persecutions that continue around the world. Yes we lose family & friends (I attended a well known divinity school and now visit prisons & juvenile facilities) -- but we see the Holy One of God who calls us friend and brother/sister. Nothing compares to this privilege.
8.30.2012 | 1:20pm
Gene Fadness says:
Wonderful story. I must echo Mr. Chittom's assertions above in response to Mr. Lythgoe's statements that Mormons do not consider others nonChristian. I was a Mormon missionary and we were sent out to knock on doors in Australia to tell people of all faiths or no faith that, regardless of their faith tradition, they had to be re-baptized into the "only true and living church on the face of the Earth" -- the LDS faith. We did acknowledge that other religions had truth in them and that individuals in those faiths had some of the spirit of Christ, but the "fulness of truth" was found only in the LDS Church. In fact, only those who were baptized in the LDS faith and qualfied to receive their temple ordinances would achieve the highest heaven where God dwells. All others would be assigned to lesser degrees of glory.
8.30.2012 | 2:17pm
thepeppershaker says:
Not to be argumentative, but as one who was raised and is Mormon, I have to agree with Bret above that some key points are generally missed regarding Mormon beliefs in Sherlock's story.
I admire any man's journey to Christ. Typically, Mormons believe a testimony of His divinity can be gained by personal revelation. That method would never be prevailed against (Matt 16:15-19). In verse 19, Peter is also given priesthood keys. Because of the persecution, politics, death, and sin, the priesthood keys were lost (2 Thess. 2:1-3); not Christianity, though, and not basic gospel of Jesus Christ.
In the LDS Church, we believe past, present, and future, that all is before the Lord. We don't believe he was snoozing, but paving the way for the last days (Ephesians 1:10). We love our ancestors, and even invite all to receive priesthood ordinances like baptism, though they have passed, through the work we do in temples.
Finally, nowhere in LDS scripture does it say that Mormons will have their own planet, though it is often implied, or that God is somehow limited. We believe we are His children (Romans 8:16) and follow Christ's invitation to be like Him. When we fall short, we have the grace of our Redeemer to lift us up. We believe in one God - our God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. He is not limited in any way and LDS doctrine does not imply that He is.
As a Mormon, I feel I have a strong, deep, and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. His divine love abounds to any man who seeks it, without regard to where you are or what church you are participating. Though ordinances with one who has authority is still asked for by the Lord, and that is a point of difference between the Catholic and LDS Church, we both believe His love is a wondrous love.
Thanks.
I admire any man's journey to Christ. Typically, Mormons believe a testimony of His divinity can be gained by personal revelation. That method would never be prevailed against (Matt 16:15-19). In verse 19, Peter is also given priesthood keys. Because of the persecution, politics, death, and sin, the priesthood keys were lost (2 Thess. 2:1-3); not Christianity, though, and not basic gospel of Jesus Christ.
In the LDS Church, we believe past, present, and future, that all is before the Lord. We don't believe he was snoozing, but paving the way for the last days (Ephesians 1:10). We love our ancestors, and even invite all to receive priesthood ordinances like baptism, though they have passed, through the work we do in temples.
Finally, nowhere in LDS scripture does it say that Mormons will have their own planet, though it is often implied, or that God is somehow limited. We believe we are His children (Romans 8:16) and follow Christ's invitation to be like Him. When we fall short, we have the grace of our Redeemer to lift us up. We believe in one God - our God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. He is not limited in any way and LDS doctrine does not imply that He is.
As a Mormon, I feel I have a strong, deep, and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. His divine love abounds to any man who seeks it, without regard to where you are or what church you are participating. Though ordinances with one who has authority is still asked for by the Lord, and that is a point of difference between the Catholic and LDS Church, we both believe His love is a wondrous love.
Thanks.
8.30.2012 | 2:22pm
magdalene says:
May I say: WELCOME HOME!
Perhaps like St. Augustine, who also had felt the tugs in his heart: "Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would have not been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace."
You will never plumb the depths of the Catholic Faith; there will always be a new revelation, something new to learn and discover. The sacramental life is one of the greatest of gifts--well THE greatest for therein lies Our Lord and His precious grace. The spiritual life is never boring! And the more you give yourself to the Lord, the more you will wish to. You will find the Blessed Mother and the Saints to be your allies! Your own prayer life will astound you at times, and pain you at times. But what interior joy a true Catholic can know is something nothing else on earth can equal for it is union with God.
Perhaps like St. Augustine, who also had felt the tugs in his heart: "Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would have not been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace."
You will never plumb the depths of the Catholic Faith; there will always be a new revelation, something new to learn and discover. The sacramental life is one of the greatest of gifts--well THE greatest for therein lies Our Lord and His precious grace. The spiritual life is never boring! And the more you give yourself to the Lord, the more you will wish to. You will find the Blessed Mother and the Saints to be your allies! Your own prayer life will astound you at times, and pain you at times. But what interior joy a true Catholic can know is something nothing else on earth can equal for it is union with God.
8.30.2012 | 2:41pm
dillet says:
The writer states that "I felt strongly that I should go with him to his office and talk about my faith. Yet I turned away." Is it not just as possible that an ensuing discussion might have brought the Catholic closer to Mormonism? Such inspiration as Sherlock describes is a very common experience for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in every context of life.
@Carson: "Abomination" refers to "their Creeds" which teach for doctrine the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.
@Carson: "Abomination" refers to "their Creeds" which teach for doctrine the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.
8.30.2012 | 3:03pm
Alan says:
Jumped from one silly superstition to another - hopefully your next leap will be to a full appreciation for the truth and reality of the world without reliance on pagan idolatry that needs to see 'God' in human terms.
8.30.2012 | 3:11pm
Angela says:
This is a beautiful story! Thank you for sharing!! Have you ever looked at the work of Cora Evans! Her journey is of the same as yours - from Mormon to Catholic. And her cause for canonization has just been accepted by the Vatican!
8.30.2012 | 3:23pm
Phillip Brandt says:
I am not a Mormon, nor a Roman Catholic, but i am a reluctant exile from Rome, one who is still clinging to the veracity and authority of the Augsburg Confession, hence a Lutheran.
I did, however, spend nine years living the Salt Lake valley and came to know a number of LDS through my service as a Lutheran Pastor in the region. I am most impressed with what Prof Sherlock has said here and realize just how difficult it is for him to say it. The first baptism I ever performed as a Pastor was for a man who had attended the entire cycle baptismal preparation classes three times, at the urging of his Christian spouse of 40+ years. I was blessed to be the Pastor who got to see the fruit of all that encouragement and invitation a few months after my arrival. It was a very difficult process for all the LDS whom i knew, and many were simply not ever able to make it.
What i learned then and continue to struggle with is the fact that LDS do not join or remain in the LDS faith because they concur with the church's doctrine in total. For a Lutheran this is simply unimaginable. In my experience, for the most part, LDS affiliate and remain in that church because of close and personal relationships inside the church, relationships which are given a divine dimension by what they believe but which are often simply very good and healthy. Because LDS faith assumes that family and other relationships are actually part of the spiritual path, to rupture relationship by leaving the church would actually have a ripple effect on those to whom you were related. The family thus ruptured would not have the same post resurrection experience.
Regarding Bret Lythgoe's comments: i think Bret is actually referring to the current way that the LDS talk about other churches. Prof Sherlock is referring to the much more consistent way that the LDS have spoken of the apostasy since the days of Joseph Smith.
I did, however, spend nine years living the Salt Lake valley and came to know a number of LDS through my service as a Lutheran Pastor in the region. I am most impressed with what Prof Sherlock has said here and realize just how difficult it is for him to say it. The first baptism I ever performed as a Pastor was for a man who had attended the entire cycle baptismal preparation classes three times, at the urging of his Christian spouse of 40+ years. I was blessed to be the Pastor who got to see the fruit of all that encouragement and invitation a few months after my arrival. It was a very difficult process for all the LDS whom i knew, and many were simply not ever able to make it.
What i learned then and continue to struggle with is the fact that LDS do not join or remain in the LDS faith because they concur with the church's doctrine in total. For a Lutheran this is simply unimaginable. In my experience, for the most part, LDS affiliate and remain in that church because of close and personal relationships inside the church, relationships which are given a divine dimension by what they believe but which are often simply very good and healthy. Because LDS faith assumes that family and other relationships are actually part of the spiritual path, to rupture relationship by leaving the church would actually have a ripple effect on those to whom you were related. The family thus ruptured would not have the same post resurrection experience.
Regarding Bret Lythgoe's comments: i think Bret is actually referring to the current way that the LDS talk about other churches. Prof Sherlock is referring to the much more consistent way that the LDS have spoken of the apostasy since the days of Joseph Smith.
8.30.2012 | 3:25pm
Blueglass says:
Richard still needs to consider why the church which gave us the canonized list of Athanasius, also forced in the Comma Johanneum. Catholics will usually use Ephesians 3:21 to show support for propagation of authority in the Church, but cannot explain how bishops obtained the keys and authority to ordain other bishops, when apostles performed this ordination in the early church. The ordinance of baptism was perfectly exemplified by Jesus, Romans 6:1-6, but Catholics have wrested the circumcision rite performed on babies at 8days old and turned it into baptism. Concerning the mormon theogony ideas, they are not new. In Zohar Genesis 36a, and in Armenian texts it states, "'By this tree the Holy One created the world . . . " "The Holy One himself has eaten of this tree and was thus able to create the world. Do ye therefore eat of it and ye will also have power to do the same as He."
8.30.2012 | 4:24pm
Phillip says:
Like Professor Sherlock, I also was received into the Catholic Church this Easter Vigil 2012. I was born and raised LDS, served a 2 year mission, married in an LDS temple, etc.
May the Lord guides more of his lost sheep home!
May the Lord guides more of his lost sheep home!
8.30.2012 | 4:28pm
Mark says:
If only Glenn Beck could read this and re-think his journey away from the one true Chruch.
8.30.2012 | 4:44pm
dillet says:
I appreciate the decent, civil comments by the posters to this article. It is good not to find anti-mormon trolls here. Thank you.
8.30.2012 | 4:56pm
Phillip says:
Just to be clear on LDS teachings (I was LDS for 40 years and pretty well read in all things Mormon). The Mormon church teaches that after the death of the first apostles, the priesthood of God disappeared. Thus for around 1700 years all subsequent baptisms, celebrations of the Eucharist (LDS sacrament), ordinations, and other Christian rites were not valid in God’s eyes. The Church of Christ effectively ceased to exist. At the same time, Mormons must believe that essential gospel truths were corrupted: the nature of God, the nature of human beings, the eternity of matter, polygamy, the Eucharist as a symbol only, our preexistence as spirits before this life, eternal marriage, temple ordinances, and other distinctive LDS beliefs. Thus for approximately 17 centuries there were no validly baptized Christians, no validly ordained Christian clergy, and only a distorted version of the true gospel remaining on the earth (in the Old World at least). In any meaningful sense, authentic Christianity no longer existed. Maybe people professed to believe in Jesus, but they believed in the wrong Jesus and were not united to him by baptism.
So basically Peter and the other apostles neglected or were unable to pass on their apostolic authority to other men, and more or less all of the churches founded by the apostles immediately fell into the same catholic-like heresies. God then had to wait until the 19th century for the right country (United States) and the right man (Joseph Smith) to come on the scene in order to restore the original Christian church.
For me, discovering that a Great Apostasy has no basis historically or theologically was an important first step in moving away from the Mormon faith.
So basically Peter and the other apostles neglected or were unable to pass on their apostolic authority to other men, and more or less all of the churches founded by the apostles immediately fell into the same catholic-like heresies. God then had to wait until the 19th century for the right country (United States) and the right man (Joseph Smith) to come on the scene in order to restore the original Christian church.
For me, discovering that a Great Apostasy has no basis historically or theologically was an important first step in moving away from the Mormon faith.
8.30.2012 | 5:04pm
Pastor Spomer says:
I'd like to ask our LDS friends, what would be the response of the church to a member who came to believe that God was one and had never changed and would never change? Would he be disciplined? Or is there room in the LDS church for such a confession?
Respectfully,
Phil Spomer
Respectfully,
Phil Spomer
8.30.2012 | 5:10pm
Phillip says:
A small sampling of how LDS leaders used to speak about the Great Apostasy, though the rhetoric has been turned down in recent years:
“After our Lord’s first coming and before his dreadful return, there is to be a day of absolute, total, and complete apostasy from the truth. Men are to be left to themselves, wanderers in darkness, without hope and without God in the world”
- LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie
“That is the trouble with Christianity today. It is not true. Christianity is, perhaps, no truer or falser than any other religion, than Mohammedanism, Confucianism, Buddhism or any other ism or philosophy. In fact, my brethren and sisters, if the falsity of a religion can be measured in any degree by the amount of trouble and turmoil and strife and bitterness and hatred that it has engendered in the hearts of men, if it can be judged by the number of wars it has carried on and the rivers of blood it has shed, the amount of misery and sorrow, it has caused, or the extremes of impurity, found among its adherents, then Christianity, that which is known as Christianity, is the falsest of all religions in the world.”
- LDS apostle Hyrum M. Smith
“But who in this generation have authority to baptize? None but those who have received authority in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints: all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives Baptism or the Lord’s supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people. Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act.”
- LDS apostle Orson Pratt
Traditionally in Mormonism, the Catholic Church has been identified with the so called Great and Abominable Church of the Devil described in the Book of Mormon (standard Protestant rhetoric actually). In recent years this open identification of the two thankfully seems to be going out of fashion.
“After our Lord’s first coming and before his dreadful return, there is to be a day of absolute, total, and complete apostasy from the truth. Men are to be left to themselves, wanderers in darkness, without hope and without God in the world”
- LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie
“That is the trouble with Christianity today. It is not true. Christianity is, perhaps, no truer or falser than any other religion, than Mohammedanism, Confucianism, Buddhism or any other ism or philosophy. In fact, my brethren and sisters, if the falsity of a religion can be measured in any degree by the amount of trouble and turmoil and strife and bitterness and hatred that it has engendered in the hearts of men, if it can be judged by the number of wars it has carried on and the rivers of blood it has shed, the amount of misery and sorrow, it has caused, or the extremes of impurity, found among its adherents, then Christianity, that which is known as Christianity, is the falsest of all religions in the world.”
- LDS apostle Hyrum M. Smith
“But who in this generation have authority to baptize? None but those who have received authority in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints: all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives Baptism or the Lord’s supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people. Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act.”
- LDS apostle Orson Pratt
Traditionally in Mormonism, the Catholic Church has been identified with the so called Great and Abominable Church of the Devil described in the Book of Mormon (standard Protestant rhetoric actually). In recent years this open identification of the two thankfully seems to be going out of fashion.
8.30.2012 | 5:12pm
Carson Chittom says:
@dillet: Indeed, "abomination" refers to "creeds." But if one calls, for example, the Nicene Creed an abomination, isn't one then calling the Nicene Christianity it describes "abomination" as well?
8.30.2012 | 5:31pm
9th Centurion says:
@Bret L: Thank you for your perspective and thoughts.
Re "And, the subtraction of the doctrine of the trinity."
How can LDS hold such a position and not only remain "Christian" in their self-identity but also look at the Catholic/Protestant faiths as "Christian" yet deny the Trinity?
To deny the Trinity is to deny Christ's words in John; "When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost."
It seems to me Philip Brandt's point regarding the role and identity of family and community in spiritual path for LDS members, and I'll add probably the historical effects of the external stereotype regarding LDS and polygamy serving to strengthen that identity with one's spiritual path through an "us and them" dynamic, is really what is the foundational strength of the LDS church.
I also wonder how this all fits with Christ's words in Luke
"Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. [52] For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. [53] The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
and His words in Luke and Matthew of letting "dead bury their dead".
I think there is a treasure, a pearl of great price, hidden away in the desert of the Church of LDS; the people.
I pray they may all come home. The Catholic Church is in great need of people with such great strength to be dedicated to His Trinity and His Church.
AMDG
Re "And, the subtraction of the doctrine of the trinity."
How can LDS hold such a position and not only remain "Christian" in their self-identity but also look at the Catholic/Protestant faiths as "Christian" yet deny the Trinity?
To deny the Trinity is to deny Christ's words in John; "When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost."
It seems to me Philip Brandt's point regarding the role and identity of family and community in spiritual path for LDS members, and I'll add probably the historical effects of the external stereotype regarding LDS and polygamy serving to strengthen that identity with one's spiritual path through an "us and them" dynamic, is really what is the foundational strength of the LDS church.
I also wonder how this all fits with Christ's words in Luke
"Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. [52] For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. [53] The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
and His words in Luke and Matthew of letting "dead bury their dead".
I think there is a treasure, a pearl of great price, hidden away in the desert of the Church of LDS; the people.
I pray they may all come home. The Catholic Church is in great need of people with such great strength to be dedicated to His Trinity and His Church.
AMDG
8.30.2012 | 5:48pm
Dillet says:
To Don Roberto and others-- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("saints" meaning church members, as used in Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Phillip and Peter; NOT exalted, deified persons) is Christ's RESTORED church. We make no such assertion that "God arose from a pre-existing chaos" nor that he is merely a man. We know next to nothing about the statement that "as Man is, God once was," but we know much about the other half, "as God is, Man may become."
Jesus Christ's church must represent man's potential correctly (1 Corinthians 8:5-6, Psalm 82, John 10:34) "If we are children (of God)," wrote the apostle Paul to the Romans (8:17, New International Version), "then we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ." "To him that overcometh," says the Savior to John the Revelator (3:21, KJV), "will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear."
Divinization, or theosis, narrowing the space between God and humans, was part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd Century: “We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.”Justin Martyr in mid 2nd Century said: “all men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and of having power to become sons of the Highest”St. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, (d. A.D. 419), wrote that “God made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice, and are become perfect, are gods and sons of the Most High." Clement of Alexandria said worthy men "are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior." Origen in reference to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 said "Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God . As, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: "He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him," (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988). St. Symeon writes, 'He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face.' The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees with Early Christian church leaders regarding theosis.
Also consider the following:
"Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6). "Is it not written in your law, ‘Ye are gods’" ( John 10:34). "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father" (Matt. 5:48). "We are the offspring of God" (Acts 17:29),"heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). "if a son, then an heir of God through Christ" (Gal. 4:7). "when he shall appear, we shall be like him" (1 Jn. 3:2). " him that overcometh will sit with me in my throne" (Rev. 3:21).
Mormons do NOT believe or teach that those who do not convert are damned. Jesus Christ’s atonement accomplished the assurance of resurrection for all, and salvation for all except those who willfully choose Satan as their master. Exaltation, the greatest of eternal opportunities, does require of us further choices, greater faith, and Christ-like attitudes and actions, however. We believe that" all mankind may ["can be"] saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the [restored] Gospel."
Jesus Christ's church must represent man's potential correctly (1 Corinthians 8:5-6, Psalm 82, John 10:34) "If we are children (of God)," wrote the apostle Paul to the Romans (8:17, New International Version), "then we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ." "To him that overcometh," says the Savior to John the Revelator (3:21, KJV), "will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear."
Divinization, or theosis, narrowing the space between God and humans, was part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd Century: “We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.”Justin Martyr in mid 2nd Century said: “all men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and of having power to become sons of the Highest”St. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, (d. A.D. 419), wrote that “God made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice, and are become perfect, are gods and sons of the Most High." Clement of Alexandria said worthy men "are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior." Origen in reference to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 said "Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God . As, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: "He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him," (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988). St. Symeon writes, 'He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face.' The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees with Early Christian church leaders regarding theosis.
Also consider the following:
"Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6). "Is it not written in your law, ‘Ye are gods’" ( John 10:34). "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father" (Matt. 5:48). "We are the offspring of God" (Acts 17:29),"heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). "if a son, then an heir of God through Christ" (Gal. 4:7). "when he shall appear, we shall be like him" (1 Jn. 3:2). " him that overcometh will sit with me in my throne" (Rev. 3:21).
Mormons do NOT believe or teach that those who do not convert are damned. Jesus Christ’s atonement accomplished the assurance of resurrection for all, and salvation for all except those who willfully choose Satan as their master. Exaltation, the greatest of eternal opportunities, does require of us further choices, greater faith, and Christ-like attitudes and actions, however. We believe that" all mankind may ["can be"] saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the [restored] Gospel."
8.30.2012 | 5:54pm
dillet says:
Philip--This is the answer to what you don't understand-- "the fact that LDS do not join or remain in the LDS faith because they concur with the church's doctrine in total."
It is the foundational fact that Heavenly Father AND Jesus Christ came to Joseph Smith and appointed him to begin the work of preparing the world for the Second Coming. Christ and angelic messengers came again many times to teach him. Many subsequent Prophets of the Church have had similar experiences. Most of the millions of members today have received personal revelation in their hearts and in their minds confirming these truths, repeatedly reaffirmed by a wide variety of experiences. As one result, we see and understand a bigger picture of life, which makes sense of both history and human nature.
It is the foundational fact that Heavenly Father AND Jesus Christ came to Joseph Smith and appointed him to begin the work of preparing the world for the Second Coming. Christ and angelic messengers came again many times to teach him. Many subsequent Prophets of the Church have had similar experiences. Most of the millions of members today have received personal revelation in their hearts and in their minds confirming these truths, repeatedly reaffirmed by a wide variety of experiences. As one result, we see and understand a bigger picture of life, which makes sense of both history and human nature.
8.30.2012 | 6:04pm
Brian says:
I think the LDS view of the Great Apostasy is unique. They do not necessarily consider doctrine the defining factor of the "One True Church" but rather priesthood authority and revelation (prophets).
They believe Peter was a prophet and an apostle. He, along with John and James were given direct authority on the Mount of Transfiguration to administer the ordinances of Christ's Church. They in tern gave authority to others, but only apostles have full authority over all the keys to the Kingdom of Christ. The apostasy happened when bishops (Popes) replaced apostles, and the keys were lost.
This does not mean that truth was lost, or that doctrines were false, although those are side effects of not having revelation though apostles and prophets. But it was the keys to ordination that was lost, so those keys are what were restored to Joseph Smith.
A side effect of those keys and revelation are truths and doctrinal revelations. Now, that does not mean to Mormons that they have all truth, or that others are lacking Christian beliefs. But it does mean that they are the only holder to the true sacraments of Christianity. But that does not make other non-Christian, and Mormons are happy to allow others to have their beliefs, and to claim whatever rites and beliefs they want. But authority and revelation are the two points Mormons will emphasize, over Biblical interpretation and doctrinal historicity - although most Mormons would say that revelation is backed up by the Bible and pre-4th century creedal history.
The second point made is about the nature of God. Again Mormons have a unique perspective on this, even heretical. God is not necessarily a person or being, but more a state of mind. God has always existed, and God will always exist. But God as we know it is in the form of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Son was physically born, died, and rose bodily from the dead, never to die again. He has physical form. But God does not (or rather God as a being is made up of persons who have bodies (Jesus) and those who do not (Holy Ghost). It's really just an elaboration on the mystery of the Trinity. But Mormons do not limit God to the trinity. Humans have the potential to become one with God, and in essence become "gods" and add to God's glory. God is still God, but we have potential to become God. The Father stays the Father, the Son is still the Son, and always our savior and redeemer, but we also are God. And speculatively that means that there exists the possibility that God the Father was once a man, just as we are men, and at some point became one with God, and therefore is God. But God has always existed, God will always remain, and God's state is always God. Oh, and God is one. There is no other God in existence, and therefore just as the Trinity represents one monotheistic being made of three persons, The "Mormon God" is also one being made up of infinite persons, of which we know of and worship three (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). And to add to that, Jesus as the savior and redeemer does have a special place as there is no being, person or "God" who sacrificed himself freely that we might be redeemed. He is the Great I AM, and there is no other name from which we may be saved. In that respect He is unique.
They believe Peter was a prophet and an apostle. He, along with John and James were given direct authority on the Mount of Transfiguration to administer the ordinances of Christ's Church. They in tern gave authority to others, but only apostles have full authority over all the keys to the Kingdom of Christ. The apostasy happened when bishops (Popes) replaced apostles, and the keys were lost.
This does not mean that truth was lost, or that doctrines were false, although those are side effects of not having revelation though apostles and prophets. But it was the keys to ordination that was lost, so those keys are what were restored to Joseph Smith.
A side effect of those keys and revelation are truths and doctrinal revelations. Now, that does not mean to Mormons that they have all truth, or that others are lacking Christian beliefs. But it does mean that they are the only holder to the true sacraments of Christianity. But that does not make other non-Christian, and Mormons are happy to allow others to have their beliefs, and to claim whatever rites and beliefs they want. But authority and revelation are the two points Mormons will emphasize, over Biblical interpretation and doctrinal historicity - although most Mormons would say that revelation is backed up by the Bible and pre-4th century creedal history.
The second point made is about the nature of God. Again Mormons have a unique perspective on this, even heretical. God is not necessarily a person or being, but more a state of mind. God has always existed, and God will always exist. But God as we know it is in the form of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Son was physically born, died, and rose bodily from the dead, never to die again. He has physical form. But God does not (or rather God as a being is made up of persons who have bodies (Jesus) and those who do not (Holy Ghost). It's really just an elaboration on the mystery of the Trinity. But Mormons do not limit God to the trinity. Humans have the potential to become one with God, and in essence become "gods" and add to God's glory. God is still God, but we have potential to become God. The Father stays the Father, the Son is still the Son, and always our savior and redeemer, but we also are God. And speculatively that means that there exists the possibility that God the Father was once a man, just as we are men, and at some point became one with God, and therefore is God. But God has always existed, God will always remain, and God's state is always God. Oh, and God is one. There is no other God in existence, and therefore just as the Trinity represents one monotheistic being made of three persons, The "Mormon God" is also one being made up of infinite persons, of which we know of and worship three (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). And to add to that, Jesus as the savior and redeemer does have a special place as there is no being, person or "God" who sacrificed himself freely that we might be redeemed. He is the Great I AM, and there is no other name from which we may be saved. In that respect He is unique.
8.30.2012 | 6:21pm
Brian Johnson says:
Thank you for the thoughtful, even beautiful, description of your journey. May I only gently suggest you consider the possibility that many different roads lead to the truth. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddists, Hindus, Islamics, New Agers, Nihilists, Agnostics, Atheists, Scientists, and, heaven forbid, even Mormons, all hear the voice of the divine when they listen for it. Unfortunately, when they instead focus on the notion that their faith or ideology alone possesses the exclusive franchise for the truth that voice gets hard to hear. Bless you as you go forward.
8.30.2012 | 7:02pm
fred vaughan says:
I knew Richard Sherlock fifty years ago at the University of Chicago and remember him as an intelligent and delightful friend. I was a Jesuit scholastic in those days and my collar tended to make people turn away from me. Not Richard. He willingly sought me out and we discussed many things about the Faith at great length. I am delighted to see that he has "come Home." He and others might like to see my reflections on the Jesuits in my recent novel, "Retreat from Manresa: a Jesuit Story." I am sure Richard will. God bless.
Fred
Fred
8.30.2012 | 7:05pm
Rick says:
@Bret Lythgoe: "With respect to becoming "gods'' in Mormonism, the latter does not teach that everyone, will or can, become gods, or that most will. It teaches that only a very small number MAY become gods."
Even if completely accurate, this "clarification" does not contradict the charge of polytheism. I had a Mormon classmate in a university class some years ago who was eager to share his faith with me. So, I asked whether he thought he would some day be the god of a planet elsewhere in the universe. He was too honest to lie, and his answer was an embarrassed "I...hope so." I then asked if he thought Africans were a cursed race, the curse manifesting itself in the darkness of their skin. This time, VERY hesitant, he answered, "Y-yes..."
I once heard a radio interview with a black Mormon. He explained that white LDS often thought that he could be relieved of this curse through following the Mormon path and evolving spiritually. One LDS woman actually told him, "Mr. Johnson, you are doing wonderfully in the church, and I have no doubt that one day your skin will be just as white as ours!"
I have always found Mormons to be wonderful people personally, but the belief system is rather bizarre.
Even if completely accurate, this "clarification" does not contradict the charge of polytheism. I had a Mormon classmate in a university class some years ago who was eager to share his faith with me. So, I asked whether he thought he would some day be the god of a planet elsewhere in the universe. He was too honest to lie, and his answer was an embarrassed "I...hope so." I then asked if he thought Africans were a cursed race, the curse manifesting itself in the darkness of their skin. This time, VERY hesitant, he answered, "Y-yes..."
I once heard a radio interview with a black Mormon. He explained that white LDS often thought that he could be relieved of this curse through following the Mormon path and evolving spiritually. One LDS woman actually told him, "Mr. Johnson, you are doing wonderfully in the church, and I have no doubt that one day your skin will be just as white as ours!"
I have always found Mormons to be wonderful people personally, but the belief system is rather bizarre.
8.30.2012 | 7:33pm
Real Mormon says:
MORMONS ARE COMMANDED BY THEIR LEADERS TO COMPLETELY OBEY THE CHURCH LEADERSHIP IN ALL MATTERS - INCLUDING CIVIC MATTERS (#10 on this list).
FROM THE LDS CHURCH WEBSITE:
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets
The 14 Fundamental Ways To Follow The Prophet of the Mormon Church
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency — the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency — the living prophet and the First Presidency — follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.
Here is a website called, "Follow the Prophet."
http://www.followtheprophet.net/
FROM THE LDS CHURCH WEBSITE:
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets
The 14 Fundamental Ways To Follow The Prophet of the Mormon Church
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency — the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency — the living prophet and the First Presidency — follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.
Here is a website called, "Follow the Prophet."
http://www.followtheprophet.net/
8.30.2012 | 7:40pm
Captain DG says:
I am impressed by most of the comments to this post. As a Catholic I am happy at the direction of Professor Sherlock's journey. While I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet I do think he was more than a charlatan. God works as God wants. When I see the good works performed by earnest Mormons I good works regardless.
8.30.2012 | 8:17pm
Jhelaman says:
'"God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man.” Parse this out and God himself becomes a finite, physical being." This is a grand assumption, that being that if God has a physical body he is somehow limited in power or efficacy. A mormon, (such as I), might suggest that Christ, appearing after his ressurection to the Apostles was able to appear seemingly out of thin air (they thoght him a spirit if you recall) and then ascend into heaven later. Clearly his ressurected body had more control over whatever laws govern the physics of Earth. This suggests a difference in the physical body of Christ at that time and the mortal bodies of the apostles. A Mormon would argue that God's physical body inseperably connected with a spiritual body is the end result of what Jesus meant when he said "be ye therefore perfect like your father in Heaven is perfect."
My second point is slightly larger: What is God's purpose in creating what traditional Nicene christianity views as humanity? What is God's endgame in that theory? To have billions of creationees saved and return to heaven to endlessly worship him? (Oh what Hubris this would suggest). If that were the only end result why would he not save himself the trouble of creating beings that are inherently flawed and imperfect only to be required to provide them a savior (Christ the Son) in order to return to Him. Better to create perfect creations that have no need of salvation? Aye, there's the rub. This mortal life has something that cannot be gained in Heaven... experience with the good AND THE EVIL...and a physical body. But why? Why is that necessary unless Heaven entails more than simply strumming a harp and Praising the Lord? God's plan (in my view of the Mormon doctrine) is to give us opportunity to learn and grow and gain a body in an effort to continually progress in the hereafter (body becoming inseparable from spirit through the resurrection). What that progression means after death I am not totally sure of. No one is. But this much I can tell you, His goal is for His CHILDREN to become like He is. Just my humble opinion.
My second point is slightly larger: What is God's purpose in creating what traditional Nicene christianity views as humanity? What is God's endgame in that theory? To have billions of creationees saved and return to heaven to endlessly worship him? (Oh what Hubris this would suggest). If that were the only end result why would he not save himself the trouble of creating beings that are inherently flawed and imperfect only to be required to provide them a savior (Christ the Son) in order to return to Him. Better to create perfect creations that have no need of salvation? Aye, there's the rub. This mortal life has something that cannot be gained in Heaven... experience with the good AND THE EVIL...and a physical body. But why? Why is that necessary unless Heaven entails more than simply strumming a harp and Praising the Lord? God's plan (in my view of the Mormon doctrine) is to give us opportunity to learn and grow and gain a body in an effort to continually progress in the hereafter (body becoming inseparable from spirit through the resurrection). What that progression means after death I am not totally sure of. No one is. But this much I can tell you, His goal is for His CHILDREN to become like He is. Just my humble opinion.
8.30.2012 | 8:41pm
Ernest Christian says:
Thank you Professor for sharing your "road to Damascus" experience. Worth sharing to people in some way or another having a blow in their Catholic faith. Philippines is dominantly Catholic but lacks reasonable faith. We need people like you who share faith interestingly academic and profound with humility of understanding other people's journey to faith.
I pray for the Filipino people to continue their journey in faith though Catholic their papers are, but lacking with perseverance in truly knowing the real "PERSON-JESUS" in their faith.
Godbless your journey Prof. and may you inspire more people! Welcome home!
I pray for the Filipino people to continue their journey in faith though Catholic their papers are, but lacking with perseverance in truly knowing the real "PERSON-JESUS" in their faith.
Godbless your journey Prof. and may you inspire more people! Welcome home!
8.30.2012 | 11:23pm
Michael of Brisbane says:
Real Mormon's 14 Ways to Follow the Prophet make the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility seem anaemic. I understand from point 3 that if the statements of a currently living prophet contradict the documented views of a deceased prophet, as appears to have happened, you should just follow the alive one. If he then dies, you may need to change your beliefs again. But I have a question about the source of the 14 Ways - were they devised by a Prophet, and is he still with us?
8.30.2012 | 11:23pm
Deacon Bill Gallerizzo says:
A deep flaw of Mormonism is the fact that over time it has changed and altered doctrine, which is its criticism of Christian faiths. That and a lack of ritualistic sacrifice make it more of a philosophy than a religion. The fact that it cannot accept a true Trinitarian base of its faith makes it a non-Christian faith, even though it may include the name Christ; the lack of acceptance of the scriptural definition of the Christ and to include the statement in its formal name is heretical and anathema to say the least.
8.31.2012 | 2:40am
nvlawyer says:
God was once like Man. This reference is much misunderstood. Even by our "scholar" author. Was Jesus not once a man -- having taken the flesh upon his Spirit? Taken in this sense, Joseph Smith was dead on. We can then follow him and live like him -- that was his admonishment.
In the end, as a real Mormon Scholar, I do not begrudge the professor. I have studied Early Christianity for decades and consider myself very well versed in the fathers of the Catholic Church. They have much good to say and preach Christ. I love the Catholic Church, but would never leave the Mormon faith as my Road to Damascus was very much the opposite of that of the Professor. My powerful witness was not so much that Catholicism was wrong, but that the restoration of Christ's gospel was found in its fulness, along with its priesthood, within the Mormon faith (the Church of Jesus Christ).
In the end, there can only be the priesthood handed down from Peter through the Catholic Church or restored in its fulness and purity through Peter (the resurrected apostle) to Joseph Smith in the last days. There is not much of consequence or interest in the middle if one believes that God is organized and speaks through living leaders, prophets or popes.
I hear the words of the pope and know that he preaches Christ. I hear the words of the Mormon prophet, Thomas Monson and know that he preaches Christ. If the two men were in a room alone together, I would expect they would have their differences in doctrine and confidence in the priesthood they hold; however, overall, I would expect God's grace and his Spirit to be present as they are both soldiers for Christ.
We can argue which brand name is most attractive between two gas stations, having virtually the same fuel with only slight variations, but in the end, they both run the engines.
Carry on professor. Continue on your path and find happiness. I will do the same. I suspect if we are both sincere, we will both find our way back and God will forgive our shortcomings and misunderstandings.
In the end, as a real Mormon Scholar, I do not begrudge the professor. I have studied Early Christianity for decades and consider myself very well versed in the fathers of the Catholic Church. They have much good to say and preach Christ. I love the Catholic Church, but would never leave the Mormon faith as my Road to Damascus was very much the opposite of that of the Professor. My powerful witness was not so much that Catholicism was wrong, but that the restoration of Christ's gospel was found in its fulness, along with its priesthood, within the Mormon faith (the Church of Jesus Christ).
In the end, there can only be the priesthood handed down from Peter through the Catholic Church or restored in its fulness and purity through Peter (the resurrected apostle) to Joseph Smith in the last days. There is not much of consequence or interest in the middle if one believes that God is organized and speaks through living leaders, prophets or popes.
I hear the words of the pope and know that he preaches Christ. I hear the words of the Mormon prophet, Thomas Monson and know that he preaches Christ. If the two men were in a room alone together, I would expect they would have their differences in doctrine and confidence in the priesthood they hold; however, overall, I would expect God's grace and his Spirit to be present as they are both soldiers for Christ.
We can argue which brand name is most attractive between two gas stations, having virtually the same fuel with only slight variations, but in the end, they both run the engines.
Carry on professor. Continue on your path and find happiness. I will do the same. I suspect if we are both sincere, we will both find our way back and God will forgive our shortcomings and misunderstandings.
8.31.2012 | 3:00am
nvlawyer says:
@Phil Spomer
Your question is actually very interesting. Mormons do believe in the Trinity, and that belief is not far from that of the Catholic Church (as recently revised in its Sacrament). Three separate beings, one in purpose.
I think your question is whether a person with a firm belief of the Nicene Trinity could be accepted in the church.
Technically, admission and participation in the church comes from faith in Jesus Christ, a belief that Christ is our Savior, the Son of God, repentance and baptism.
To that end, I don't see how a non-perfect belief in the nature of God (whatever that imperfect understanding as to the Trinity would be) would prevent full membership in the Church as long as the belief in Christ, etc. was in place and sincere.
Ultimately, none of us have a sure knowledge of the Trinity other than what other people have told us. I doubt we will know until we see.
Your question is actually very interesting. Mormons do believe in the Trinity, and that belief is not far from that of the Catholic Church (as recently revised in its Sacrament). Three separate beings, one in purpose.
I think your question is whether a person with a firm belief of the Nicene Trinity could be accepted in the church.
Technically, admission and participation in the church comes from faith in Jesus Christ, a belief that Christ is our Savior, the Son of God, repentance and baptism.
To that end, I don't see how a non-perfect belief in the nature of God (whatever that imperfect understanding as to the Trinity would be) would prevent full membership in the Church as long as the belief in Christ, etc. was in place and sincere.
Ultimately, none of us have a sure knowledge of the Trinity other than what other people have told us. I doubt we will know until we see.
8.31.2012 | 3:23am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Carson Chittom, you ask a very good question. I believe that the LDS Church has gone through some changes, not unlike the changes that other Christian Churches have undergone. When Protestantism first emerged, the Catholic Church did not consider it to be anything other than an abomination. Perhaps no pope or other church leader used this word, but it was believed, at the time, that salvation was only reached by being a faithful believer of Catholicism. The same can be said regarding Protestant's views of Catholicism. If being damned to Hell forever, is not an abomination, then nothing is. However, over the years, indeed centuries, these two great Christian groups have, in general, viewed each other much more benignly. The Catholic Church no longer argues that anyone outside of the Church is necessarily damned, and many Protestant churches believe similarly concerning Catholics.
We see, interesingly, a very similar phenomenon occurring in the LDS Church. It first viewed other Churches as "abominations'', but then gradually softened. Whether Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons are intellectually consistent in these changes, is an open question. But it seems that not too many Catholics, and Protestants are losing a tremendous amount of sleep of the issue, so why can't Mormons snooze soundly as well?
Mormons accept, with incidental changes made by Joseph Smith, the King James version of the Bible. Obviously, this would be unthinkable, unless Mormons believed that those scholars, who the great english king appointed to do the arduous job of translating, were trustworthy. Which implies that those who translated it, as well as those who maintained and transmitted this version to Mormons, must not be abominations. And since Mormons believe that the Bible, although true, is not a complete record that Christians need access to, it makes since that Mormons believe that those who adhere to just the Bible are incomplete Christians. If all non-mormon Christian Churches are really abominations, then the Church of England must be an abomination, which means that it could not be trusted to translate and transmit the Bible, but Mormons, as mentioned, accept nearly all of the King James translatiion. And since, obviously, the King James scholars didn't work in a vacuum, they relied on antecedent scholarship, done by Catholics, it stands to reason that Mormons would view Catholics as incomplete Christians as well.
We see, interesingly, a very similar phenomenon occurring in the LDS Church. It first viewed other Churches as "abominations'', but then gradually softened. Whether Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons are intellectually consistent in these changes, is an open question. But it seems that not too many Catholics, and Protestants are losing a tremendous amount of sleep of the issue, so why can't Mormons snooze soundly as well?
Mormons accept, with incidental changes made by Joseph Smith, the King James version of the Bible. Obviously, this would be unthinkable, unless Mormons believed that those scholars, who the great english king appointed to do the arduous job of translating, were trustworthy. Which implies that those who translated it, as well as those who maintained and transmitted this version to Mormons, must not be abominations. And since Mormons believe that the Bible, although true, is not a complete record that Christians need access to, it makes since that Mormons believe that those who adhere to just the Bible are incomplete Christians. If all non-mormon Christian Churches are really abominations, then the Church of England must be an abomination, which means that it could not be trusted to translate and transmit the Bible, but Mormons, as mentioned, accept nearly all of the King James translatiion. And since, obviously, the King James scholars didn't work in a vacuum, they relied on antecedent scholarship, done by Catholics, it stands to reason that Mormons would view Catholics as incomplete Christians as well.
8.31.2012 | 4:20am
JOHN GRONDELSKI says:
Richard Sherlock was my dissertation mentor when I wrote my moral theology doctorate in 1985. My dissertation was about the prepapal sexual ethics of John Paul II. Humanae Vitae taught that the deliberation separation of the procreative from the unitive significance of the marital act was morally wrong, and critics of the encyclical blamed Pope Paul VI's alleged "physicalism." But Karol Wojtyla was a personalist through and through .... nobody could doubt that ... and he reached the exact same conclusion that Paul VI did. He even wrote about six articles explicitly defending the encyclical.
My dissertation committee consisted of Prof. Sherlock and four priests. Several of the priests had varying degrees of "problems" with what John Paul was saying. Sherlock began his questioning with something like "I think John Paul is on to something." That always made me wonder.....
Richard, welcome home!
My dissertation committee consisted of Prof. Sherlock and four priests. Several of the priests had varying degrees of "problems" with what John Paul was saying. Sherlock began his questioning with something like "I think John Paul is on to something." That always made me wonder.....
Richard, welcome home!
8.31.2012 | 4:26am
JOHN GRONDELSKI says:
"Turned my back and walked away" when I knew I should do otherwise?
The second best penance (after the Divine Mercy devotion) I received was one a San Francisco priest gave me recently:
"Spend some time praying not to know what God wants you to do, but for YOU to WANT to do what God wants you to do."
The second best penance (after the Divine Mercy devotion) I received was one a San Francisco priest gave me recently:
"Spend some time praying not to know what God wants you to do, but for YOU to WANT to do what God wants you to do."
8.31.2012 | 1:31pm
Morris says:
Not being affiliated with any particular faith myself, I don't quite understand the move from the LDS faith to the Catholic faith, but I suppose that is why we often refer to faith journeys as personal.
When one trades the corporeal god of Mormonism for the immaterial god of classical theism they seem to simply be exchanging one set of problems for another. Professor Sherlock touched on the problems resolved from the switch, but he fails to highlight that he now believes in a God that doesn't make much sense to the human mind. For example, it is said that God is personal, but exists outside of time.
Having studied Christianity myself I often wonder why more people do not convert instead to the Eastern Orthodox faith. Perhaps it is simply because it is less visible in the West.
When one trades the corporeal god of Mormonism for the immaterial god of classical theism they seem to simply be exchanging one set of problems for another. Professor Sherlock touched on the problems resolved from the switch, but he fails to highlight that he now believes in a God that doesn't make much sense to the human mind. For example, it is said that God is personal, but exists outside of time.
Having studied Christianity myself I often wonder why more people do not convert instead to the Eastern Orthodox faith. Perhaps it is simply because it is less visible in the West.
8.31.2012 | 5:36pm
Fr. J says:
Bret and Pepper, you are telling us that a Professor of Philosophy at Utah and life long Mormon didn't understand his religion? I think you should instead grapple with the issues that brought him to Catholicism. I agree that Mormonism has changed, not just evolved, some of its doctrines. I hope that leaves open the possibility of accepting the creeds and rejecting the added books.
Dillet, the Orthodox would not agree. The LDS doctrine is NOT the same as theosis. Cherry picking quotes, out of context, is a problem not an answer.
Welcome home Professor!
Dillet, the Orthodox would not agree. The LDS doctrine is NOT the same as theosis. Cherry picking quotes, out of context, is a problem not an answer.
Welcome home Professor!
9.1.2012 | 12:11am
David Stoker says:
I too appreciate the general spirit of the discussion here.
I am a believing and practicing Mormon. Personally I don’t believe and don’t believe the LDS teaches what Prof. Sherlock says he found at fault with LDS theology. My understanding of the apostasy doctrine of Mormonism does not mean that Christianity ceased to exist or that the Holy Spirit was not at work in the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant visions or that God was snoozing until 1820. To me it is more about degree or the word Mormons have latched onto from the King James vernacular “fulness,” A fulness of light and truth implies that there was light and truth already there. The Mormon faith is that, beginning with the revelations of Joseph Smith, God was turning on the light to a higher degree. The Mormon apostasy doctrine is also about the degree of connectedness to God's direction and authority precisely during the period Prof. Sherlock describes as the "development of Christian thought." The development of Christian thought certainly resulted in conclusions that are quite different than first century Christianity and the development of Mormon thought is also certainly quite different than first century Christianity, the issue to Mormons is degree to which God is directing that development. Mormons interpret the councils and creeds of Christianity to be heavily influenced by Greek philosophy while they see the direct hand of God in the visitations and revelations of Joseph Smith. For a more nuanced understanding there was a recent conference at BYU exploring the Mormon understanding of the Apostasy, the keynote by Teryl Givens is available here: http://terrylgivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Old_Thing.pdf
I also understand the existential distinction between God and man differently than Mr. Sherlock interprets it. To me Joseph Smith’s statements in the King Follett Discourse are not meant to turn God into a finite or physical being, rather it is to show that mankind and the earth have sparks of divinity within themselves and itself; that there is a measure of infinite within the souls of men and that exalted physicality, not the fallen physicality of this world, but exalted physicality is of God. It is the ultimate faith in the exalted physical resurrection of Jesus. There is always a a distinction between ‘God’ as in the Almighty and ‘gods’ as in man’s potential to be godlike in Mormon thought and it fundamentally using the same language and imagery as found in passages such Psalms 82 or Gal. 4:7. The Mormon understanding of the Godhead is no more radical to Jewish monotheism than is the doctrine of the Trinity or than Christ saying he was the Son of God.
I can appreciate Prof. Sherlock’s interpretations and his journey in feeling closer to Christ through the Catholic Church but I would argue that the interpretations he is rejecting are not the mainstream or common understanding of those doctrines by believing Mormons.
I am a believing and practicing Mormon. Personally I don’t believe and don’t believe the LDS teaches what Prof. Sherlock says he found at fault with LDS theology. My understanding of the apostasy doctrine of Mormonism does not mean that Christianity ceased to exist or that the Holy Spirit was not at work in the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant visions or that God was snoozing until 1820. To me it is more about degree or the word Mormons have latched onto from the King James vernacular “fulness,” A fulness of light and truth implies that there was light and truth already there. The Mormon faith is that, beginning with the revelations of Joseph Smith, God was turning on the light to a higher degree. The Mormon apostasy doctrine is also about the degree of connectedness to God's direction and authority precisely during the period Prof. Sherlock describes as the "development of Christian thought." The development of Christian thought certainly resulted in conclusions that are quite different than first century Christianity and the development of Mormon thought is also certainly quite different than first century Christianity, the issue to Mormons is degree to which God is directing that development. Mormons interpret the councils and creeds of Christianity to be heavily influenced by Greek philosophy while they see the direct hand of God in the visitations and revelations of Joseph Smith. For a more nuanced understanding there was a recent conference at BYU exploring the Mormon understanding of the Apostasy, the keynote by Teryl Givens is available here: http://terrylgivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Old_Thing.pdf
I also understand the existential distinction between God and man differently than Mr. Sherlock interprets it. To me Joseph Smith’s statements in the King Follett Discourse are not meant to turn God into a finite or physical being, rather it is to show that mankind and the earth have sparks of divinity within themselves and itself; that there is a measure of infinite within the souls of men and that exalted physicality, not the fallen physicality of this world, but exalted physicality is of God. It is the ultimate faith in the exalted physical resurrection of Jesus. There is always a a distinction between ‘God’ as in the Almighty and ‘gods’ as in man’s potential to be godlike in Mormon thought and it fundamentally using the same language and imagery as found in passages such Psalms 82 or Gal. 4:7. The Mormon understanding of the Godhead is no more radical to Jewish monotheism than is the doctrine of the Trinity or than Christ saying he was the Son of God.
I can appreciate Prof. Sherlock’s interpretations and his journey in feeling closer to Christ through the Catholic Church but I would argue that the interpretations he is rejecting are not the mainstream or common understanding of those doctrines by believing Mormons.
9.1.2012 | 8:30am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Fr. J: I certainly have great respect for Professor Sherlock's position, but I disagree with it. Although I'm sure he's an excellent philosophy professor, (I've heard nothing but great things about him) but if you're implying that his position as philosophy professor and life long Mormon, render his views on Mormonism correct, then I would have say that, as Aquinas has argued, appeals to authority are the weakest forms of arguments, although this may put me in the ironic position of doing the same thing by citing Aquinas (!), the appeal to authority argument is of course wrong, because it gives us no valid reason or reasons to accept the claim or claims of those in authority (we cannot check that they're arguments follow deductively from self evident premises, or that the claim or claims are conclusions that are derived from ample inductive evidence. The person in authority may be lying, although I don't believe that Professor Sherlock is lying, I think he's a man of integrity, but in concept, this risk exists, or he may still be mistaken).
My argument is a simple one: if Mormons really believe that all other Christian Churches are really not Christian, or abominations, Mormons could not trust that the King James version of the Bible, which was derived from the Church of England, is nearly entirely correct, but they do trust that it is nearly entirely correct.
And, although I'm sure you don't intend for it to sound this way, but a devout member of the LDS Church could be forgiven in nanoseconds, for interpreting your remark that, you hope this leaves open the possiblity of accepting the creeds and rejecting the added books, as rather condescending. This hope, if manifested, would render Mormonism extinct. Of course, I'm sure you're motivated in an entirely benign way, since you believe you have the truth, and Mormons don't.
My argument is a simple one: if Mormons really believe that all other Christian Churches are really not Christian, or abominations, Mormons could not trust that the King James version of the Bible, which was derived from the Church of England, is nearly entirely correct, but they do trust that it is nearly entirely correct.
And, although I'm sure you don't intend for it to sound this way, but a devout member of the LDS Church could be forgiven in nanoseconds, for interpreting your remark that, you hope this leaves open the possiblity of accepting the creeds and rejecting the added books, as rather condescending. This hope, if manifested, would render Mormonism extinct. Of course, I'm sure you're motivated in an entirely benign way, since you believe you have the truth, and Mormons don't.
9.2.2012 | 5:13am
D. Charles Pyle says:
It was interesting how the author quoted another relative to God "snoozing until 1820" and so forth, as well as his argument for not being an apostasy. If there was no apostasy, then everyone should be Catholic and no one has an excuse for being otherwise. If there were no apostasy, then what need for the restoration and what need for even a Reformation that resulted more in fractionation of sects than reformation of the Catholic Church.
I have never seen God as "snoozing until 1820" but rather waiting and gradually preparing for the time when people would actually listen and where religious freedom would lessen the chance that a man claiming to be a prophet (and those who believed his message) would be burned at the stake for heresy or witchcraft. In my view, the apostasy occurred because people stopped listening to the apostles and when they were taken the local leaders seized control of the badly-fragmented Church and eventually consolidated central authority in the Bishops of Rome.
John wrote of the "last hour" that had arrived in his time because of the advent of the promised antichrists that would herald the arrival of the last hour. Most do not give much deep thought as to what John meant by "last hour" having arrived in his own day. All sorts of interpretations abound on this but John was clear that it was for them already "the last hour." My take on this is that it was the last hour of the visible Church before the coming dark times when the heretics would win the day.
Another interesting feature is the fact in the article that the author claims that two passages in Matthew are not easily reconciled to the Mormon position on the apostasy and restoration of the ancient Church. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
The passage mainly used to try to refute the idea of an apostasy refers to the "gates of Hades" not being able to prevail against the Church (or, alternatively the foundation rock upon which the Church was built, being Jesus Christ, the Greek being somewhat ambiguous as even Greek writer, Origen, states is the case in his commentary on Matthew).
If it refers to Jesus as the rock, of course the gates of Hades could not prevail against Christ. The gates of Hades never prevent people from entering Hades. They only attempt to prevail by holding captive those who go therein. Since Hades (the realm of the dead) could not hold Christ from rising from the dead, of course the gates of Hades could not prevail against the foundation rock upon which the Church was built.
If it refers to the Church itself, the gates of Hades still could not prevail against the Church--not because the Church could not die but because it would not stay dead, much like her spiritual husband, Christ. Thus, the gates of Hades could not prevail against the Church just as it could not prevail against her Lord and Master. Hades' gates could neither keep Jesus within the gates, and thus prevail, nor keep the Church within, and thus prevail against her, for both were destined to rise again from the dead. This is all the more interesting when you consider LDS claims that three apostles from the early Church, two of whom had been dead, ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to the apostleship prior to the restoration of the Church!
If it refers to both the foundation/bedrock and the Church (as Origen supposes that the passage does), it is as the point I just previously mentioned. The gates of Hades could not keep either the Church or her dead Master within and thus prevail against them. This passage of scripture in no way precludes the death of the Lord and his visible Church on earth but actually allows for such an interpretation, for who ever goes up against the gates of Hades except them that go into Hades and attempt to fight their way out?
As to the other Matthew passage as to his being with the Church until the end of the age, he does not mention the Church at all. That is an interpretation. He does not say that he will be with the Church always. He says this to his disciples, and that he would be with them. Quibbling, I know, but it does beg mention. Recall, however, that the invisible Church, like the soul, never dies and those of the Church visible are members of that Church, otherwise called the Church of the Firstborn in the Book of Hebrews.
And, what does "until the end of the age" mean? It could be taken either way, but seems more likely that it refers to an end of some period of time when we consider that John clearly stated that, for them, the "last hour" had arrived. Additionally, Christ would always be with his disciples no matter what happened to them or whatever happened to the visible Church, for in life and in death they always would be part of the invisible Church.
I simply do not see these Matthew passages as the insurmountable barriers to Mormon belief in the apostasy, and see them actually leaning toward supporting such a view when we consider that one only faces the gates of Hades in death, meaning that the Church would have to die to thus face the gates of Hades and not be prevailed over thereby.
If the Church died it is good analogy to the apostasy, and resurrection to the restoration, for, indeed, the restoration ensured that the gates of Hades could not hold the Church in death just as it could not hold her Master, the Lord Jesus, in death.
I have never seen God as "snoozing until 1820" but rather waiting and gradually preparing for the time when people would actually listen and where religious freedom would lessen the chance that a man claiming to be a prophet (and those who believed his message) would be burned at the stake for heresy or witchcraft. In my view, the apostasy occurred because people stopped listening to the apostles and when they were taken the local leaders seized control of the badly-fragmented Church and eventually consolidated central authority in the Bishops of Rome.
John wrote of the "last hour" that had arrived in his time because of the advent of the promised antichrists that would herald the arrival of the last hour. Most do not give much deep thought as to what John meant by "last hour" having arrived in his own day. All sorts of interpretations abound on this but John was clear that it was for them already "the last hour." My take on this is that it was the last hour of the visible Church before the coming dark times when the heretics would win the day.
Another interesting feature is the fact in the article that the author claims that two passages in Matthew are not easily reconciled to the Mormon position on the apostasy and restoration of the ancient Church. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
The passage mainly used to try to refute the idea of an apostasy refers to the "gates of Hades" not being able to prevail against the Church (or, alternatively the foundation rock upon which the Church was built, being Jesus Christ, the Greek being somewhat ambiguous as even Greek writer, Origen, states is the case in his commentary on Matthew).
If it refers to Jesus as the rock, of course the gates of Hades could not prevail against Christ. The gates of Hades never prevent people from entering Hades. They only attempt to prevail by holding captive those who go therein. Since Hades (the realm of the dead) could not hold Christ from rising from the dead, of course the gates of Hades could not prevail against the foundation rock upon which the Church was built.
If it refers to the Church itself, the gates of Hades still could not prevail against the Church--not because the Church could not die but because it would not stay dead, much like her spiritual husband, Christ. Thus, the gates of Hades could not prevail against the Church just as it could not prevail against her Lord and Master. Hades' gates could neither keep Jesus within the gates, and thus prevail, nor keep the Church within, and thus prevail against her, for both were destined to rise again from the dead. This is all the more interesting when you consider LDS claims that three apostles from the early Church, two of whom had been dead, ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to the apostleship prior to the restoration of the Church!
If it refers to both the foundation/bedrock and the Church (as Origen supposes that the passage does), it is as the point I just previously mentioned. The gates of Hades could not keep either the Church or her dead Master within and thus prevail against them. This passage of scripture in no way precludes the death of the Lord and his visible Church on earth but actually allows for such an interpretation, for who ever goes up against the gates of Hades except them that go into Hades and attempt to fight their way out?
As to the other Matthew passage as to his being with the Church until the end of the age, he does not mention the Church at all. That is an interpretation. He does not say that he will be with the Church always. He says this to his disciples, and that he would be with them. Quibbling, I know, but it does beg mention. Recall, however, that the invisible Church, like the soul, never dies and those of the Church visible are members of that Church, otherwise called the Church of the Firstborn in the Book of Hebrews.
And, what does "until the end of the age" mean? It could be taken either way, but seems more likely that it refers to an end of some period of time when we consider that John clearly stated that, for them, the "last hour" had arrived. Additionally, Christ would always be with his disciples no matter what happened to them or whatever happened to the visible Church, for in life and in death they always would be part of the invisible Church.
I simply do not see these Matthew passages as the insurmountable barriers to Mormon belief in the apostasy, and see them actually leaning toward supporting such a view when we consider that one only faces the gates of Hades in death, meaning that the Church would have to die to thus face the gates of Hades and not be prevailed over thereby.
If the Church died it is good analogy to the apostasy, and resurrection to the restoration, for, indeed, the restoration ensured that the gates of Hades could not hold the Church in death just as it could not hold her Master, the Lord Jesus, in death.
9.5.2012 | 8:41am
Julie says:
I have read a press item written by a Mormon who says: The “Mormons” had been forced from Palmyra, New York, partly because of their claim that the original and ancient church which Jesus Christ established had been lost and was now fully restored. They settled in Kirtland, Ohio where their numbers grew rapidly but their claim of the “true religion having been restored” and their rapid growth soon became a threat to the citizens there who forced them to leave again, this time to Jackson County Missouri. The increasing numbers of “Mormon” converts became a perceived economic and political threat to the non-Mormon population in Missouri and that along with the religious beliefs culminated in an extermination order from the then Governor Boggs and they were force to flee again.
9.6.2012 | 2:29pm
William Tighe says:
Bluegrass wrote:
"Catholics will usually use Ephesians 3:21 to show support for propagation of authority in the Church, but cannot explain how bishops obtained the keys and authority to ordain other bishops, when apostles performed this ordination in the early church."
Of course Catholics "can explain" it, even if others reject that explanation (and the Orthodox, despite their rejection of the "papal claims," give the same explanation). The Epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, an anonymous letter always attributed to St. Clement, third Bishop of Rome after St. Peter (Linus, Cletus, Clement ..) -- an attribution taken for granted and explicitly mentioned in a letter that Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter of Rome ca. 170 AD -- states this in the letter's ch. 44:1-3 (after mentioning that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons in every church that they founded):
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [bishops] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. "
There is a dispute about the meaning of the last portion of verse 2: "and afterwards [the apostles] gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." It has generally been taking as meaning, "that when these bishops whom the apostles appointed should fall asleep, other approved [or "suitable"] men should succeed those bishops in their ministry as bishops," but it can also mean, and that meaning is more congruent with the Greek text (assuming that "Clement" is writing with grammatical accuracy), "that when they [the apostles] should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them [the apostles] in their [apostolic] ministry."
This epistle is generally dated to ca. 96, not really on any internal basis, but because the years traditionally given for Clement's episcopate are 88/92-101, but I think that there is a good internal basis for dating it shortly after the Neronian Persecution of AD 65 and after the sacking of Rome in December 69 AD (the final episode in the civil strife that brought Vespasian to the Principate), but before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in September of 70 AD. Whatever its date, however, its account was taken for granted throughout the Early Church.
Concerning the dispute over the last portion of verse 2, there were two views in the Early Church: the minority view, that of St. Jerome (alone among the Church Fathers, but which came to dominate the Western Church in the Middle Ages, and which Luther and the other magisterial Reformers took for granted)
that after the death of the original apostles the leading presbyter of each took the leadership title of "bishop" while the others were called "presbyters," but that it was essentially the same "office," and that stated most clearly by Theodore of Mopsuestia, that the apostolic successors of the apostles out of modesty took the title "bishop" for themselves, while leaving to those who in the apostolic generation had been termed, seemingly indifferently, "bishops" and "presbyters" with the latter title. This second view is certainly more congruent with the insistence on the absolute distinction between "bishop," "presbyter," and "deacon" that sounds incessantly in the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch of ca. 110 AD -- an insistence that many scholars, beginning with Canon Streeter of the Church of England in the 1920s, have got around only by stigmatizing St. Ignatius as a fantasist or liar.
Where Catholics and Orthodox differ is on the question, distinct if related, as to whether St. Peter's successors as Bishop of Rome succeeded to his unique primacy among the apostles, or to a general "apostolicity."
"Catholics will usually use Ephesians 3:21 to show support for propagation of authority in the Church, but cannot explain how bishops obtained the keys and authority to ordain other bishops, when apostles performed this ordination in the early church."
Of course Catholics "can explain" it, even if others reject that explanation (and the Orthodox, despite their rejection of the "papal claims," give the same explanation). The Epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, an anonymous letter always attributed to St. Clement, third Bishop of Rome after St. Peter (Linus, Cletus, Clement ..) -- an attribution taken for granted and explicitly mentioned in a letter that Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter of Rome ca. 170 AD -- states this in the letter's ch. 44:1-3 (after mentioning that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons in every church that they founded):
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [bishops] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. "
There is a dispute about the meaning of the last portion of verse 2: "and afterwards [the apostles] gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." It has generally been taking as meaning, "that when these bishops whom the apostles appointed should fall asleep, other approved [or "suitable"] men should succeed those bishops in their ministry as bishops," but it can also mean, and that meaning is more congruent with the Greek text (assuming that "Clement" is writing with grammatical accuracy), "that when they [the apostles] should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them [the apostles] in their [apostolic] ministry."
This epistle is generally dated to ca. 96, not really on any internal basis, but because the years traditionally given for Clement's episcopate are 88/92-101, but I think that there is a good internal basis for dating it shortly after the Neronian Persecution of AD 65 and after the sacking of Rome in December 69 AD (the final episode in the civil strife that brought Vespasian to the Principate), but before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in September of 70 AD. Whatever its date, however, its account was taken for granted throughout the Early Church.
Concerning the dispute over the last portion of verse 2, there were two views in the Early Church: the minority view, that of St. Jerome (alone among the Church Fathers, but which came to dominate the Western Church in the Middle Ages, and which Luther and the other magisterial Reformers took for granted)
that after the death of the original apostles the leading presbyter of each took the leadership title of "bishop" while the others were called "presbyters," but that it was essentially the same "office," and that stated most clearly by Theodore of Mopsuestia, that the apostolic successors of the apostles out of modesty took the title "bishop" for themselves, while leaving to those who in the apostolic generation had been termed, seemingly indifferently, "bishops" and "presbyters" with the latter title. This second view is certainly more congruent with the insistence on the absolute distinction between "bishop," "presbyter," and "deacon" that sounds incessantly in the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch of ca. 110 AD -- an insistence that many scholars, beginning with Canon Streeter of the Church of England in the 1920s, have got around only by stigmatizing St. Ignatius as a fantasist or liar.
Where Catholics and Orthodox differ is on the question, distinct if related, as to whether St. Peter's successors as Bishop of Rome succeeded to his unique primacy among the apostles, or to a general "apostolicity."
9.14.2012 | 8:34pm
Ron Hales says:
Ron Hales says: I two was welcomed into the Catholic faith at the 2012 Easter vigil. I have been searching to find other Mormons who have had a similar journey it has been a bit lonely out here. I was an active Mormon for 47 years. I served a mission, married in the temple and have four active children. My wife is leaning my way but does not want to totally upset the family oxcart yet. My journey began with a simple request to speak in Sacrament meeting on the topic of "The Restoration", after serving as high priest group leader in a bishopric, and of course numerous other callings all my life. I began to research on the Internet the restoration on the Internet and came across some very disturbing material relative to Mormon origins. I am not going to go into all of those, if interested look at the website Mormonthink.com or countless others that address these difficulties. I spent five years studying deeply not only Mormon origins but Christian origins as well. I found like Dr. Sherlock that the claims of the " Great Apostacy" were not founded in history. Of course their are some difficulties in two thousand years of Christianity, but those can be attributed to human frailty, and did not affect the central tenets of the faith. I spent a fair amount of time studying the protestant reformation and came away with the feeling that these individuals such as Luther and Calvin could have done what they were trying to do without starting a new church. I also spent a couple years attending as many different Christian denominations as I reasonably could. I loved this process and felt "The Spirit" of God in most that I attended. I was first drawn to the Anglican or Episcopal Church. I loved the music, the liturgy, and the smaller congregations reminded me of my Mormon experience. I became jaded when I attended a couple different varieties of the Church of England and found substantial differences in practice such as allowing female pastors in some, same sex marriage in others etc. The more I looked into all of Christianity I found that the authoritative voice, intellectually, spiritually, and socially was found in the Roman Catholic Church. It has been a wonderful journey, I now teach an adult Catechism class and love my church association. I am troubled that many Mormons who leave their faith leave "ALL" faith. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, you have a faith in Christ and a belief in the Holy Ghost, and you are intelligent, it will be difficult socially at first but don't give up, the reward is well worth it. Come Home to Christ in the Catholic faith.
9.16.2012 | 3:00pm
Patrick Lavey says:
I also would have to disagree with Bret Lythgoe, with all due respect. What I call the "theology of apostasy" is central to identifying the Catholic Church as THE CHURCH that Christ founded. What is true for the Mormon Church in this regard is true for all other Christian denominations, especially all of the Protestant Christian sects. I was a Protestant for over thirty years, and the took the principles of the Reformation very seriously. Protestantism eventually masked its "theology of apostasy" by basically denying the material, organizational dimension of Christ's Church and posited it as secondary and immaterial, elevating the nearly sole idea of the invisible, "spiritual" nature of Christ's Church. It is sadly very gnostic in its revamped dualism.
Having said that, the ultimate issue of AUTHORITY in the Church surfaces the issue of its material, organizational dimension. At least the Mormon Church did not deny this dimension of the Church; however, they did deny its fidelity under God's providence and consequently, its succession ... thus requiring a "restoration." It is this "earthly organization" that ceased to exist, according to James Talmage himself, author of "The Great Apostasy Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History" (see one quote below).
"4. We affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church gradually drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist. 5. If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth to-day it must have ls into the same dualistic error that has dominated Protestant theology since the Reformation, i.e., the 'survival' of the spiritual dimension of Christ's Church apart from its material, organizational dimension.been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church." —(See Note 1, end of chapter.)
Talmage, James Edward (2011-03-30). The Great Apostasy Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History (Kindle Locations 275-279). . Kindle Edition.
Talmage's quote leaves room for the "spiritual" dimension of Christ's Church to have continued, but then Mormonism falls into the same error that has dominated Protestant theology since the Reformation, i.e., the supremacy of the "spiritual" dimension of Christ's Church over its "material" dimension, as if the two can be existentially separated. On the individulal, personal level ... that's why there is the Resurrection, right? Our physical bodies are part of WHO we are, made in God's image. He doesn't just do away with our bodies ... rather, He has redeemed them through Christ's Resurrection and our subsequent Resurrection in Him.
Our created design and order was to have a BODY (material, physical) through which we could love God and interact with the environment He created for our existence. This is no less true for the Church, just as it was no less true for the Incarnate Christ Himself, as proven by His bodily Resurrection.
For me ... it has become quite simple. Jesus said HE would BUILD His Church and that the gates of Hades would not overpower it (a defensive metaphor indicating the offensive, commission-based assault of the Church against the false gods of paganism - as especially highlighted by the historical context of Caesarea Philippi, where He made these statements).
Who are you going to believe? Jesus ... or those who claim that the gates of Hades really did overpower the Church and prevent it from carrying on its mission?
Having said that, the ultimate issue of AUTHORITY in the Church surfaces the issue of its material, organizational dimension. At least the Mormon Church did not deny this dimension of the Church; however, they did deny its fidelity under God's providence and consequently, its succession ... thus requiring a "restoration." It is this "earthly organization" that ceased to exist, according to James Talmage himself, author of "The Great Apostasy Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History" (see one quote below).
"4. We affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church gradually drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist. 5. If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth to-day it must have ls into the same dualistic error that has dominated Protestant theology since the Reformation, i.e., the 'survival' of the spiritual dimension of Christ's Church apart from its material, organizational dimension.been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church." —(See Note 1, end of chapter.)
Talmage, James Edward (2011-03-30). The Great Apostasy Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History (Kindle Locations 275-279). . Kindle Edition.
Talmage's quote leaves room for the "spiritual" dimension of Christ's Church to have continued, but then Mormonism falls into the same error that has dominated Protestant theology since the Reformation, i.e., the supremacy of the "spiritual" dimension of Christ's Church over its "material" dimension, as if the two can be existentially separated. On the individulal, personal level ... that's why there is the Resurrection, right? Our physical bodies are part of WHO we are, made in God's image. He doesn't just do away with our bodies ... rather, He has redeemed them through Christ's Resurrection and our subsequent Resurrection in Him.
Our created design and order was to have a BODY (material, physical) through which we could love God and interact with the environment He created for our existence. This is no less true for the Church, just as it was no less true for the Incarnate Christ Himself, as proven by His bodily Resurrection.
For me ... it has become quite simple. Jesus said HE would BUILD His Church and that the gates of Hades would not overpower it (a defensive metaphor indicating the offensive, commission-based assault of the Church against the false gods of paganism - as especially highlighted by the historical context of Caesarea Philippi, where He made these statements).
Who are you going to believe? Jesus ... or those who claim that the gates of Hades really did overpower the Church and prevent it from carrying on its mission?
9.17.2012 | 11:55am
Rey says:
It is worth mentioning that if you will read the book of Mormon, it mentioned some animals, plants and insects that does not exist during the time of the story described in the book. There is also no archeological finding that will support those civilization mentioned in the book. Science now proves wrong the book of Mormon claim that some Israelites came into the American continent, DNA study does not support the claim.
Welcome home Richard.
Welcome home Richard.
12.8.2012 | 9:56am
Pio says:
In the light of the 'apostasy' claim, what would be the meaning of the terrible sufferings of the early Christians before Constantine in Rome? Were those people so devoid of reason that they were willing to die a horrible death than renounce their 'apostate' Christianity?
12.19.2012 | 4:34pm
Bev says:
As a former Mormon myself for 40 years, and now home in the Catholic Church, I can support Dr. Sherlock's claims against the Mormon Church. They do teach that you can become a god. The fact that someone above says that is reserved for only a small number, does not negate the teaching. Those who protest against him here, are not really looking at the facts. They are so indoctrinated that they dare not research the internet and find out what a crook Joseph Smith really was. Before they blast Dr. Sherlock's sincere comments, I challenge them to visit various available websites which allow one to read the documents that have been carefully kept out of sight of the members. I am proud to be Catholic and applaud Dr. Sherlock!
4.16.2013 | 10:21pm
Andrew Farnsworth says:
Look in the Book of Amos. Where are the prophets and apostles? In the Mormon church. Look all around you. The Bible teaches that we need to be baptized by immersion, not by sprinkling water on your head as an infant. Think of those Catholic families who's baby died before baptism. They are already in grief, and their leader is like; ' Oh your child wasn't baptized, he's going to hell.' Do you really believe that God is like that? I though, too, have been raised LDS. I am very happy for your honesty. But my advice to you is to pray about it with 'a broken heart and a contrite spirit'. And why the cross? we glory in his life, atonement, and resurrection. The risen Christ. And I promise you that if you truly come before the Lord with a broken heart and a contrite spirit you will know that that the mormon church truly is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
5.6.2013 | 9:10pm
Donald Williams says:
I was athiest for 15 years Buddhist for 2 then Mormon ever since.
Full disclosure!
I must say this mans idea of doctrine in the Mormon church is false. There are many many false doctrines taught by humans including Peter himself. ( remember peter and paul arguing over the idea that circumcission was still mandated?) As an atheist I wrote papers proving the fallacy of the bible. I did the same for Catholics and the Popes and the Mormons book of Mormon. With that said anything man touches becomes "un-perfect".
So I'd encourage everyone to figure out what their doctrine truly teaches.
If any Catholics think they can "convince" me of the validity of the trinity and the nicean creed I'd love to have that conversation. Email me at pezex2000@yahoo.com.
A couple questions for Catholics. Why wasn't the pope at the time of the nicean council present or even invited to the council of nicea? This was the defining doctrine of the church yet the pope was not present! Strange isn't it?
Also how can someone who claims no revelation be a pope leading the church while there was still apostles on the earth recieving revelation for the church? After st peter was St Linus (60s-70) then St anacletus (80s) then clement?
So 4 popes where called to be popes while we still had apostles on the earth giving us scripture and revelation from god! It doesn't square with me please explain!
Thanks
Full disclosure!
I must say this mans idea of doctrine in the Mormon church is false. There are many many false doctrines taught by humans including Peter himself. ( remember peter and paul arguing over the idea that circumcission was still mandated?) As an atheist I wrote papers proving the fallacy of the bible. I did the same for Catholics and the Popes and the Mormons book of Mormon. With that said anything man touches becomes "un-perfect".
So I'd encourage everyone to figure out what their doctrine truly teaches.
If any Catholics think they can "convince" me of the validity of the trinity and the nicean creed I'd love to have that conversation. Email me at pezex2000@yahoo.com.
A couple questions for Catholics. Why wasn't the pope at the time of the nicean council present or even invited to the council of nicea? This was the defining doctrine of the church yet the pope was not present! Strange isn't it?
Also how can someone who claims no revelation be a pope leading the church while there was still apostles on the earth recieving revelation for the church? After st peter was St Linus (60s-70) then St anacletus (80s) then clement?
So 4 popes where called to be popes while we still had apostles on the earth giving us scripture and revelation from god! It doesn't square with me please explain!
Thanks
The fact that Mormonism survived when the efforts of myriad other false prophets failed in the early 19th century means something, but not that it is true. Their assertion that God arose from a pre-existing chaos (my admittedly limited understanding of their creed) is like saying our universe sprouted or bubbled off from another (the atheist multi-verse notion). It doesn't answer the real question. "...why sir, it's turtles all the way down." †