Did the True Church Apostasized?

[Katzpur]

I was just throwing the cult idea out. Sometimes I think own my congregation is a cult

LDS seems to believe exactly the same as RC do with the continual revelation idea. Only the sources seem to vary. I appreciate being set straight. The Mormons I have talked with stated what I posted and were not very vocal on their stances concerning continual revelation.

Actually, both Catholicism and Mormonism stress the need for divine authority and claim to hold that authority. Catholicism, on the other hand, believes that revelation from God to the Church as a whole ceased at the end of the Apostolic period. Well, so do Mormons, actually. But we believe it has since been restored.

 

[Scott1]

No one was able to provide me with anything.

Not quite true, my friend.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY (from post #118 of that thread)

... but more to the point, your contention that:

"Also, when I consider certain LDS doctrines and see evidence that they were taught as early as the first century,"

... please provide me some evidence that the early Church believed in Golden Plates, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, the ancient people of NA, called the leader of their church "The Prophet".... etc etc...

Thanks,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

Kathryn, red-herrings like this are not typical of you. I am surprised to see this coming from you.

Victor,

I'm truly sorry you see my comments in this light. I was simply trying to point out that I don't believe that many of the essential doctrines of Catholicism were taught during Christ's time or during the Apostolic era at all, and your responses have pretty well proved that to be the case. If you want to check back on the threads I mentioned, you will see that I did, in fact, pose these questions on a number of occasions, even reminding the Catholic posters that I was still waiting for a response. All of the examples you have given about the Marian Doctrines are from the 4th, 6th and 7th centuries. While I sincerely do appreciate your efforts in providing these examples, it just indicates to me that for as long as nine fully generations after Christ, the Church did not teach what it was teaching in the late 4th century and is teaching today. If these teachings were, in fact, true doctrines, if they had been accepted by Christ's contemporaries, I believe we would have some sort of evidence to support that today. I was not, in any way, attempting to change the subject or divert attention from the topic of this thread. To me, these things are evidence of an apostasy, and this is what Scott asked that we Latter-day Saints provide if we are going to state that an apostasy actually did take place. I'm sorry if my response offended you.

I will pray for you all.

~Victor

Thank you. I can use all the prayers I can get!

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, I do know you have simple temples, I have shared services with you.

Actually, our temples are considerably more elaborate than our churches. It was obviously a church that you visited.

I must admit I have not been for a few years, because (forgive me) it takes about three years to stop your nice young men coming round every couple of months and knocking on the door after I've shared a service.

Oh dear! I'm sorry about that. We can sometimes be overly-exuberant, I'm afraid.

Kathryn

 

[Scott1]

If these teachings were, in fact, true doctrines, if they had been accepted by Christ's contemporaries, I believe we would have some sort of evidence to support that today.

Please apply this standard of critical thinking to the LDS Church.

Please.

 

[Katzpur]

Not quite true, my friend.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY (from post #118 of that thread)

Hi, Scott.

In reviewing the link you provided (and I'm sorry I missed it when you posted it previously), it appears that the earliest mentions of the doctrines you believe today with respect to Mary were from the 4th (mostly late 4th) centuries into the 8th and 9th centuries. And as I said before, to me that's not "early Christianity." I realize that today, when we speak of 430 A.D. 521 A.D. and 733 A.D., it sounds like it was so long ago that it might as well have been 34 A.D. But it wasn't. These statements were made 400, 500 and 700 years after Christ.

... but more to the point, your contention that:
... please provide me some evidence that the early Church believed in Golden Plates, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, the ancient people of NA, called the leader of their church "The Prophet".... etc etc...

Scott, I don't want us to get into another fight, and if that's the direction we're heading, I'll bow out right now. You just say the word and I won't post to this thread again. Of course the Church in the Holy Land didn't believe in the Golden Plates, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon or the ancient people of NA (whatever that is). They didn't know about these things because they took place on other continents, and they obviously wouldn't have had access to what was going on on the American continent even if the events described in the Book of Mormon took place exactly as described. You know that as well as I do. I'm not going to resort to sarcasm here, but this is really very much beside the point.

As to what they called the leader of their Church, I don't know for sure. I would say offhand, though, that it is more likely that they called Him "The Prophet" than it is that they called Him "The Pope." After all, Christ did build His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles, not on a foundation of popes and cardinals.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

Please apply this standard of critical thinking to the LDS Church.

Please.

Would you mind being a little more direct? Give me an example of LDS doctrine that you believe was invented circa 1830 A.D., and I would be happy to provide examples for you of it having been taught in ancient times. I am actually giving you the advantage here, since I am allowing you to initiate the discussion.

 

[Scott1]

These statements were made 400, 500 and 700 years after Christ.

What's your point? We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truth.... unless you can prove apostasy for all Christian leaders previous, your challenge does not stand. These revealed truths of faith are just as valid as any other.

Scott, I don't want us to get into another fight, and if that's the direction we're heading

Hey, it is up to you.... I have this conversation with my LDS friends every week... they do no better a job than you in giving evidence, but my pal Jeff (my 5 year old's Godfather who is Mormon) at least gives me the truth: "I can't give you evidence, but I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God... that has to be enough for you.".... and it is.... but remember, he does not jump into every conversation about theology by bringing up apostasy any more.

You know that as well as I do. I'm not going to resort to sarcasm here, but this is really very much beside the point.

No, it is not.... if revelation does not have to be traced back to the early Church and to Christ for YOUR doctrines, then the same standard should apply to MINE. Right?

I would say offhand, though, that it is more likely that they called Him "The Prophet" than it is that they called Him "The Pope."

"Pope" is an informal name... it is the English version of "papa" for the Latin for "daddy or father.

The correct title for the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.... and I can tell you for certain that the title "episcopate" was certainly used by the early Church.

If this stuff upsets you too much, let me know.... but it is your faith, it should be easy to defend, right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As Protestants put it the CHurch is apostasized since the last apostle died. Do you think the Church Apostasized and it became the so called "abominable Church" or Roman Catholic CHurch as Protestants "some" put it?

The true church never apostasized - it seperated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 and later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church due to a mutual excommunication rooted in the Roman bishop's lust for absolute power. Another spilt occured when the Roman Church tried to deny Germany the sacraments and access to the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Katzpur]

What's your point? We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truth.... unless you can prove apostasy for all Christian leaders previous, your challenge does not stand. These revealed truths of faith are just as valid as any other.

I’m sorry, but I have never been able to understand how you are able to state that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truth and then, in the same breath, insist that revelation ceased with the deaths of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is the Revelator. It is through Him that all revelation is received. You, along with the majority of non-Mormons, seem to be of the mistaken impression that we see continued revelation as being a constant stream of new (i.e. not previously revealed) doctrine. That isn’t the case at all. Living prophets, for the most part, do not receive “new revelation.” 99% of all LDS doctrine was revealed to Joseph Smith. With very few exceptions, the Prophets who have followed him have received revelation concerning the correct interpretation of existing scripture (including the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price). If I understand you correctly, this isn’t all that different from what you’re saying is the case within your own Church. Well, if the Holy Ghost does indeed guide the Church to all truth, why in Heaven’s Name did He remain silent on so many doctrines for so many years. If it was important for 5th century Christians to know the truth about Mary’s birth, life (including her state of perpetual virginity) and death, why wasn’t it just as important for 1st century Christians to have this same information?

Hey, it is up to you.... I have this conversation with my LDS friends every week... they do no better a job than you in giving evidence, but my pal Jeff (my 5 year old's Godfather who is Mormon) at least gives me the truth: "I can't give you evidence, but I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God... that has to be enough for you.".... and it is.... but remember, he does not jump into every conversation about theology by bringing up apostasy any more.

Just what kind of evidence are you looking for anyway? Obviously, I am not on the right track since I believe I’ve proven that the Catholic Church has established new doctrines throughout its history (and without the benefit of revelation, supposedly). I would seriously like to know what you would find to be acceptable evidence. If your Pal, Jeff, says he can’t give you evidence, I’d say he is a lot like many Mormons I know. He was probably raised in the Church, taught that Joseph Smith was a prophet and simply accepted it to be the truth. That wasn’t the case with me. I don’t believe anything, just because it’s what I was taught. I believe there was a universal apostasy, and that, if there hadn’t been, there would have been no need for God to call Joseph Smith as His prophet. He probably doesn’t have the background or the interest in this period of Christianity that I have (which is not to say that he doesn’t have other areas of expertise that greatly surpass mine). I’m sure he doesn’t “jump into every conversation about theology by bringing up apostasy any more.” But, I hope you did notice that this thread was not started by a Latter-day Saint, but by an Orthodox Christian. I didn’t bring anything up. I have merely commented on a subject in which I have an avid interest which someone who holds the opposite point of view brought up.

No, it is not.... if revelation does not have to be traced back to the early Church and to Christ for YOUR doctrines, then the same standard should apply to MINE. Right?

Okay, we’re obviously not on the same page here at all. Please tell me how it is even conceivable that the Christians living in 1st century Jerusalem could possibly know anything about the Book of Mormon. I just don’t see where you’re coming from. Our doctrines are, we believe, a restoration of the same doctrines taught anciently. I have already invited you to challenge me on a specific doctrine you reject as having modern origins.

"Pope" is an informal name... it is the English version of "papa" for the Latin for "daddy or father.

Regardless, it’s the name used by 1 billion Catholics today to refer to the leader of their Church. And I know what it means. I also know that Jesus told us not to refer to any human leader as our “Holy Father,” but to reverse that title for our Father in Heaven.

The correct title for the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.... and I can tell you for certain that the title "episcopate" was certainly used by the early Church.

And what evidence is there that the Bishop of Rome was ever to be supreme among all the bishops?

If this stuff upsets you too much, let me know.... but it is your faith, it should be easy to defend, right?

It doesn’t upset me at all. And it’s rather easy for me to defend. I’m just not quite sure what it is you’re expecting of me. And once again, I would rather not talk about this at all, if it means we’re going to fight. I’m up for a debate, but I am not interested in trashing Catholicism. I am only questioning its authority.

Kathryn

 

[Scott1]

insist that revelation ceased with the deaths of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is the Revelator.

It is a language thing... public revelation means something different to us than it does you.... you can either accept that and understand that we believe the Holy Spirit CONTINUES to guide the Church..... or not.

If it was important for 5th century Christians to know the truth about Mary’s birth, life (including her state of perpetual virginity) and death, why wasn’t it just as important for 1st century Christians to have this same information?

I don't have time to educate you about Christianity over the ages... but I will give you this one piece:
In the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.

As this belief had not been challenged prior to this, there was no need to define Mary as theotokos.... once a heresy attacked the faith, the Church, GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, defined this dogma as a matter of teaching the faith.

Obviously, I am not on the right track since I believe I’ve proven that the Catholic Church has established new doctrines throughout its history

... but AGAIN not provided any proof that this is a BAD thing.

I have already invited you to challenge me on a specific doctrine you reject as having modern origins.

You continue to miss the point... if all we need is a restoration of "historical Christianity" why do we need to know about Golden Plates or the BOM? If what is needed is a "restoration" , then what purpose does adding NON-historical information serve?

I also know that Jesus told us not to refer to any human leader as our “Holy Father,” but to reverse that title for our Father in Heaven.

Oh vey.... do I really need to waste my time defending this?

And what evidence is there that the Bishop of Rome was ever to be supreme among all the bishops?

Off topic.... I'm sure James or Ted will agree with me that no matter if you believe in the Primacy of Peter or not, you can be darn sure that my Orthodox brothers don't believe the early Church fell into apostacy.

I am only questioning its authority.

And please continue to do so.... but please understand the difference in questioning the authority of the early Church and actually being able to give evidence of apostasy.

 

[Katzpur]

[/font][/color]
It is a language thing... public revelation means something different to us than it does you.... you can either accept that and understand that we believe the Holy Spirit CONTINUES to guide the Church..... or not.

So what does "public revelation" mean to you. We don't even use the term, so I'm really not sure what you think it means to us. And how does the Holy Spirit continue to guide the Chuch without this involving revelation? Define your terms, please, if you think I may not understand them.

I don't have time to educate you about Christianity over the ages... but I will give you this one piece.

I don't know whether to be insulted or just amused. I am far better educated about Christianity over the ages than you realize.

In the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.

As this belief had not been challenged prior to this, there was no need to define Mary as theotokos.... once a heresy attacked the faith, the Church, GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, defined this dogma as a matter of teaching the faith.

Uh... okay, so I believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. (Of course, that leaves me wondering about the phrase, "Hail, Mary, mother of God," but that's a topic best saved for another time.) So now, maybe you could explain what heresy prompted the doctrine that Mary (supposedly unlike the rest of humanity) was born without sin. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that Jesus considered His mother to be different in that respect from other women. And why the teaching about Mary's ascension into Heaven? Was that doctrine also proposed as a means to combat heresy? What was the original doctrine? I'm not aware of any early writings that described her death as any more unique than her conception.

... but AGAIN not provided any proof that this is a BAD thing.

I don't even know what to say to this. If the Church established as doctrine something that had not been mentioned as part of the teachings of the Apostolic era -- and at the same time rejected the idea that revelation from God was continuing -- I'd say that it was indeed a "bad thing."

You continue to miss the point... if all we need is a restoration of "historical Christianity" why do we need to know about Golden Plates or the BOM? If what is needed is a "restoration" , then what purpose does adding NON-historical information serve?

I guess I do. Please excuse my stupidity. As you undoubtedly know, we believe The Book of Mormon to be "another testament of Jesus Christ." Your question is akin to asking, "If we have Matthew, why do we need John? If we have Luke, what need is there for Mark?" What is there to object to in yet another witness to the divinity and saving power of Jesus Christ? And if certain doctrines evolved over time, as we believe they did through that [dreaded word] "apostasy," it would make perfect sense to trust a second ancient document describing Christ's visit to his "other sheep," particularly since the original document was translated only once. As to why we need to know about the plates on which this document was recorded, we don't. We don't need to know about them any more than we need to know about the ancient papyrus that may have been used to record the biblical texts on.

Oh vey.... do I really need to waste my time defending this?

No. If you believe it to be a waste of your time, please feel free to not answer.

Off topic.... I'm sure James or Ted will agree with me that no matter if you believe in the Primacy of Peter or not, you can be darn sure that my Orthodox brothers don't believe the early Church fell into apostacy.

I'm sure they will, just as the LDS posters will agree with me. And given the fact that the number of posters who voted "yes," believing that there was an apostasy within the ancient Church exceeds the number of Latter-day Saints on this forum, apparently there are others who also agree with us. They just don't believe that the truth has been restored.

And please continue to do so.... but please understand the difference in questioning the authority of the early Church and actually being able to give evidence of apostasy.

Who's questioning the authority of the early Church? I'm questioning the authority of the present-day Church. And I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if the second-century Church fell into apostasy, the present day Church no longer has the authority it claims. If the Church is the same to say as it was in Jesus' time, then an apostasy never took place. You may try to separate these two issues if you wish, but I see them as intrinsically connected.

Kathryn

 

[Scott1]

And how does the Holy Spirit continue to guide the Chuch without this involving revelation? Define your terms, please, if you think I may not understand them.

The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church... the same Spirit that guided the twelve, guides the Bishops of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

So now, maybe you could explain what heresy prompted the doctrine that Mary

Ummm ... NO. Again, this thread is not about Marian or any other kind of doctrines.... it is about apostasy, and you have been less than forthcoming with evidence that supports it.

What is there to object to in yet another witness to the divinity and saving power of Jesus Christ?

Hehe... all the Catholics are giggling.... Kat, you've just explained the reason for the development of doctrine including the Trinity, Theotokos, etc.

No. If you believe it to be a waste of your time, please feel free to not answer.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

I'm sure they will, just as the LDS posters will agree with me.

You missed my point.... and this poll is meaningless, I hope you know that.

And I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if the second-century Church fell into apostasy, the present day Church no longer has the authority it claims. If the Church is the same to say as it was in Jesus' time, then an apostasy never took place. You may try to separate these two issues if you wish, but I see them as intrinsically connected.

The problem is, I AGREE with this statement. I just want evidence that the second-century Church fell into apostasy.... and please be specific:

In Jerusalem, please show the apostasy.

In Antioch, please show the apostasy.

In Alexandria, please show the apostasy.

In Constantanople, please show the apostasy.

In Rome, please show the apostasy.

Since you are "far better educated about Christianity over the ages than (I) realize." , it should be an easy task to compare and contrast each Apostolic see and the apostasy that EVERY Apostolic see agreed upon and thus plunged the second-century Church into apostasy.

 

[Katzpur]

The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church... the same Spirit that guided the twelve, guides the Bishops of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Scott, you didn’t answer my question. I asked how the Holy Spirit does this without revelation. Restating your original point doesn’t count as an answer. But you did raise another: If the Holy Spirit guides the bishops of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, why don’t they see eye-to-eye on doctrines? Does He also guide the Protestants? What about the Mormons? (Oh, never mind. I already know the answer to the last one.)

Ummm ... NO. Again, this thread is not about Marian or any other kind of doctrines.... it is about apostasy, and you have been less than forthcoming with evidence that supports it.

I believe this thread is about evidences for and against a universal apostasy, and I see changes in Catholic doctrine as constituting evidence. The Marian doctrines are perfect examples, though I could provide others as well. To me, any time a doctrine evolves over a period of several centuries – particularly when there has been no revelation from God to precipitate these changes, I smell apostasy. That’s all the evidence I need. And I know that no amount of evidence could convince you.

Hehe... all the Catholics are giggling.... Kat, you've just explained the reason for the development of doctrine including the Trinity, Theotokos, etc.

Well, I’m certainly glad I could amuse you all. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share the joke with me. If you explain it in very simple terms, there is always an outside chance that I’ll get it.

You missed my point.... and this poll is meaningless, I hope you know that.

Of course it is. But, for some reason, you felt compelled to point out the fact that the Eastern Orthodox posters were on your side.

The problem is, I AGREE with this statement. I just want evidence that the second-century Church fell into apostasy.... and please be specific:
In Jerusalem, please show the apostasy.
In Antioch, please show the apostasy.
In Alexandria, please show the apostasy.
In Constantanople, please show the apostasy.
In Rome, please show the apostasy.

And now, you are missing my point. I have stated close to a dozen times now that I believe the change in Catholic doctrine over the centuries is evidence that an apostasy took place. You have been unable to show me a first-century source for any of the doctrines we have discussed. Instead, all you have done is continue to tell me that the doctrines I’m using as examples are off-topic. I see them as proof that what I am claiming to have happened to Christ’s Church really did happen.


I’m sorry, but we really are just going around in circles at this point. You ask for proof. I give what I believe is proof. You reject it and ask the same question again. I answer again and around and around we go. Perhaps we ought to just quit while we’re still on speaking terms because I’m getting frustrated and I suspect you are, too.

Kathryn

 

[Scott1]

Scott, you didn’t answer my question.

OK... we'll try this another way:

"In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty." (St. John of the Cross - emphasis mine)

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

If the Holy Spirit guides the bishops of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, why don’t they see eye-to-eye on doctrines? Does He also guide the Protestants? What about the Mormons? (Oh, never mind. I already know the answer to the last one.)

The perfection of God does not overshadow our sinful free will. The Holy Spirit also guides Protestants AND Mormons (and Muslims, Jews, etc etc--- "Whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit." St. Thomas Aquinas)... but we believe the fullness of truth to be entrusted to the Catholic faith.

I believe this thread is about evidences for and against a universal apostasy, and I see changes in Catholic doctrine as constituting evidence.

... but at the same time view the change to belief in Golden Plates and Christ visiting ancient America as perfectly valid.

And I know that no amount of evidence could convince you.

No... again, all I'm looking for is evidence that the information given to Joseph Smith was any different than the information given to the successors of the Apostles in the ancient Catholic Church.

Well, I’m certainly glad I could amuse you all.

Ummm... I thought it was obvious... your definition of the need for "yet another witness to the divinity and saving power of Jesus Christ" is the EXACT SAME definition about the need for development of the doctrines you now call apostasy....

You have been unable to show me a first-century source for any of the doctrines we have discussed.

One more time... all you have to do is prove that the changes in doctrine were not anything more than "another witness to the divinity and saving power of Jesus Christ" and I'll shut up.

Perhaps we ought to just quit while we’re still on speaking terms because I’m getting frustrated and I suspect you are, too.

Not at all... I'm quite proud of you... I stated before that this topic is the "elephant in the room" that no one wants to talk about.... but I think it is cowardly to believe in something but not support it.... you, on the other hand, have taken up the discussion and are doing your best... and I appreciate that.

 

[Katzpur]

I stated before that this topic is the "elephant in the room" that no one wants to talk about.... but I think it is cowardly to believe in something but not support it.... you, on the other hand, have taken up the discussion and are doing your best... and I appreciate that.

Thank you, but I'm tired. Both of us know we're not going to change one another's minds, and it appears that we're the only two even trying at this point. So, I'm going to bow out at this point.

Respectfully,

Kathryn

 

[Searcher of Light]

Scott and Katzpur:

The perfection of God does not overshadow our sinful free will. The Holy Spirit also guides Protestants AND Mormons (and Muslims, Jews, etc etc--- "Whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit." St. Thomas Aquinas)... but we believe the fullness of truth to be entrusted to the Catholic faith.

Why would God entrust the Truth to the Catholic faith when He isnt a respector of persons? (Ephesians 6:9, Romans 2:11) The Catholic view of this is the same as most other mainstream religions. Each one believe the others are guided, for the most part, by the Holy Spirit; however, each also think they have the complete revelation from God.

As an outsider, much of the Catholic and Mormon practices and beliefs look the same. I had relatives that were Mormon for a while, and they did tell me somethings (although some are incorrect or piecemeal Katzpur has show me) about the religion. I also know some people raised from Catholic teachings. From what I have gathered from both, the two religions are too similar to convince each other the other is wrong or inferior. Basically, the entire issue is seeking to find out who has true revelation. Only God can answer that one when we meet Him. Unfortunately, that could be too late if He deems any religion incorrect in His eyes.

 

[Scott1]

Why would God entrust the Truth to the Catholic faith when He isnt a respector of persons?

I believe he most certainly respects "persons".... sorry, lost me on this one.

As an outsider, much of the Catholic and Mormon practices and beliefs look the same.

While I respect your opinion, it really has no bearing on this discussion... the fact that you, as an outsider, can not see how vastly different we are in our respective theologies means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[may]

Jesus left his faithful slave some work to do, then went away, then came back later to see if they were doing the right kind of work that he left them , but were they doing Jesus work when he came back? or had the slave taken on some other slaves work instead?

"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master (JESUS)appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings matthew 24;45-47.....So was the slave giving spiritual food to the flock or not ,or was the flock starving spiritually and taking in junk food instead

 

[Quiddity]

Jesus left his faithful slave some work to do, then went away, then came back later to see if they were doing the right kind of work that he left them , but were they doing Jesus work when he came back? or had the slave taken on some other slaves work instead?

"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master (JESUS)appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings matthew 24;45-47.....So was the slave giving spiritual food to the flock or not ,or was the flock starving spiritually and taking in junk food instead

When did he leave? When did he come back? You have anything other then your private interpretations to back it up?

~Victor