HE2000

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rogue0572 The only critisism of Ethan is that he sometimes overreached rhetorically.

Calling Joseph “a super crazy psychopath evil person” or repeatedly saying “demon worshipper” may play well with people already hostile to Mormonism, but in a formal debate, it risks sounding overheated.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rogue0572 Luke never gave a satisfying answer to why God would use Joseph’s occult/seer-stone context as the means of restoring the gospel, and because “the Book of Mormon says many good things about Jesus” is not enough to rule out deception.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom But LDS believe this too, right? Jewish rabbis don’t have New Covenant authority or valid saving ordinances.

So the issue isn’t if Old Covenant authority was fulfilled in Christ. Catholics and LDS agree there. It’s whether Christ’s Church later lost authority for 1,800 years.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom No. Jewish rabbis today do not have authority to bind/loose for the New Covenant people of God. But that’s because the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ, not because God’s Church disappeared. Fulfillment of Israel ≠ total apostasy of Christ’s Church.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom Through apostolic succession, it does. The bishops succeed the apostles in governing and teaching authority, with the bishop of Rome succeeding Peter.

So “where are the apostles?” assumes the LDS structure rather than proving it.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom Ephesians 2:20 says the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ being the cornerstone.

A foundation is laid once. The question is not whether every generation has twelve men called “apostles,” but whether apostolic authority continues.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@_Nosoup4you__ @LibertyEthics But that begs the question — to which Jesus are you referring to?

Jesus’ identity is more than His name; it is the collection of His unique characteristics and features.

If you redefine what those are as the LDS do then we have to sort that out.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom Also, Israel didn’t keep every role unchanged either. The Temple priesthood/sacrifices ceased after 70 AD. Continuity doesn’t require identical external structure forever. The question is whether Christ’s Church retained authority, teaching, sacraments, and visible continuity.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom That assumes the LDS model. Catholics don’t claim the Twelve continue by always having twelve men called “apostles.” We claim apostolic authority continues through apostolic succession: bishops as successors of the apostles, and the pope as successor of Peter.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom The question is not whether God’s people can sin or fall into apostasy. Of course they can.

The question is whether Christ’s authoritative Church could lose its authority for 1,800 years despite Christ promising to be with it “all days.”

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom I was responding to your Israel analogy. Christianity claims Christ fulfilled Israel from within Israel. The first Christians were Jews.

The issue isn’t whether LDS sees itself as “related,” but whether Christ’s authoritative Church vanished for 1,800 years.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom Apostasy among God’s people is biblical. But total disappearance of the authoritative Church Christ promised to be with “all days” and Paul says exists “to all generations”(Eph. 3:21) is different. That’s the LDS claim that needs proving.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom Israel had apostasy, corrupt leaders, exile, and judgment. Catholics agree the Church can have corrupt members too.

The issue is total institutional loss. LDS theology says Christ’s Church lost priesthood authority, apostolic authority, ordinances, and fullness for 1,800 years.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@TeeplesCY Also, the “the side with the throne won” narrative is too simplistic. Imperial power shifted back and forth, and Nicene defenders like Athanasius were exiled repeatedly.

So the issue isn’t who had the sword. It’s which doctrine best preserves what Christ revealed.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@TeeplesCY “The Nicene formula came later” is true. “The Trinity didn’t exist before Nicaea” is not.

Early Christians already worshiped Christ, confessed one God, baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, and treated the Spirit as divine. Nicaea clarified that faith.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom So Matthew 28 is a problem. Jesus commissions a teaching, baptizing Church and promises to be with it always.

If that Church vanished for 1,800 years, Christ’s promise has to be redefined into something much weaker than what LDS ecclesiology itself seems to require.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Rultpwr @TomMcMurtryNZ @catholiccom This answer would make more sense from a Baptist or non-denominational framework, where Christ’s presence is reduced to scattered sincere believers.

But LDS theology, like Catholicism, claims Christ founded a visible and authoritative church with real priesthood authority.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Chant_Again @theblessedsalt Imagine reading Matthew 28 in 1785. Jesus promises to be with His Church to the end of the age.

The LDS did not exist yet. If the true Church had vanished for 1,800 years, then Jesus misguided billions into obeying churches with no apostolic authority. That’s unthinkable.

[HE2000 @HE20006]

@Chant_Again @theblessedsalt The question isn’t whether God “could” reveal something later in the abstract. It’s whether LDS claims fit Christ’s promise in Matthew 28: “I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

If the true Church vanished for 1,800 years, in what sense was Christ with it always?