When the Mormon Church CHANGED DOCTRINE w/ Stephen Johnson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 лип 2023
- 📺 Full Episode: • From Mormon to Catholi...
Stephen tells Matt about several time the LDS has reneged on it's teachings
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links. - Розваги
To all the LDS members in the comment section who are not satisfied that this man is speaking, please go watch the full video (skip the intro if you’d like) around minute 24, Matt literally reaches out to any Mormons who would like to have a dialogue because both he and Stephen acknowledge that Stephen is not an authority on the matter but just relaying his experience and understanding of the church as he was born and raised in it. There is no need to be offended by this. Matt himself asks for respect from his audience again within the first 20 minutes.
We have great respect for Matt and Catholics in general, and do not blame him of bias or misrepresented facts, those things inevitably pop up in a podcast format. However, for the people unfamiliar with Mormonism who are only getting this one sided straw man view of it here, we would still like to contextualize what’s said and provide additional information and resources for those interested.
@@KnuttyEntertainment I understand, that’s why I wanted to leave my comment so that people can have that context, and not think that this 15 min clip is an isolated video, that the original podcast has the context and people can truly understand that both speakers here are actually discussing Stephen’s faith journey and his understanding and experience being born and raised in the LDS church and do not claim in any part of the video to be authorities on the matter of Mormonism.
@@eileen8787 👍
@@KnuttyEntertainmentno info needed. You all spawned from catholicism and I pray you all one day return to the one true church.
Why single the LDS members? I've read plenty of comments of non-LDS and they're taking it as fact. Why not say the same for them? It's because you honestly believe he's telling the truth and only correction needs come from LDS members. I don't care what they said earlier. I hear what he's saying now and said this was the doctrine of the church as if he had authority; and that's how non-LDS viewers are taking it.
I'm fully aware of what he's talking about in the first 5 minutes I've watched and he's actually quite wrong in much of what I heard. Why? Because he thought he understood what he read. The Church has never once advocated for murder, as to what is being ascribed in his explanation of "blood atonement." Also, blood atonement was never doctrine. FYI, capital punishment was never considered blood atonement. Capital punishment was applied based on how egregious an act was. Anyone caught in infidelity was generally excommunicated, not executed. So if he can be this so far off from the truth, then everything else ought to be questioned of its authenticity. But many non-LDS don't care about authenticity because it conforms to their beliefs as to why they are right and the other wrong.
I always enjoy Pints with Aquinas, keep up the great work Matt!
This is a clear cut example of what happens when you try to ape the Catholic Church's God given divine protection of infallibility.
They absolutely failed, and to such an extent that it is surprising they take themselves seriously.
Something similar happened with Jehovah's witnesses where they kept failing over and over again to predict future events.
God be thanked, long live the Pope, and God increase in the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.
You mean like when Jesus said he would be back before this generation had passed?
@@kevinkelly2162Everyone currently living was generated by the people alive when He said that.
Failing? I wouldn't call a church that has lasted great oppression for nearly 200 years and which has over 17 million members worldwide a failure.
@@kevinkelly2162 If you mean him saying that that generation would see Jesus as king of God's kingdom, they did, at the transfiguration.
Everyone is, and should be, eagerly wanting Jesus to return, the correct answer to "When is Jesus coming back?" is always "Soon, but know not the day or the hour." Being too eager and setting a date or not being eager enough and drifting into Amillenialism are both wrong, but I would prefer to err toward overzealotry. Of course, that can lead to a boy who cried wolf problem, so just sick to the middle path. I would point out, the Catholic church had it's own apocalyptic fervour at times, especially around the year 1000AD. People like round numbers.
The beliefs of this religion and its origins are wildly bizarre.
No more so than some of the stuff that the Catholic church believes. Relics, they have patron saints, just like Greeks and Romans worshipped minor gods. They had Popes who were awful people and basically medieval warlords. This kind of arguing between Christians isn't very useful. Catholicism has weird stuff too.
I completely agree, catholicism is out there too. So much of the things it teaches are bizarre and not in the scriptures. Very dark history in that religion too.
@@michaelchristensen5965it isn’t arguing between Christian’s. It’s literally every denomination who agree on the Trinity and the Incarnation… then there’s the Mormons. It’s more like arguing with a Muslim
Jesus is sufficient, he is our Mediator and High Priest. We need no other. Thank you, this is excellent.
We can’t forget the ever important revelation that it is okay to drink Coke, but not coffee.
Coffee and tea were prohibited, and those were caffeinated. So many members began to suspect caffeine as the common element that needed to be avoided. Likewise, for the longest time BYU didn’t serve caffeinated sodas on campus, and many Latter-day Saints grew up never having coke and never developing a taste for it. (Most members I know find Coke and Pepsi to taste nasty. However, root beer and sprite, which is widely served caffeine free, is quite popular.) The clarification that the Word of Wisdom did not outright prohibit cola or caffeine was made in response to this culturally pervasive idea in Utah.
Hope that added context helps explain why we’re so weird. 🙃
@@ProtestantsRUs May be partially true, but let’s not get hasty. The spirit of the law is that alcohol isn’t meant to be used as a recreational drug in general. Just because 5% beer might not qualify as a “strong drink” doesn’t mean you’re free to party it up. Getting drunk is what’s prohibited moreso than the drink itself.
@@ProtestantsRUs Wine back then was not as refined as it is today. It was more like fermented grape juice than hard liquor. And that kind of alcohol isn’t as strictly prohibited. Plus, back then, oftentimes alcohol was safer to drink than water because alcohol is a disinfectant and clean water wasn’t as widespread.
Furthermore, we don’t think drinking alcohol is immoral, we abstain as a sign of our commitment to God as part of the new covenant we have with him, the same reason why Jews don’t eat pork, and Nazarites like Samson and John the Baptist didn’t drink alcohol or cut their hair. Only Baptized Latter-day Saints have to keep that commitment. Gentiles do not. I think Matthew 11:17-19 puts it well.
I don't think anyone said it's OK to drink Coke explicitly, neither was it forbidden. And soft drinks were not around when the word of wisdom was given.
The actual revelation was "hot drinks" given by Joseph Smith because in the 1800s it was believed that any drink that was literally hot (hot chocolate, hot cider, etc.) Was bad for you. When we found out that wasn't true the 'revelation' was changed to coffee and tea
We need a pt2 interview Matt! This was so interesting
Excellent explanation
After LDS Sunday service is over, the left over ‘blessed’ bread and water is thrown in the trash or poured down the sink into the sewer system.
Ask mormons about Heavenly Mother and what planet God was on
Interesting that the Book of Mormon doesn’t approve of polygamy but Joseph Smith Jr. fairly soon decided it was necessary… so it’s very deeply ingrained in LDS culture, the changing of revealed truth.
It wasn’t fairly soon, it was a decade later. And Joseph Smith was very resistant to it. When the policy was formally instituted after his death (by the way, members were often assigned assigned widows to marry to provide for them. You couldn’t just make a harem for yourself.) it was only in place for 40 years out of the church’s 200 year history.
Finally, while the Book of Mormon does denounce polygamy, it states in the very next verse that God can make exceptions if necessary.
Hope that added context helps explain our weird beliefs. 🙃
@@KnuttyEntertainmentwhat I don't like about Mormonism is the distortion of the name of Christ
They know what they're doing when they use "church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints"
Very misleading
@@tomtemple69 Do you think the church, it’s members and leaders, are not sincere in their beliefs? We call ourselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because we believe it’s true. There’s two big reasons.
1. We believe that the keys of the kingdom given to Peter was lost shortly following the death of the apostles, and with those keys, the right to perform ordinances and officiate in ecclesiastical roles was lost with them. It was no longer God’s church doing God’s work, under God’s direction, with God’s power and authority behind it. It was just a fan club. This was why God needed to call new prophets and apostles to restore the church and the keys to run it. We believe we are that restored church, the only one to carry the fullness of the gospel as it was had in times of old, the only one with prophets and apostles with real priesthood power and authority. We believe we are God’s personal church in these last days. We are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A big and ballsy claim, but that’s kinda the point.
2. We call ourselves that because it is what Christ commanded us to call his church. That command is canonized in our scriptures in Doctrine & Covenants Section 115:3-6
@@KnuttyEntertainment - how many wives did Joseph Smith take on to provide for? Six, twelve, twenty? I believe the recorded number is over 33 and few of them, given their age at marrriage were widows if any. Even if Joseph Smith was doing his absolute best to save these 33 women from abject poverty there is no reason he personally needed to amass 33 women, nor is it reasonable to think that he could reasonably care for all these women and his respective children from these women. At some point this argument loses all meaning. Fair enough if he had two, three, even four wives. But 33? We’re there no other LDS many to seal with?
@@emiliawisniewski3947 There are a myriad reasons behind polygamy. Community care for widows was a big reason why polygamy was instituted among the membership following the destruction of Nauvoo when the Saints were in danger of all dying out from persecution and hardship.
This was also one of the reasons why Joseph Smith took on some of his wives, because as mayor and leader of the church he was in a unique position to provide for them, but that wasn’t the reason behind all of them. Nor did I say it was.
Ultimately, Joseph practiced polygamy because he was commanded to at threat of smiting, and Joseph (especially early on) did his best to get around that commandment. Later focusing on just doing whatever good he could through the practice. For example, most of his early wives were pregnant or something else that would give Joseph an excuse to not be intimate with them. There are only a couple wives where there is evidence that Joseph slept with them, and for most of the wives there is strong evidence that they never once had sex. On top off all, this the practice was kept very secret, Joseph could not have seen these other wives very often. It gets to the point that many people seriously doubt whether Joseph was truly polygamous at all. All it takes is reading the story of the individual wives to dispel the idea that Joseph was constructing a harem for his own pleasure, he’s certainly not picking the prime candidates if he was.
Now I do not think it would be wrong for Joseph to have sex with them. Both parties knew full well what they were getting into. However it’s pretty clear that Joseph had a very strong aversion to that side of the practice. Many of the women already had another husband, were too old or in some cases too young. Most of them were only sealed and not married for this life, making them closer to betrothals than actual marriages.
Are there any books/articles/links that cover the history of the Catholic church in regards to people of African descent? I know there's a lot of misinformation out there, but I'm hoping to learn more about this.
Well said
I hardly see any missionaries around anymore (I live in England). I didn't know if that was related to any changes they are having/have had.
Great insight into mormonism. I studied about them and everything he says is true. They have very weird doctrines
They deny the eternity and deity of Jesus and deny the trinity
Anyone who does that is not a Christian
@@tomtemple69 No they don't. They view the Trinity slightly differently, though it ends up meaning the same thing as Catholics. They also belive in both the eternity and divinity of Jesus.
@@taylordl28 lol, clearly you don't know anything about the Trinity or mormonism or both
@@tomtemple69clearly... 🙄
@@PimpMyDitchWitchIs Christ not an anthropomorphic being? Does he not exist in "true" eternity?
It's not the Trinity where the significant difference lies, but the state of God the Father. And yes, Mormons believe he is eternal.
This clip took a.... mmm... dark turn (no pun intended). All of thos is new to me wow
The Journal of the Discourses is not considered doctrine by Mormons. It is the opinions of those prophets or general authorities. It's not part of the canon. Looking to the Journal of the Discourses for church doctrine is not good practice.
So you mean the actual sermons of early church prophets like Brigham Young made to the active believing community at the time is not to be understood to be doctrine? Why would an alleged prophet of God preach something to the masses and published to other countries that is false? Brigham Young said he was taught the Adam-God doctrine directly from Joseph Smith Jr. Brigham Young said it was a revelation directly from God. According to D&C 68:4 the words of the prophets is to be considered scripture, and the Journal of Discourses was an early version of broadcasting it to the world. It was like the early version of General Conference. So by calling the Journal of Discourses noncanon you’re calling both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young heretics. That statement I agree with, but not for the same reason.
Able S. Rich - "If you really want to know what a man is, and what he believes, do not go to his enemies. Go to the man himself or to his friends. He does not confide the thoughts of his heart to his enemies. His friends know him best; they know his strengths and his weaknesses. They will represent him fairly. His enemies will misrepresent him."
Absolutely. Go see the original sources from the people who hold the positions. Would expect that kind of integrity for an investigation into any part of history, the ancient Church or the LDS Church. God bless you.
Have the Mormons been misrepresented in this clip?
@@jaredselim2689 history is always messy, regardless of which religion you are. As a hypothetical, let's reverse the position of this video. A Catholic converts to "Mormonism" and goes on a "Mormon" podcast talking about Indulgences, the woman pope, the history of 3 popes at the same time, etc. There would be a clear bias. As a member of the LDS faith, I wouldn't agree with this premise. It wouldn't do it justice. I prefer to hear the history and doctrine of a Catholic from their words rather than someone hostile to the faith.
@@jeremysmith7176 history can seldom be boiled down to a few bullet points.
@@jeremysmith7176 Many of the things Stephen said here is very inaccurate.
First, the infinite regress of gods is a theory held by many laymen, but has never been taught in official church materials, and never made its way into church policy. The same is true with blood atonement, Adam God theory, neutrality in the war of heaven, and the Curse of Cain.
You see, there is no formal clergy in the Church of Jesus Christ at the local level. All priests and bishops are volunteer workers who are called to serve for a couple years before the job is given to someone else. It's very grassroots. So these rumors and speculative theories do often get taught in the local congregations, but never appear in official church teaching,
We believe that prophets and apostles are just as human as anyone else, and just as fallible. We do not believe prophets are prophetically inspired 24/7, they are only prophets in the constraints and duties of their office. Everything else they say in their personal lives is speculation or personal opinion. This is the case with most of the Brigham Young teachings. Though Brigham Young was pretty boisterous and wasn't afraid to emphatically share his opinions with the weight of his position behind them when giving local sermons. The important thing is that Brigham Young also often made retractions and his more out there teachings never made their way into his general conference addresses.
Stephen said these personal beliefs, such as Adam God, were given ex cathedra, this is a WILD WILD misrepresentation. Instituting new official doctrine or adding to the scriptural canon has a very very particular process where the Prophets and apostles receive revelation from God, deliberate over it until a unanimous consensus is reached, write out an official declaration with all their signatures, and then present that new material to be accepted and sustained by common consent of the membership of the church by vote. This has only occurred three times since Joseph Smith as far as I'm aware. And that was with D&C section 138, and Official Declarations 1 & 2. There have also been Official Proclamations by the Church, such as the Proclamation of the Living Christ, the Proclamation of the Restoration (that one was given just 3 years ago), and most famously the Proclamation of the Family. These are much much more concrete teachings of the church than any of things Stephen mentioned, however even these aren't considered to be canonized as the haven't gone through the last step and been sustained by common consent of the church.
Can we all just agree that Brigham Young was a wee bit crazy!
Common Mormon L
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
I didn't want to go underground anyway
Thursday doesn’t need a mic
Mormonism is quite silly but capital punishment by firing squad is BASED.
I wonder, when we die, are the prophets Joseph Smith and Mohamed standing next to God and Jesus.
LDS seems to be the product of a bad LSD experience. How can anyone can take Mormons seriously?
Every faith looks silly from the outside.
@@kevinkelly2162 Only to an atheist. I'm a Catholic but don't regard Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam as silly even though I don't agree with a lot of what those faiths espouse or practice. My comment is about the blatant lack of an internal logical consistency in the theology, lack of tradition, and the conflating of dogma set down by a person's notions and speculations with the concept of divinity. A prophet who is chosen by people is usually referred to as a cult leader. So much of the LDS is so divorced from the Bible, I'm not sure how it can even be called Christian. 🤔
@@Fatima_Garabandal2251the "prophet" is not chosen by the people of the church. There is a system in place to determine who the next "prophet" will be when the current "prophet" dies.
I prophet in quotation marks because I am referring to the president of the church who is also a prophet. We believe that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are all prophets along with The First Presidency. The First Presidency includes the President of the church.
@@Fatima_Garabandal2251We believe in the Bible, and in Christ, we don't practice polygamy, but we did during the earlier years of the church.
@@Fatima_Garabandal2251its not Christian
A church changing doctrine because of political pressure; where have I heard that before? Something 2 and other times.
Brigham Young was the governor of the territory of Utah. As far as I know, black women were allowed full access to the temple, it was just men who were barred because they couldn't hold the priesthood.
I think they claim a new revelation in that it was those that were dark in spirit not in colour so they misinterpreted it and made changes.
I just left another comment on this video but i wanted to also say as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, i love this channel and think that we have way more similarities to catholicism than many would realize
Everything that is similar is because Joseph copied it from Catholicism and Methodism I served a 2 yr mission and have looked at everything there is. Catholicism is the true faith not Joseph’s church carried on by Brigham
Okay-all good, but I think firing squad is the most humane execution. Of all the current options (lethal injection, electric chair, etc) firing squad is the least botched. One shot through the heart drops blood pressure instantly and the brain goes to sleep. Now, this doesn’t say I necessarily agree or disagree with capital punishment, but firing squad is the most humane execution. There’s a reason so many on death row request it.
Hopefully CCC 847 applies to Mormons.
Is it to late to research
Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad June 18, 2010 in Utah.
Woah. Thank you for pointing this out.
A View of the Hebrews- the book Smith copied to make the Book of Mormon.
I tend to think so too.
Now there teaching that a skin of blackness might mean tattoos
Or do I
Adam God doctrine!
Yeah, better not offend some liars and cultists....
If you read the bible, there are priests of ethiopean descent even before christ.
Also Adam as god? these are the false priests we were warned about.
I don't think the firing squad option is directly related to Brigham. Maybe it's part of the culture, but I think this is a stretch to blame it on Brigham.
The rest of the apostles never agreed that Adam was God. That doctrine died with Brigham. Though it is true it was taught in the temple for a time. It is a decent criticism of the concept of the Mormon prophet. But the current church doesn't work like that. All 15 have to agree on doctrine.
such convenient successive revelations! (M0hamm3d had similar convenient revelations) ... but ... Num 23:19 - 'God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak & then not act? Does he promise & not fulfill?'
For every minute you gave to this man. You need to give a minute to Ward Radio. Formally known as Midnight Mormins
please no
The only question I care about is: who do Mormons “exactly” say who Jesus is? I’ve asked this of every LDS missionary. The answers I have gotten are not in line with what I read in Scripture.
Latter-day Saints teach that Jesus is God, the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh, but has existed as spirit for all eternity.
However, we do not find support in the scriptures for the idea of homoousia, so we wouldn’t be trinitarians. We call our conception the Godhead, and it’s more similar to three beings of one person than three persons in one being.
Hope that helps! 🙃
@@KnuttyEntertainment According to Mormonism, Jesus is a created being, the first spirit to be born of the Father (Mormon Doctrine, p.129) and a celestial mother (Mormon Doctrine, p.516). Therefore, Jesus could not be the eternal God. Mormons also teach that both the Father and the Son are men with bodies of flesh and bone (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20; Articles of Faith, p 38). Mormons also teach that Jesus is just one of many sons of God. Jesus is referred to specifically as “a son of God” in the Book of Mormon (Alma 36:17). Lucifer, or the devil, is another son of God in Mormon theology (Mormon Doctrine, p.163). Further, Mormonism teaches that the number of gods is increasing. Any man on Earth can one day become the god of another planet and populate it with children born to him from his eternal wife (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-354). Any one of those children can later become a god in his own right (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20). Thus, there is not just One God, triune or not; there are many, many gods (Book of Abraham 4:3).
@@KnuttyEntertainmenthow is Jehovah the brother of Satan?
@@joker18524 While we do believe that Jesus and Lucifer were once brothers back when Lucifer was the most beautiful of angels. This is only because they are both sons of God. Who is the father of the angels if not The Father? Indeed, sons of God is a title that seems to even be given to fallen angels. Many Christians believe that the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4 are fallen angels. (Google Nephilim if you’ve never heard of it before) the term is also used to refer to angels in Job 1:6 and 2:1 again in the context of Satan. YHWH (Jesus) himself is also named as one of these sons of God in Deuteronomy 32:8-9.
Now, I must note that just because Jesus and Lucifer were siblings doesn’t mean they’re at all chummy with each other. It has no bearing on their respective roles as advocate and adversary. Getting shocked at this is like being shocked that someone believes that Peter was once friends with his fellow apostle Judas.
As a side note, Latter-day Saints believe we are all children of god, and therefore we are all siblings in some sense. So of course it’s gonna sound a little weird if you call out a random pairing without context, ya know? Because technically you could say that we believe that Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin are brothers.
Why does he look uncomfortable? There are a few times throughout this message that he is giving that he looks uncomfortable. To each his own in their beliefs. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's so or right. It just means you believe in it. Believe your own bullshit
23 Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ! ' or 'There he is! ' do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
so the lds church changed their mind on polygamy, saying its wrong and evil. So they’re basically catholics? 😂
(protestants like Martin Luther and the German reformers, as well as the proto-Anglicans with King Henry, defended the practice of polygamy).
😞WARNING❗️I’VE BEEN ACCUSED OF HATE SPEECH: This is a sad day for those of us who post the plan of salvation on Utube comments section. I have been doing this for about 3 years. Over the years people told me that they filed complaints. But nothing was ever done, until today 😢
I received a warning that I have been posting “HATE SPEECH “ In the comment section and I will be taken off Utube if I continue. WFS (we fly soon🙏🏻)
Sorry bro. But good on you for spreading the good news. UA-cam has always been pretty unreasonable when it comes to the 1st amendment.
@@KnuttyEntertainmentmake a new account and keep on spreading the good news
I know this is an excerpt from a longer discussion, but the title and presentation of THIS video make it seem like he's an authority on the subject... he's not. It doesn't help that the host has a bias against the subject, nor is informed enough to question what is being presented. It makes me wonder about other videos on this channel where I'm less informed as to how much I can trust the information in them.
So the LDS Church has never changed its doctrine?
If he had said anything that was plainly wrong I'm sure you would have listed these things with strong rebuttals and arguments and written proofs.
None of these ever were "doctrine," though. There's a difference between doctrine, teachings, and practices. Members who have left the faith are a really bad source for our beliefs.
The Adam God stuff, for example, was only ever a teaching, not doctrine. It was effectively an apologetic, like this channel. Then, we never thought we should worship Adam. This guy is a bad faith actor, and I had hoped this channel would be better at vetting its guests.
Yes. We believe in ongoing revelations, but that doesn’t mean we can change doctrine to whatever we want. I would argue none of these examples you provided are doctrines that changed. Church policy and practices change, but not true, eternal doctrines. Polygamy was a practice that was stopped, those of African descent were given the priesthood until Brigham Young who changed the practice, but even he admitted this may change again in the future.
This whole conversation feels disingenuous. How would Catholics feel if there were a Latter-day Saint show where we brought on former Catholics to expose and misrepresent historic issues in the Catholic faith. We could talk about changes through time and then laugh about how silly Catholicism is and ask how could any rational person believe such non-sense.
God hates polygamy. God likes polygamy. The government hates polygamy and is threatening Utah's statehood. Now, God hates polygamy again. I guess if God is just a dude in the sky living on some other planet with his wife (not the immutable, eternal creator of the universe) it would be normal to change his mind every few years on basic aspects of morality over and over. Because...that God is isn't God at all. He is just a super dude--just a whimsical creature. And yes, doctrine can change to whatever/anything if the morality of polygamy is so mutable and was just a "practice that was stopped". Anything is on the table if a prophet is allowed change teaching so that he can marry 14 year olds and other men's wives.
FYI first black Pope was in the 2nd century and Catholics never had an official teaching that blacks are "cursed with dark skin". (FYI Jesus had dark skin). They opposed abortion and contraception in the first century and still do today--much to the ridicule of the modern world. Catholics don't need to change their doctrine every 20 years based on which direction the political winds are blowing because Catholic dogma is not the result of the brain droppings of a charlatan treasure hunter who copy/pasted whole sections of the KJV of the bible and pretended to translate languages by looking at rocks in a hat or pretended to translate a bunch of Egyptian burial instructions into a fantastical story.
That voice in your head that tells you things don't make sense...its not Satan. Its logic and reason. 2+2 does not equal 5. Have courage. Break free.
Catholics have a very colorful history. Those that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
What does that have to do with anything? It's still Christs church that is in this fallen world. People in Christs church can sin but the gates of hell will not prevail against HIs Catholic Church. Still here after all this time and still the same doctrine.
There will always be sheep and goats, wheat and tares. The Church has always had problems from Judas stealing, the sins of the Corinthians, Peter's hypocrisy, and all through history to the present scandals. We should expect these things because know that the enemy is at work against us. We are Catholic for our Saints, the faithful that make Christ present to us, the gift of the sacraments and the promise of Christ that He would not abandon His Church.
*Catholics HAVE a history. It is not really something Mormons or other 19th century Protestant splinter groups can grasp. Whatever sins you levy against the Catholic church were spread out over two millenia. It has persisted through every age after the death of Christ. It has centuries of theological discussion, ecunimism, ecclesiastical organization, and authority. The role of the church in developing Western society, exploration, sciences, langauge, art, architecture, and literature are innumerable. There is no point in comparing the Catholic church to the LDS churches, or Jehova's Witnesses, or seventh day Adventists. There are simply on whole different planes. It would be like comparing a Raphael piece to a doodle on a sticky note.
@@mp4278his point is alot of the historical attacks against the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints are very similar to attacks on past Catholic church controversies. The arguments sound similar and the defense against those arguments are similar.
We are in a fallen world and these things happen in a fallen world.
Please, please, please have an actual mormon apologist on the show, they would all love to come on. I suggest Jacob Hansen from Thoughtful Faith, Robert Boylan from Scriptural Mormonism (he's debating Trent Horn soon, probably the best mormon apologist), or the Ward Radio guys, they're more comedians than apologists, but they still know what they're talking about.
What topic is Trent Horn debating Robert Boylan on and when?
@@Forester- They hope to do a live event in Salt Lake City in the near future. I don't think the topics have been revealed, but Boylan likes to debate topics like Sola Scriptura and Mariology, Catholics don't believe in Sola Scriptura, so it'll probably be on Mary's perpetual virginity, apostolic succession, and another topic related to Mormonism, if I had to make a guess.
@@KnuttyEntertainmentTo me as a Catholic apostolic succession would be a far more interesting and primary topic than perpetual virginity. I hope they stick with that.
I think they should bring on Greg Matsen or Jeff McCullough. Or at least show the kind of content they’re putting out.
@@braydenweese1407 Jeff isn’t actually a Latter-day Saint, so that would ruin the point. But yeah, Greg Matsen or Jacob Hansen would probably be the ideal scenario.
0:45 You mean like how Neo-Catholics are OK with a collective instead of Adam committing the first sin, because "John Paul II" or his Congregation for the Faith greenlighted that in the 80's?
They did not green light that at all. Original sin is Church doctrine.
@@alonsoACR Jimmy Akin (and his priests) and Sébastien Antoni (who's supposed to be an Assumptionist priest) are both in good standing with the Neo-Catholic establishment, the former refuses to condemn and the latter (last time I checked) holds that Adam was not an individual person.
@@alonsoACR It can be added, even your priest who endorses an individual Adam without hesitation would arguably admit as a possibility or even preferred option that the earth is far older than 7222 years (Anno Mundi at birth of Christ being 5199).
If you think that through, along with palaeontology and anthropology accepting modern datings, this will logically preclude an individual Adam.
@@hglundahl Catholicism has traditionally never supported a precise dating of the Earth. St. Augustine strongly advises against it.
An individual Adam _is_ doctrine, so priests mustn't argue otherwise.
By the way, you can't be both Catholic and reject the Church. If you don't have the seat of Peter there, you're the one apostasizing.
Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclessia
@@alonsoACR _"Catholicism has traditionally never supported a precise dating of the Earth."_
You mean that traditionally there is some leeway between Roman Martyrology and the Vulgate? Fine with me.
_"St. Augustine strongly advises against it."_
Would like a reference. The overquoted _"it sometimes happens that ... which the non-Christians know from experience and reason ..."_ is absolutely NOT such a strong advise against it.
_"An individual Adam is doctrine, so priests mustn't argue otherwise."_
Nevertheless they do. And with overstepping _any_ possible version of Biblical chronology, some guys you follow are encouraging it. Heavily, by implication, if not actual direct words.
_"By the way, you can't be both Catholic and reject the Church"_
I did not get the impression that the late Pope Michael accused me of rejecting the Church.
Half of what this guy is saying is true. The other half is distortion.
This is what many in the CC have done and continue to pursue
I think a Catholic should be generous to the LDS if they appealed to change in doctrine along the lines of Newman doctrinal development. But I think it’s quite clear that the LDS has changed more significantly than any Catholic doctrine.
I’m of course speaking of the official magisterium, individual Catholics is a whole other ball game.
@@bman5257 official church doctrine should be defined as what is canonized in scriptures. When we look at the history of the Adam God theory or Blacks and the Priesthood, it was not canonized, except for the latter with an official declaration after the fact. Man can theorize or speculate on what the scriptures mean (which is what a lot of church leaders have done) but the doctrine isn't official until it is church sanctioned and declared canon.
@@Hol0gr4m Or we can follow that faith which has been believed everywhere always by all, and notice that the gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church and that we didn’t need Joseph Smith or other “prophets” to restore it.
@@bman5257 you are right according to your definition of "the church". Do you mean the body of believers? Or do you mean Priesthood Authority that existed during the time of the Apostles? There have always been believers but there is a clear disconnect between the time of the Apostles and our present day. Also, whether you're speaking about a perpetuation of the church or a Restoration of it, either way, the gates of hell ultimately didn't prevail. It works both ways.
It is rude to interrupt the conversation between the host and the guest. What kind of practice is that? I've never seen staff interrupting the host like this on other podcasts. If you cannot plan ahead, use communication through earphones. It looks disrespectful this way. If you want to be a host, renogotiate your position or make your own podcast, this is just very unprofessional.
Thats just the way they do it. It is their show, not yours.
@@ulfskinn1458 And this is my comment to that practice. I find it unprofessional.
Matt the host likes that he jumps in, alot of time he asks Thursday (the producer) for his opinions or whatever else often
1. Why not have an active LDS on to discuss these things? The straw-men presentations of LDS belief from this guy are not a fair representation of reality. I'm sure as a Catholic you can appreciate this.
2. Has the Catholic church ever changed any of its teachings?
This is Hayden Carroll, right? Great seeing you here. I would love to see you and Jacob come on his show.
@@KnuttyEntertainment
I know he’s been in touch with some LDS. I hope he gets someone on.
Because this is a clip from a much longer episode, where this man discusses his whole faith journey. It’s not just these 15 min
Magisterial reversal of non-definitive teachings are possible. Reversal of definitive teaching is not.
@@jeremysmith7176 The problem is that every teaching Stephen said Latter-day Saints reversed course on were non-definitive teachings.
What a wicked cult, even if it is not exactly as this former member recalls, it is leading people away from the True God.
Many of the things Stephen said here is very inaccurate.
First, the infinite regress of gods is a theory held by many laymen, but has never been taught in official church materials, and never made its way into church policy. The same is true with blood atonement, Adam God theory, neutrality in the war of heaven, and the Curse of Cain.
You see, there is no formal clergy in the Church of Jesus Christ at the local level. All priests and bishops are volunteer workers who are called to serve for a couple years before the job is given to someone else. It's very grassroots. So these rumors and speculative theories do often get taught in the local congregations, but never appear in official church teaching,
We believe that prophets and apostles are just as human as anyone else, and just as fallible. We do not believe prophets are prophetically inspired 24/7, they are only prophets in the constraints and duties of their office. Everything else they say in their personal lives is speculation or personal opinion. This is the case with most of the Brigham Young teachings. Though Brigham Young was pretty boisterous and wasn't afraid to emphatically share his opinions with the weight of his position behind them when giving local sermons. The important thing is that Brigham Young also often made retractions and his more out there teachings never made their way into his general conference addresses.
Stephen said these personal beliefs, such as Adam God, were given ex cathedra, this is a WILD WILD misrepresentation. Instituting new official doctrine or adding to the scriptural canon has a very very particular process where the Prophets and apostles receive revelation from God, deliberate over it until a unanimous consensus is reached, write out an official declaration with all their signatures, and then present that new material to be accepted and sustained by common consent of the membership of the church by vote. This has only occurred three times since Joseph Smith as far as I'm aware. And that was with D&C section 138, and Official Declarations 1 & 2. There have also been Official Proclamations by the Church, such as the Proclamation of the Living Christ, the Proclamation of the Restoration (that one was given just 3 years ago), and most famously the Proclamation of the Family. These are much much more concrete teachings of the church than any of things Stephen mentioned, however even these aren't considered to be canonized as the haven't gone through the last step and been sustained by common consent of the church.
Excellent explanation! Thank you for taking the time.
Do you mean concrete until the Mormon church changes its' position again? It is a progressive religion with a progressive god and there are no absolutes as in Christianity is this right?
@@mp4278 What I mean by more concrete is that while the precise wording of proclamation documents themselves are not authoritative canonized texts as of right now, the doctrines expressed in them (such as the principles of heterosexual marriage and traditional views on gender) are well certified and won’t be changing. Those principles are found clearly elsewhere in scripture, have been taught for thousands of years, and have informed several policy decisions.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is obsessed with record keeping. They have several long standing publications, numerous official materials, and easily accessible archives of just about everything ever said by the church and its leaders.
So using this long standing record as our metric, let’s compare just how concrete these other positions of the church that have been overturned were?
Adam God: taught by Brigham Young, but never in any official capacity, and later clarified to be incorrect speculation on his part (at least in the capacity the idea is popularly presented, we’re still not entirely sure what precisely Brigham Young originally meant. We could just be misunderstanding him due to lack of historical context). More info: m.ua-cam.com/video/u3DEojfACqY/v-deo.html
Blood Atonement: Same as the above. Never officially taught. In fact, there was a case where a man came to Brigham, confessed his sins and offered to do anything to repent, even if his blood had to be shed. Brigham said he was forgiven, and to go his way and sin no more. Contradicting his more fiery teachings. m.ua-cam.com/video/poMERlofOcM/v-deo.html
Infinite regress of gods on different planets: despite being so pervasive among laymen, and never officially denounced by the church, I myself have struggled greatly to find any references to the teaching whatsoever in any historical writings. I have found one sentence in the History of the Church in a third hand account of something Joseph Smith said during a speech, and it was quite vague to boot. Here’s a somewhat related video: m.ua-cam.com/video/mt24cdJI2v0/v-deo.html
Black Curse (of Cain): never officially taught. Typically when people say Curse of Cain they are referring to the Curse of Ham and just haven’t done their research. Curse of Cain actually died out pretty quickly.
Black Curse (Neutral in the war in heaven): this stems from a misunderstanding of a statement made by a church leader in the 1950’s who speculated that because our mortal experiences and trials were tailor made to develop our character most effectively based on who we were in the pre-existence, that the trial black people go through in having to wait to receive the priesthood is something God had foreknowledge of and a burden black people agreed to bear before they were born. Again, never officially taught, and never influenced church policy.
Black Curse (Lamanite): Stems from conflating events in the Book of Mormon with the unrelated African priesthood ban.
Black Curse (of Ham): this was a southern Baptist teaching used to defend slavery that eventually made its way to Brigham Young, who decided on his own authority to make a policy of preventing any more Africans from entering the priesthood than those that had already been ordained until the time when the curse would be lifted in order to prevent African members from unwittingly coming under further condemnation. No revelation from God was claimed, the quorum of the 12 apostles was not consulted, and the policy was not sustained by the common consent of the church, nor was its associated teaching. In fact the policy was actually largely forgotten about for decades afterwards. More info here: m.ua-cam.com/video/KvWPmLLV3Jw/v-deo.html
Didn't this process you're talking about happen in the case of children with same sex parents not being able to be baptized?
I check the rest of your information because I know for a fact that Prophets do not need some unanimous consensus to prophecy, that is foolishness and you know it.
A prophet is never welcome in his own mids as Jesus says and many were martyred, so to say he needs consensus is clearly a lie.
@@workinpromo In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we use the term prophet in two ways:
The less formal usage is anyone who testifies of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, especially a member of the Melchizedek priesthood on commission from God to do a specific task. Think Jonah going to Nineveh, or other lesser Prophets, and the evangelists in Book of Acts.
The more formal “big P” Prophets are the leaders of the Church and direct representative of God for the Church. This is people like Moses, Joshua, and Peter.
Prophets in either sense do not need permission or unanimous agreement to prophesy. They speak the words God puts in their mouths. However, that is in declaring the words of God. When it comes to ecclesiastical decisions for the church organization, the brethren are to counsel together and do all due diligence to be harmony with each other and the will of God. (Psalm 133:1, Amos 3:3, Zephaniah 3:9, Matt. 18:15-20, Romans 12:5, 1 Cor. 1:10)
The general authorities do indeed deliberate on just about everything. The President of the Church will take any revelation he receives to his counselors and the Quorum of the 12 before making any decisions, and those decisions must be unanimous or nothing is done. This Ecclesiology is laid out in Doctrine & Covenants Section 107:21-38.
As for the statement that a prophet is never welcome in his own midsts, this is true, but is referring to the common people whom the prophets cry repentance to. It obviously isn’t speaking of the prophets own followers. Moses was revered among the Israelites, but not his family in Egypt. John the Baptist had his followers, but the Pharisees were against him.
Finally about the baptism policy you mentioned where children of same sex couples couldn’t be baptized till they were 18. This policy was made so that children wouldn’t live in conditions where they would be particularly susceptible to breaking their baptismal covenants due to limited understanding. This could also drive a wedge between parents and their children because the children would have to denounce the concept of same sex marriage. This policy was deliberated on and unanimously put into practice by the general authorities. After much counseling and correction, the general authorities saw the continuation of this policy as a misapplication of doctrine that did not serve the church at this time, leading to the policy being unanimously reversed a few years later.
There wasn’t written doctrine preventing black men from holding the priesthood, it was just what was practiced by the people. The 1978 revelation simply put it in writing that it was open to everyone. Same sex couples still cannot enter the temple. I’m waiting to see if the church reverses it’s instruction for everyone to receive the jab… I don’t believe prophets are infallible - and I don’t believe the pope is either.
the church didn't instruct everyone to get the jab, some of the leaders encouraged people to comply with the government and CDC in accordance with the 12th article of faith, and they did this over Twitter. They weren't speaking as prophets.
Though you're absolutely correct about Blacks and the Priesthood. Joseph Smith actually personally ordained several Africans to the priesthood. Brigham Young was exposed to Southern Protestant teachings on the Curse of Ham that led him to instituting the policy to exclude them, it was never a revelation.
In very specific circumstances the Pope is infallible, it’s why we have one. The LDS Church has no mechanism so course this argument holds for everything in the LDS Church.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 We reject the notion that absolute infallibility is even possible for mortal men on an philosophical level. For one thing, it would violate our agency. That does not mean that our prophetic leadership is unreliable. The checks and balances of the church organization and the inspiration of the spirit safeguard us from serious error on the occasions where our prophets speak “ex cathedra.”
Furthermore, even if the pope is infallible in those instances, it doesn’t matter because everyone else isn’t. So all the regular people interpreting and implementing what the pope said could still misunderstand something. Even if a human mind could be infallible in regards to one thing or another, human communication is inherently fallible, so you would have to also say that the Holy Ghost also ensures that all people relevantly associated with the magisterium would have to be inspired to infallibly understand and implement every inspired statement they deal with, and I think that’s an untenable claim. If you think God would do that, then the Protestant claim that God’s elect infallibly understand God’s words in the Bible would be even more likely to be true, in which case they would be right to say that a pope is unnecessary.
This was egregious. I have zero patience for this kind of crap. This is like asking Martin Luther to explain to you the Catholic Faith and to present to you an accurate and adequate representation of the sticky parts of the history of the Catholic Church and it’s changing positions, policies, and or doctrines. I don’t care what disclaimer he states in the longer video. The information is both presented and received as though it were authoritative. Really, it was full of cheap rhetorical tricks, such as a rapid fire list of complex questions presented superficially and conveniently devoid of important information. All of the “problems” presented have reasonable responses to them, but wouldn’t you know it, no one there to make a defense. This was underhanded and intellectually lazy. As Andrew Klavan says, “A trial without a defense is just propaganda.” My respect for this podcast and the people who run it just evaporated. If they have the intellectual and personal integrity to get somebody qualified, faithful to the Church of Jesus Christ, on the podcast to make a defense on behalf of the faith, trying to steel man the church’s position, perhaps I will reconsider. As of right now this podcast is just low, clickbaity, and shark infested.
This is a conversion story on a Catholic podcast. I described my experience in the LDS church and my experience of losing my faith in it. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know a fair bit about mormonism and its history. Also, if you listen to the full episode you may notice that the only resource I reference is Rough Stone Rolling. I didn't mention any work written by "anti-mormons," such as the CES letters. I chose not to refer to any work hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because I do not have an axe to grind. This is simply my story.
@@SJohnson529
Stephen, these are not the actions of someone who doesn’t have an axe to grind against the church. You and I both know that the object of this video is to destroy the faith of others in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or to taint it in the eyes of anyone who might be curious about it. You use the exact same rhetorical strategy as the CES letter, hitting people with a rapid fire list of issues that take 30 seconds each to put forward but hours or even days of research for most people to study out for themselves. (It’s one of the easiest ways to sow doubt; overwhelm people with a bunch of questions all at once, and minimize the likelihood that they will look into any of the questions themselves. It also helps to try to present the issues in a way that would embarrass, shame, or make the listener look like a fool for taking the wrong position.)
A person telling their conversion story would be laying out all the things that convinced them that their new beliefs and religion were correct. They would spend their efforts trying to build the faith of others in their new religion or to convince others of the goodness and truth they have found in their new path. Their efforts would be to edify all that would listen. (My expectation and my hope is that you did some of these things in the longer video.)
Such a convert, if they did not have an axe to grind, would speak in generalities about the shortcomings of their old faith. They would only bring up specifics if it served to make a point about what drew them to their new religion. They would certainly speak up if the owners of the podcast cut a specific video meant to denigrate their old faith and ridicule those that still believe in it (and you have to know that was the intent here, it’s abundantly clear). The most generous interpretation of the purpose of this video is that it was intended lower the image of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the minds of anyone who watches and portray its members as stupid, strange, bigoted, and beguiled.
A convert without an axe to grind, if they are going to bring up a specific aspect of their old faith that was a problem for them, might take a minute to discuss how a reasonable person might still hold to this or that tenet (surely you must know that other intelligent and decent people have wrestled with these same questions, found what seemed to them to be satisfactory and reasonable answers, and remained with the church). Or such a convert might talk about how this or that aspect of their new faith might be hard to understand or seem strange from the outside (surely you must know that such a list as the one that you laid out against the Church could be laid out against the Catholic church, the various Protestant faiths, or any other Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian religion.)
The Church has many converts from Catholicism and other faiths. It never posts videos of these converts detailing out the sketchy parts of the history of their previous faith, pointing out the mistakes of its leaders, or presenting a message about a particular faith by name that would cause people to look down upon it. Why do you think that is? Because its intention is to build faith and unity, not to tear it down. President Hinckley captured this element of the church when he responded to a question put to him:
““Jack Cushman: ‘How should members of the Church respond to efforts of some other religious groups to convert them to other beliefs and religions?’ President Hinckley: “Well, I say this: We don’t downgrade any religion. We recognize the good they all do. I say to those of other faiths, ‘You bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it.’ Now, that’s our attitude reduced to a very short statement, and it works” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Washington, D.C. Address to the National Press Club, March 8, 2000. )
This is the principle which should govern our interactions with each other. I recognize that I was a bit angry in my initial response and that I probably should have let myself cool down before responding. But I do feel a duty to defend my faith, as I’m sure you do. I wish you all the best and pray the Lord will bless you and those you love.
My sentiments are very similar to Andrew's. With respect, a conversion story is not the same thing as a deconversion story. The focus is different. In this clip I didn't hear how you felt called to the Catholic faith or what impressed you about that doctrine. It was all about the specific things that caused you to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Those points presented without anyone to give an opposing perspective is what feels like cheap clickbait.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 I agree with you. I was angry in my initial response. That is one of my many imperfections that Im still working on. Though I don’t excuse my anger, hopefully the reasons for it are at least understandable. I do care about Stephen and whether or not he comes back, but I also care about the thousands of people who will come away from this video with an incomplete and, in my view, unfair view of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I would hope that people could understand that similarly incomplete and unfair videos could and have been done of the Catholic Church and just about any other denomination. It’s wrong when that is done to any faith. I’m sure you feel some sense of frustration or injustice when you see a video that demeans your religion. Hopefully, then, you can at least understand my anger, though not excuse me for it. Thanks for the reply.
@@andrewbfrost7021 - information on the LDS Church is plentiful and easy to find and easy to understand. Many mainstream LDS content paints a poor picture of Catholicism especially former Catholic converts to the LDS Church. I don’t take out my rage on those Catholics (once a baptised Catholic, always a Catholic). You simply have to appreciate some people make mistakes and become heretics due to a lack of understanding of their own faith and are lured in by poor imitations or the good will of others in presenting their own faith. Stephen was right to question his LDS faith, and this is where it led him. Just take his story for the journey it is. If your faith is unshakeable then thank God for this every day of your life through solemn prayer and sincere charity to others, few have such conviction.
The Latin mass has reference to "the perfidious Jews". Glass houses and all that
The words comes from the latin perfidus = without faith (in Christ). It only became more negative through time. You should study a bit more before commenting.
There’s no problem with that.
It's funny that these individuals are criticizing the LDS prophets for the manner in which they have received revelation when the Catholic church hasn't received prophetic revelation since its inception and after the ancient Apostles were killed and the priesthood was taken from the Earth. The Pope has no clue what he's doing and the history of the Catholic church is replete with Popes who have, shall we say, not been as pias as one would assume from a "Holy See." Remember indulgences? That was an awesome doctrine in which you could commit sin and then pay your way into heaven. Sounds like priestcraft to me.