I recently encountered a video by a Roman Catholic, Christopher Stefanick, “Answering Mormon Missionaries.” For a video that is just under four minutes in length, the amount of misrepresentations contained therein is astonishing. Here is a response to the first minute of “arguments” he presents which shows he lacks intellectual integrity, knowledge of theology, the Bible, and “Mormonism” itself. Here is the video:
He begins quoting Gal 1:8:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (αναθεμα).
Latter-day Saints agree with Paul about the danger of false gospels, which would include that of the Roman Catholic Church.
This verse, as well as the context (vv.6-9) gives the sound advice that one should be aware of false teachers and their false gospels. Some critics cite this passage, arguing that Joseph Smith fell under this anathema due to his gospel contradicting "Biblical Christianity." I have addressed many of these "arguments" vis-a-vis LDS theology and its relationship to biblical exegesis many times on this blog, showing that Latter-day Saint theology is consistent with biblical theology.
Some opponents of the LDS Church absolutise this particular verse, however, arguing that, as Paul warns against the possibility that even angels can bring a false gospel, and that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel (Moroni, as well as other heavenly angels/messengers), ipso facto, Joseph Smith fell under the anathema of Gal 1:8.
The problem with this approach is that, if one were to be consistent, the book of Revelation (which post-dates the inscripturation of Galatians) is to be rejected as well as John the Revelator, the recipient thereof. After all, the message of Christ was mediated through an angel, as we read in these passages:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John (Rev 1:1)
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (Rev 22:16)
Additionally, the book of Revelation contains prophecies of angels proclaiming the (true) Gospel:
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. (Rev 14:6)
Of course, careful exegesis of Gal 1:8 does not result in such a hasty conclusion as some of our critics hold to. An appearing of an angel to the Prophet Joseph Smith does not, ipso facto, result in one having to conclude his message is a false gospel.
That it is Rome, not Salt Lake, that preaches a false gospel can be observed by the following questions Catholic apologists are unable to answer:
1. Why did the earliest Church Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus) accuse Mary of personal sin in texts such as John 2:4, when Rome teaches that the Immaculate Conception has been a doctrine that has always been a belief in the Church (being part of “apostolic tradition”)? The idea of Mary being "sinless" is a much later development, and even later is her being exempt from original sin. Indeed, her exemption from original sin was a belief the majority of Medieval theologians rejected, as even Ludwig Ott, John Salza, and other Catholic theologians and apologists admit (it would not be dogmatised until 1854 by Pope Pius IX).
2. Why is there no evidence whatsoever, even among patristic authors who held to a strong “corporeal” understanding of “this is my body/blood” in the Last Supper narratives (e.g., Cyprian of Carthage), that Christians worshipped the consecrated Eucharistic host and wine until the second millennium? According to the Council of Trent, it is proper to give “latria” (same veneration/worship reserved for God only) to them.
3. Why is there no evidence whatsoever for the Bodily Assumption of Mary in the opening centuries of Christian history, let alone it being held up as a doctrine of the faith, until several centuries after this (fictional) event? For a full-blown study of the origins of this belief, see Stephen Shoemaker’s Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford: 2003).
4. According to the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787), the veneration of saints and images is not only proper, but part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet, why is it that the earliest Christians unanimously rejected the veneration of images, including the same theological presuppositions this council, and modern Catholicism, teaches (e.g., the veneration one gives ultimately goes to the heavenly prototype, not the image per se)?
5. According to Vatican I (1869-70), “Peter = the Rock” has been the unanimous understanding of Matthew 16:16-19, and yet, according to the majority of patristic exegetes of this text, the “rock” in this pericope is understood to be the faith of Peter and/or his confession that Jesus is the Christ. While some Catholics will claim that there is no real distinction between the person of Peter and his faith, a number of fathers (e.g., John Chrysostom) differentiate between the confession and person of Peter. For careful studies of this and similar issues which refute Roman claims to authority, see George Salmon, Infallibility of the Church (1888); Janus (pen name for Ignatius Von Döllinger), The Pope and the Council (1869) and Edward Denny, Papalism (1912). For a recent study, see William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy (1996). Such volumes also show what the dogma of papal infallibility is an utter myth (e.g., Honorius; Zosiumus; Vigilius, etc).
6. In Roman Catholic dogma, Mary is a perpetual virgin. If this is the case, how come the authors of the New Testament, when one engages in meaningful exegesis of the biblical texts, operate under the assumption that normal sexual relations took place between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and the overwhelming linguistic and exegetical evidence against any other reading of the texts speaking of the “brothers” and “sisters” than uterine siblings? For more, see chapter 3 of Eric D. Svendsen’s 2001 book, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism; for a contrast in scholarly and exegetical methodologies, see Staples’ own book on Mary, Behold your Mother (Catholic Answers, 2014).
7. According to many Catholic apologists, without an infallible decree about the contents of the biblical canon, one cannot be sure of the Bible. If this is the case, does that mean that faithful Catholics were uncertain of the Bible and its contents until 1546 when Trent issued the decree about the canon? Furthermore, if one wishes to appeal to Carthage and other councils, realise that, in Catholic theology, such local councils were not infallible and, additionally, the Tridentine canon list does not match the earlier lists from these late fourth/early fifth century councils (see the New Catholic Encyclopaedia article's discussion of 1 and 2 Esdras in the canon list from Carthage and how it differs from Trent). Also, was Jerome and others (e.g., Cardinal Thomas Cajetan) in apostasy when they rejected the Deutero-canonical (Apocryphal) books as divinely inspired and authoritative?
Such questions and objections can be multiplied. Be sure to pursue the volumes listed in my Resources on Roman Catholicism page.
That it is Rome, not Salt Lake, that preaches a false gospel can be observed by the following questions Catholic apologists are unable to answer:
1. Why did the earliest Church Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus) accuse Mary of personal sin in texts such as John 2:4, when Rome teaches that the Immaculate Conception has been a doctrine that has always been a belief in the Church (being part of “apostolic tradition”)? The idea of Mary being "sinless" is a much later development, and even later is her being exempt from original sin. Indeed, her exemption from original sin was a belief the majority of Medieval theologians rejected, as even Ludwig Ott, John Salza, and other Catholic theologians and apologists admit (it would not be dogmatised until 1854 by Pope Pius IX).
2. Why is there no evidence whatsoever, even among patristic authors who held to a strong “corporeal” understanding of “this is my body/blood” in the Last Supper narratives (e.g., Cyprian of Carthage), that Christians worshipped the consecrated Eucharistic host and wine until the second millennium? According to the Council of Trent, it is proper to give “latria” (same veneration/worship reserved for God only) to them.
3. Why is there no evidence whatsoever for the Bodily Assumption of Mary in the opening centuries of Christian history, let alone it being held up as a doctrine of the faith, until several centuries after this (fictional) event? For a full-blown study of the origins of this belief, see Stephen Shoemaker’s Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford: 2003).
4. According to the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787), the veneration of saints and images is not only proper, but part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet, why is it that the earliest Christians unanimously rejected the veneration of images, including the same theological presuppositions this council, and modern Catholicism, teaches (e.g., the veneration one gives ultimately goes to the heavenly prototype, not the image per se)?
5. According to Vatican I (1869-70), “Peter = the Rock” has been the unanimous understanding of Matthew 16:16-19, and yet, according to the majority of patristic exegetes of this text, the “rock” in this pericope is understood to be the faith of Peter and/or his confession that Jesus is the Christ. While some Catholics will claim that there is no real distinction between the person of Peter and his faith, a number of fathers (e.g., John Chrysostom) differentiate between the confession and person of Peter. For careful studies of this and similar issues which refute Roman claims to authority, see George Salmon, Infallibility of the Church (1888); Janus (pen name for Ignatius Von Döllinger), The Pope and the Council (1869) and Edward Denny, Papalism (1912). For a recent study, see William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy (1996). Such volumes also show what the dogma of papal infallibility is an utter myth (e.g., Honorius; Zosiumus; Vigilius, etc).
6. In Roman Catholic dogma, Mary is a perpetual virgin. If this is the case, how come the authors of the New Testament, when one engages in meaningful exegesis of the biblical texts, operate under the assumption that normal sexual relations took place between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and the overwhelming linguistic and exegetical evidence against any other reading of the texts speaking of the “brothers” and “sisters” than uterine siblings? For more, see chapter 3 of Eric D. Svendsen’s 2001 book, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism; for a contrast in scholarly and exegetical methodologies, see Staples’ own book on Mary, Behold your Mother (Catholic Answers, 2014).
7. According to many Catholic apologists, without an infallible decree about the contents of the biblical canon, one cannot be sure of the Bible. If this is the case, does that mean that faithful Catholics were uncertain of the Bible and its contents until 1546 when Trent issued the decree about the canon? Furthermore, if one wishes to appeal to Carthage and other councils, realise that, in Catholic theology, such local councils were not infallible and, additionally, the Tridentine canon list does not match the earlier lists from these late fourth/early fifth century councils (see the New Catholic Encyclopaedia article's discussion of 1 and 2 Esdras in the canon list from Carthage and how it differs from Trent). Also, was Jerome and others (e.g., Cardinal Thomas Cajetan) in apostasy when they rejected the Deutero-canonical (Apocryphal) books as divinely inspired and authoritative?
Such questions and objections can be multiplied. Be sure to pursue the volumes listed in my Resources on Roman Catholicism page.
He makes the claim that Latter-day Saints believe that God is only God of this world and (singular) universe, but such is utterly false. Consider, for instance, Moses 1: in the Pearl of Great Price:
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
Stefanick is clearly ignorant of LDS Scriptural texts. He also makes the claim that God, in LDS theology, resides "in Kobob"(!) Firstly, it is Kolob, and God is not said to reside there; instead, his throne and residency is "near" Kolob (see Abraham 3:3-4, 9, 16; 5:13).
In terms of sloppiness, this would be the equivalent of me discussing Catholic theology on Mary and stated that the Immaculate Conception meant that Mary was omnipotent.
Christopher then argues that the apostle Paul would disagree with the LDS doctrine of theosis. This only shows that he is ignorant of biblical exegesis and theology.
Nnote one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21:
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I am also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Bowman, Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God. (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are said to be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, all other instances it is used elsewhere in the book of Revelation, it is always used within a religious context (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question-begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9.
Such also fits Paul's theology that, what Christ has inherited from the Father, we will also inherit:
One could go on, but it is clear that Christopher Stefanick has no clue about the LDS Church. This is not the first time a Catholic apologist has shown themselves to be ignorant on the topic; see, for instance, my review ofa recent volume from Catholic Answers:
Answering Trent Horn on "Mormonism"
Such also fits Paul's theology that, what Christ has inherited from the Father, we will also inherit:
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" It is that very Spirit bearing witness1 with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ -- if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom 8:14-17 NRSV)
One could go on, but it is clear that Christopher Stefanick has no clue about the LDS Church. This is not the first time a Catholic apologist has shown themselves to be ignorant on the topic; see, for instance, my review ofa recent volume from Catholic Answers:
Answering Trent Horn on "Mormonism"
What is even worse is that it is Stefanick and Roman Catholicism that preaches a false gospel, one that the Lord Jesus, the apostle Paul, and the New Testament Church would condemn in a heartbeat.