Orson F.
Whitney (1855-1931) wrote the following about an exchange with a Catholic:
A Catholic Utterance
Many years ago a learned man, a member of the
Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake
Tabernacle. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and
frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end,
he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science, and philosophy.
One day he said to me: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even
know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one
other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the
Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are
right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is
to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For if we are wrong, they are
wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we
are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the
apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph
Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as
Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent
one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the
restoration of the Gospel in latter days."
My reply was substantially as follows:
"I agree with you, Doctor, in nearly all that you have said. But don't
deceive yourself with the notion that we 'Mormons' are not aware of the
strength of our position. We are better aware of it than anyone else. We have
not all been to college; we cannot all speak the dead languages; we may be
'ignoramuses,' as you say; but we know that we are right, and we know that you
are wrong." I was just as frank with him as he had been with me. (Orson F.
Whitney, The Strength of the
"Mormon" Position [Independence, Miss.: Zions Printing and
Publishing Co., 1917], 9-10; the Catholic was a John A. Reiner. On this, see
Kevin L. Barney, A
Footnote to “The Strength of the Mormon Position”)
One was
reminded of the above from Elder Whitney after reading a new book published by
Catholic Answers on the papacy by Joe Heschmeyer of Shameless Popery
about how the LDS position (here, on the issue of the Apostasy) is better than
those of the Protestant churches:
The Apostasy Free-for-All
If the entire Church founded by Jesus could
go wrong for several centuries, until a German monk like Luther or a French lawyer
like Calvin restored orthodoxy, is there any particular reason to believe that orthodoxy
even exists today? Norman Fox, a
nineteenth-century Baptist professor, became convinced that everybody was wrong
about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper other than himself. In his book on the
subject, he anticipates the obvious response: “Do you really mean to say that
the whole church has been in error for so many centuries” (Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal [New York, NY:
Fords, Howard & Hulbert, 1898], p. 105)? But Fox is sly. He sees that there
is no way a Protestant could seriously object to this. After all:
The Baptists do not hesitate to declare that
nearly the whole church fell into error regarding the subjects of baptism; the
Presbyterians affirm the same regarding orders in the ministry, and the
Congregationlists make the same assertion concerning church government. (Ibid.)
If it’s believable that Christ let his entire
Church fall into error for 1,500 years, why not 2,000? Or, for that matter, why
not 30,000? And if it’s believable that the whole Church could err on the
structure of the Church, why couldn’t the whole Church be wrong about the
Trinity or any other doctrine?
Indeed, believing that we’re still in a state
of apostasy would be more coherent than believing the standard Protestant views
offered. As implausible as it is that Jesus allowed is Church to almost immediately
fail, it’s a great deal less plausible that he then allowed it
to be restored by a German monk (Luther), a French lawyer (Calvin), etc. Mormon
apologists have been quick to point this out. Since Jesus himself founded the
early Church, they reason that the founder of the restored Church must at least
be a prophet, so it makes more sense to follow Joseph Smith than Martin Luther.
James E. Talmage, regarded as an “apostle”
within Mormonism, points out that “the weakness of the Protestant sects as to
any claim to divine appointment and authority is recognized by those churches
themselves” (James E. Talmage, The Great
Apostasy [Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News, 1909], p. 159). In other words,
Protestant denominations don’t even pretend to be the Church of Jesus Christ.
Whereas “the Roman Catholic Church is at least consistent in its claim that a
line of succession in the priesthood has been maintained from the apostolic age
to the present,” the Protestant denominations “are by their own admission and
by the circumstances of their origin, manmade institutions, without a semblance
of the claim to the powers and authority of the holy priesthood” (Ibid., p. 160).
The point here isn’t that Mormonism is right—it isn’t. But Talmage is right about this much: the idea that the whole visible
Church fell into apostasy makes more sense if you’re arguing for Mormonism than
if you’re arguing for Protestantism. (Joe Heschmeyer, Pope Peter: Defending the Church’s Most Distinctive Doctrine in a Time
of Crisis [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2020], 215-17, emphasis
in bold added)
