Monday, July 6, 2020

Catholic Apologist Joe Heschmeyer on "The Apostasy Free-for-All" and Mormonism Being More Plausible than Protestantism on the Apostasy

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)