The Instigator
shuffledybot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Mormonism VS. Catholicism, Which is the true church

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,953 times Debate No: 26598
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

shuffledybot

Pro

As I am Pro I will take the Mormonism Side.

As everyone in the world knows, the question of which church is the true church is a question we would all like to know the answer to. It is my belief that The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is the true church. There are many who say the Catholic church is the true church since it was the first Christian church. I disagree with this because the idea that a random Italian group can say that this one man can speak to god is outrageous. In history do they ever talk about who founded the Catholic Church, it just sort of showed up.
Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith when he himself was wondering "which church is the right church?" This young man, went into the woods by his house and prayed to our father in heaven, asking "which church is the real church?" Instead of receiving an answer he felt within him, God and his son Jesus Christ came down from the Heavens and explained to him that no church on the Earth at the time was the true church. He was told that he was to create a new church, one in the name of Jesus Christ himself. Thus the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was born.

I conclude my opening statement with the following, Catholicism while it may seem true, is not what it may appear to be.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

As I am Con, I will take the Catholicism side.

Because of the way the resolution is worded, it is implied that one of the two must be the true church. Since my opponent has not dictated a debate structure, I can do whatever I want this round.

It is quite clearly my belief that the Catholic Church is the true church. The Catholic Church has existed since 33 Anno Domini, and is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Holy Father, Bishop of Rome, and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, has an unbroken chain of succession to the holy St. Peter.

In clear contrast to Mormonism, which was kind of just made up by Joseph Smith in the 19th century, the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. It was founded through the Apostles by God, and can trace itself back to Christ.

I conclude my opening statement with the following: Catholicism is true.

I'm not exactly sure how we're supposed to go about proving our side, so I'll wait for my opponent to act first.
Debate Round No. 1
shuffledybot

Pro

In 2nd Thessalonians verses 1-3 it says "(1) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, (2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.(3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition"

In my opponents opening he said that his church came straight through St. Peter. Then that would make St. Paul here a liar, as he wrote to the Thessalonian's that after Christ died there would be a "falling away", then the church would be restored.

I myself am a holder of the Aaronic Priesthood in the Mormon Church, and when I receive the Melchizedek Priesthood when I turn 18, I will be able to follow my priesthood line of succession through Jesus Christ himself. This is something that makes the Mormon church different from others. Other church's have no power given by Jesus Christ himself. (Not that the following denominations are in this debate) The Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, and Presbyterian churches do not have the power of priesthood given by Jesus Christ.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

My opponent is basing almost the entirety of his argument off of pretty much one verse: 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

I feel like using the Douay-Rheims version, so I'll requote the verse for no reason.

"(3) Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition," - 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

My opponent misinterprets this verse badly by adding his own personal views to it, which I myself am about to do as well. For starters, it never says every single person will be lost, just that there will be a revolt (or falling away). It never says the revolt will be universal, and as long as the revolt isn't universal, the Church will persist.

It also fails to say that the Church would be restored, because it never says that the Church will be lost.

Compare with this:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18

My opponent's claims would make Jesus a liar, as he says that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church. If the entire Church was wrecked to the degree that it would have to be reformed, the gates of Hell certainly prevailed.

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." - 1 Timothy 3:15

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. It does not seem likely that a pillar Jesus promised would not be destroyed would collapse.

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you." - John 16:13

In my opponent's view, either the Holy Spirit never came (in which case the Bible is completely wrong), or it came and bungled the job so badly that the Church collapsed anyway. If the Holy Spirit was present, it seems unlikely that it would teach all truth by letting every last person apostatize. Very counterproductive.

"To him be glory in the church, and in Christ Jesus unto all generations, world without end. Amen." - Ephesians 3:21

The LDS Church has not existed for all generations.

My opponent's theory, in a nutshell, was that Christ promised the Church would not be overcome, the Church was quickly overcome anyway, and Christ was like "Oh, no biggie. I'll get around to fixing it soon. And by soon, I mean in 1800 years."

Having disproven the possibility of total apostasy, it is trivial to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is preferrable. The Catholic Church is one of only two bodies with claim to valid Apostolic succession, and the Catholic Church can trace itself back to St. Peter, who was himself appointed by Christ.

Here is a list [1], going all the way back to Peter.

Pro writes "I will be able to follow my priesthood line of succession through Jesus Christ himself.", however he fails to show how this is the case in any way. Catholic priests can trace their succession through 2000 years back to Jesus; my opponent cannot say the same.

Additionally, the LDS Church uses the 'Book of Mormon', in defiance of the Bible.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." - Galatians 1:8

Since I have some free space, I might as well address my opponent's opening statement.

I find it humorous that my opponent writes "I disagree with this because the idea that a random Italian group can say that this one man can speak to god is outrageous.", because he's more aptly describing the LDS Church than the Catholic Church. The Pope doesn't have God's phone number, and is only protected from teaching doctrinal error, nothing more. On the other hand, the LDS Church believes it has a prophet [2]. Also, compare the LDS twelve apotles [3] to a sample of the Cardinals of the Catholic Church [4].

Note that the prophet is in defiance of 1 Corinthians 13:9-10, which says that prophecy will be done away with.

"(9)
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. (10) But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away."

Pro writes "In history do they ever talk about who founded the Catholic Church, it just sort of showed up."

Yeah, after Christ died. No one talks about who founded it because it was founded by Jesus. On the other hand, it's quite clear who founded Mormonism, and he wasn't Jesus.

In conclusion, Catholicism is more likely to be true than Mormonism.

Sources;
1. http://www.newadvent.org...;
2. http://www.lds.org...
3. http://www.lds.org...;
4. http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com...
Debate Round No. 2
shuffledybot

Pro

I would like to point out that my opponent and I are apparently using two different versions of the bible. While I am using the King James version, my opponent is using another, that is why our views on certain scriptures can be different.

My opponent says "Catholic priests can trace their succession through 2000 years back to Jesus; my opponent cannot say the same." I agree but at the same time disagree. Of course I cannot trace it back 2000 years because my church has only been organized on the Earth for only a couple hundred years. But I can follow it back to Jesus Christ himself, given to Peter, James, and John, then given to Joseph Smith by the laying on of hands. Then given to Brigham Young, to Joseph Fielding Smith, then to Marcus Taylor, following brother Taylor, was Martin Anderson, then to Dean Lowry, then Jeffrey Rombach, who then gave me the power of the priesthood on December 12th 2006 with the laying on of hands. With that being said I have just proved how I hold the priesthood coming straight from Jesus Christ himself.

Also my opponent says that we use the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible, when in fact we use them coexistingly. There are many parts of the Book of Mormon that actually refer to the bible. So I would just like to point out even though my opponent seems to be using sources, he is not using credible sources.

My opponent starts to bring up scriptures from the old testament, I feel that these scriptures are not credible for this argument for the reason that most of the Old Testament is also used by the Jewish faith, thus it could also be referring to that faith.

I would like to put a final argument before my closing statement, the Catholic church has been known throughout history to have many problems. One of these problems was that the original catholic bible was interpreted by the pope to mean whatever he wanted it to mean. While the Catholic Bible is only used by Catholics, the King James Version of the bible is used by all Christian denominations other than Catholics.

In conclusion, the Catholic Church had to go through many reforms. The LDS church has not gone through any reforms whatsoever. The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has more followers in more countries than any other protestant church. The Catholic Church is known for its problems more than how true of a doctrine they teach. While I am not saying that the Catholic Church is a bunch of satanic worshipers, I am only saying that they have fallen from the path set by St. Peter, and that although they may have started as the true church, Peter would not have had to come back and help set up a new church if the first one hadn't messed up.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

'Ad maiorem Dei gloriam' - Society of Jesus

I suppose I'll take my opponent's statements more or less line-by-line.

Pro writes "While I am using the King James version, my opponent is using another, that is why our views on certain scriptures can be different."

Shouldn't make a tremendous difference.

Pro writes "I agree but at the same time disagree. Of course I cannot trace it back 2000 years because my church has only been organized on the Earth for only a couple hundred years. But I can follow it back to Jesus Christ himself,"

Your entire premise is that it was actually given to Joseph Smith in the 19th century. All who agree Peter existed agree he existed in the 1st century. It is quite an uncommon belief that he reappeared in the 19th century to bestow Holy Orders upon Joseph Smith.

Some evidence that St. Peter existed in the 1st century [1]. My opponent has given absolutely no reason to prefer the theory that Peter appeared out of nowhere to ordain Smith 1800 years after his crucifixtion and death, or to doubt the chain of Apostolic Succession. Therefore, prefer my argument regarding 2000 years of unbroken Holy Orders to my opponent's unsubstantiated hypothesizing on mythical appearances of St. Peter.

Pro writes "Also my opponent says that we use the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible, when in fact we use them coexistingly."

I did not say that. I said the LDS Church uses the 'Book of Mormon' in defiance of the Bible, not instead of. Argument conceded.

Pro writes "My opponent starts to bring up scriptures from the old testament"

Nope.jpg. All of my scriptures were from the New Testament. Argument conceded.

Pro writes "One of these problems was that the original catholic bible was interpreted by the pope to mean whatever he wanted it to mean."

Ridiculously unsubstantiated. I counter by saying 'No', which should be sufficient considering how this argument has no support.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." - CCC §85

As can clearly be seen, all the Bishops and not merely the Bishop of Rome are entrusted with interpretation.

Pro writes "While the Catholic Bible is only used by Catholics, the King James Version of the bible is used by all Christian denominations other than Catholics."

So? There are more Catholics than there are 'Christians' of every other denomination combined. If you're trying to make an appeal to popularity, it fails because you're not even arguing for something popular.

Pro writes "In conclusion, the Catholic Church had to go through many reforms. The LDS church has not gone through any reforms whatsoever."

lol, what? You haven't supported either of these arguments at all, and you whipped them out in the last round.

The Catholic Church has never been reformed at all, whereas the LDS church fluxtuates constantly. Yay. Assertions.

Pro writes "The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has more followers in more countries than any other protestant church."

Ooh, is it time for appeals to popularity? Catholicism has more followers in more countries than any protestant church. Overall, it is second largest religion after Islam [2].

Pro writes "The Catholic Church is known for its problems more than how true of a doctrine they teach."

Yet you conveniently fail to bring up any of these so-called problems.

Pro writes "I am only saying that they have fallen from the path set by St. Peter, and that although they may have started as the true church, Peter would not have had to come back and help set up a new church if the first one hadn't messed up."

I fully addressed your argument from one verse in the scriptures, and added several others that show the impossibility of the Church failing. You ignored them all. I am only saying that they have continued in the path set by St. Peter, and since they have endured as the true Church, Peter did not come back to set up a new church.

Conclusion:

So many of my arguments have been completely dropped or so inadequately addressed that you should vote for me. I have shown that the Catholic Church can be traced to Jesus. I have shown from the scriptures that the Church cannot fail. Therefore, the Catholic Church supercedes the LDS church. My opponent has given no counters of note against any of my arguments.

Sources:
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by shuffledybot 4 years ago
shuffledybot
When I challenged my opponent to this debate, I did take into consideration his proven track record with being a very good debater, I agree with the comments people are leaving with their votes and i agree I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Thanks!
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
I am waaay too biased to vote on this one. Very well done, AllwaysMoreThanYou.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
"In history do they ever talk about who founded the Catholic Church, it just sort of showed up."

Following the collapse of the Western Roman empire in 410 CE, the church in Rome became a sort of "Imperial Authority," culturally replacing the Roman emperor. This is why Christendom never penetrated far into the East; because the Eastern Roman empire (later Byzantine) was a separate entity, and did not follow the same customs.

Once set in stone, this paradigm led to the eventual authority of the church in Rome - as a substitute for the lost Roman Empire.

This happened. But how exactly it might have led to the development of the Roman Catholic Church is a matter of very interesting debate.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
How interesting.

I will accept this later.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
shuffledybotAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited scripture showing there's a falling away. Con showed from scripture that "falling away" cannot mean total apostasy of the church. Pro never recovered. Con argued for an unbroken succession of Popes from Peter to the present, and Pro never rebutted.
Vote Placed by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
shuffledybotAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempt to prove his proposition (maybe because it can't be proven), but still ... better line of argumentation from con
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
shuffledybotAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not agree with either party, being an Atheist. However, I respect that they vehemently defend their respective faiths, and that Con's vehement defense is much more convincing than Pro's, though I don't agree with either. I was prepared to award 'spelling and grammar' to Con as well, until he used 'Lol' and 'Yay.' This produced a tie, as Pro had several instances of faulty grammar. Conduct was ping-pong: "Daddy loves me more!" back and forth.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
shuffledybotAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I was hoping to find a direct link to the founders of the Christian religion, or a detailed mention on Constantine. If I have missed this, please correct me. As Constantine was the first to "legitimize" this religion, I expected to have him connected to the Roman church... I appreciated Cons composure, and awarded him my points for conduct. I also took note of his clear, almost elegant language - which earned him my point for English usage.