A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[TOmNossor]

One could be a Protestant, there are a few restorationist communities. Also a question comes to mind: Why didn’t Christ just wait until the 19th century and be born in New York? Or why didn’t Christ establish the Mormon Church when he was walking among us?

Christ established His church when He was walking among us. He restored it in 1830.
Why did Christ come in Palestine when he did?
Why was He not the concurring king the Jews expected, but the suffering servant?
What price was paid and to who was it paid when Christ was killed for my sins? Why would God require such a horrible form of payment within any realm where He was ultimately in charge.

There are many questions that I cannot perfectly answer about why God does what God does. I am not suggesting that your questions are not part of determining where we are most likely to find Christ’s church, I am just saying that asking “why” God does things the way He does often does not result in certain answers.

With that being said, I believe that Christ was born in a unique time when His people would actually put Him to death. I cannot perfectly explain the atonement, but I think Ostler’s “Compassionate Theory of the Atonement” comes closer than the Catholic theories I have read (and many LDS theories I like less than Ostlers). But death was part of the plan and free men killed their God. Christ rose again. A necessary feature of this time was the “Pax Romana” that allowed for the message of Christ to spread and the Bible to be preserved. Surely God could have done this in 5800BC if He wanted, but I suspect golden chariots floating from region to region in this age would have resulted in different things that God intended.
As another feature (or side-effect) of this time was the impossibility of preserving the fullness of God’s church. Thing like LDS temple worship could not have existed in a similar form in the early church for any length of time across any significant area. This or something else necessitated an apostasy (which like Christ’s death, was freely chosen in some way and like Christ death was part of the plan).
Then in 1830 in America where there was supposed religious freedom, a restoration occurred. Did God try in 1794 and the people didn’t choose to follow? Maybe? But I think it took in 1830.

If the Church established by Christ can apostatize, then this question should be easy to answer.

I do not know the CAUSE of the first apostasy. I do not know why the Jewish authority in Christ’s day prophesied, but rejected Christ just the same.
I do not believe that external forces “kill” the church. That was once a thought put forth by LDS, but I reject it (mostly because scripture seems to demand that it is always internal forces).
I think there was some conflict within the early church. Quoted previously in the thread is a place where Paul really calls Peter and others in Jerusalem the “so called pillars” or those “reputed (but not necessarily) pillars.” As HORRIBLE as I find this, I think the best explanation of God’s choosing to not have the authority promulgated through a continuous apostolic chain is that there was dissention in the church. Part of God’s plan AND part of the choices of those in the church.
I also think that the two way covenantal nature of the sacraments was lost and had impacts upon the authority of those with Holy Orders and those who were Baptized. I think St. Cyprian’s position on baptism was probably correct and was rejected. Ultimately the truth is I do not know the why.

New Testament Apostles did not receive their own personal revelation, which is consistent with Chritianity never claiming to have a prophet who claims to receive revelation for the Church. The history of Mormon “apostles” also brings into to question their role as receivers of revelation. I also don’t know of other restorationist communities, not associated with the latter-day-saint movement, that have “apostles” who claim to receive revelation for their communities.
I just don’t see much historical support for the Mormon paradigm.

First, the term “personal revelation” should not be here. Catholics claim that “personal revelation” continues today. So why would the Apostles not receive “personal revelation?”
I think Acts 10 is “public revelation” received by Peter.
I think the writing of scripture is “public revelation.”
In the Catholic paradigm, do the successors of the Apostles have the ability to receive inspiration necessary to write scripture? No!
Do they receive visions that solve conflicts within the church like Peter did in Acts 10?
No!

LDS leaders claim this same authority. You might not agree with the claim, but Catholics do not even come to the party. For a LDS to consider that the Pope is the real successor of the Apostles they must let go of much of what logic would suggest is the call of an Apostle (or Old Testament Prophet).

I understand the idea that Jesus Christ is the FINAL revelation, but I think Acts came later. I think much of the scripture we share was written via inspiration/revelation that is lacking in the Catholic Church.
Charity, TOm

 

[mackbrislawn]

None of the comments in this thread are to the point. They are all vapid. They are all waterless canals.

Because the apostasy occurred much earlier. It began with the “apostle” Paul who bullied himself into the genuine apostolic college; Paul was always at odds with the true Jerusalem church led by James. Unfortunately, however, this true church could not survive. Any Christians who remained in Jerusalem in 70 AD were slaughtered, and those who escaped beforehand across the Jordan had little infulence upon subsequent Christianity.

Hence, only Pauline Chrisitianity survived and became the apostate Christianity we ALL possess today.

 

[SteveVH]

I am not sure how familiar you are with the teachings of the CoJCoLDS.
It is the Catholic Church that claims to be unable to receive revelation from God for the leading of the world.

That is just not true. We claim we have received the fullness of God’s revelation for the conversion of the world. We are the Church that received the revelation and recorded it in the New Testament. We believe we are constantly led by the Holy Spirit in protecting and guarding that Truth revealed to us by God, and in gaining an ever deeper understanding of that Truth, who is a Person and is God’s only Word; He has no other. We believe what the scriptures say in this regard:

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." (Heb 1:1-2)

Your claim for the necessity of further revelation is made void by the very Person of Christ who is the fullness of all revelation. It is He who is the “Good News” to be announced to the world. It is He who saves us. It is He in whom dwells the fullness of the deity. We are lacking in nothing and are certainly not in need of anything in addition to Jesus Christ. Even when the Pope and Magisterium make an ex-cathedra statement, while being led by the Holy Spirit in doing so, it is only to define without error something we have already received and long believed; the faith of the Apostles.

Eastern Orthodox and numerous Protestants claim that in the Catholic Church has CHANGED the deposit of faith.

So what. So do the various offshoots of the LDS church make such a claim against it.

Now, it is clear that without claiming to be able to receive Revelation, the Catholic Church has done a great deal of changing or evolving.

Not in its doctrines or beliefs. To what, exactly, are you referring?

The premise of the Restoration is that there is something wrong with ALL of Christianity.

Yes, that would have to be the premise and the LDS is not the only group to make this claim. In order to substantiate this claim, however, one must read history backwards and make the necessary adjustments to reality along the way.

It is my position that this has less to do with doctrine and more to do with authority, but I believe “there creeds are an abomination” for precisely the reason I mentioned above that Christianity splits at each controversy. In the early church such splitting was quite ugly.

Defending the Apostolic faith against heresy does not constitute a split in the Church. There is no moral equivalence between the Church and those who are in error and wish to promote that error. It is the Church that is the “pillar and ground of truth”, not every individual or group that disagrees.

Definitions were chosen for the purpose of preventing the opposing sides from being able to embrace the definition not for other purposes such as defining truth with scripture or with the previous teachings.

That’s a pretty big charge. Do you have any evidence of this? Even an example of a definition given for such purposes would be helpful.

 

[batman1973]

None of the comments in this thread are to the point. They are all vapid. They are all waterless canals.

Because the apostasy occurred much earlier. It began with the “apostle” Paul who bullied himself into the genuine apostolic college; Paul was always at odds with the true Jerusalem church led by James. Unfortunately, however, this true church could not survive. Any Christians who remained in Jerusalem in 70 AD were slaughtered, and those who escaped beforehand across the Jordan had little infulence upon subsequent Christianity.

Hence, only Pauline Chrisitianity survived and became the apostate Christianity we ALL possess today.

Wait, what? Are you putting us on?

 

[Porknpie]

Why did Christ come in Palestine when he did?
Why was He not the concurring king the Jews expected, but the suffering servant?
What price was paid and to who was it paid when Christ was killed for my sins? Why would God require such a horrible form of payment within any realm where He was ultimately in charge.

none of these questions make Christ out to be a liar. Establishing his Church, to guide it in all truth, to be with it until the end of the age and then to immediately allow it to fall into a “great apostasy” is to make him a liar.

Then in 1830 in America where there was supposed religious freedom, a restoration occurred.

Joseph Smith preached a new Gospel and the bible warns us against men that would do so. Assuming that he didn’t just make it all up, if he listened to Maroni, an Angel, the bible warns against this too…that we are not to listen to another gospel, even if from an angel. St Paul even repeats his warning in Galatians:

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

I do not know the CAUSE of the first apostasy

this I understand, there can not be a cause for something that never occurred.

JS was a false prophet
Preached a false gospel (multiple Gods, ascending to become a God, “great apostasy”, secret handshakes, Jesus and the Devil are brothers…etc)
Disobeyed the law through fraud, polygamy and adultery.
Created The Book of Abraham translated from Egyptian papyri that we now know was a funeral text. A funeral text.
Created the Book of Mormon…No archeological evidence…no temples, chariots, swords, elephants, human remains…nothing. Nothing in Cumorah NY…Science proves American Indians are from Asia and not the Middle East.

Tom, find an ancient chariot, just one and the LDS church could convert the world too and stop sending out missionaries. Perhaps their time would be better off spent looking for chariots? It’s no wonder you can not date nor know a cause of a great apostasy…as there never was one.

Pork.

 

[zaffiroborant]

[And … I do not know why you **should

say I “covet being a god.” I see the Bible and the ECF teaching that we are to become gods. I do not believe we will EVER replace God or cease to worship God. Instead, we will become part of the Triune life God enjoys.Charity, TOm

Will some of us create our own worlds and populate them with spirit children?

Spirit children who will then:
Gospel Principles:

They[those who receive exaltation] will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also.These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Wait, what? Are you putting us on?

Sure, I’m writing tongue in cheek, but how can you prove this thesis wrong? Obviously, the purest form of Christianity was that early on in Jerusalem. But Jerusalem Christianity was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. And those true Jerusalem Christians that managed to escape across the Jordan did not accept the Pauline writings as scripture. Only the apostate Pauline churches took Paul’s writings as inspired.

Therefore, what this thread is talking about is an apostasy from an apostasy. Which is kind of silly to argue about.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think Acts 10 is “public revelation” received by Peter.

I think Acts 10 is a personal reminder [revelation] to Peter that he was to go to all nations. Something that Peter had been told to do before but seemed to have set aside.

Matt 29:18* And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Mark 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and** preach the gospel to the whole creation**.

Luke23:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46* and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47* and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, * beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49* And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.”

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Tom,

I am reading your latest posts and they look like a mixture of Catholicism and Mormonism, but nothing reflecting the Mormon religion in how it was believed, practiced, and administrated.

You are holding on to alot of Catholicism in your observations and interpretations, and you are allowing Mormonism to change its beliefs and practices, allowing it to develop, but not Catholicism.

There is also an observable non-recognition of all the Catholic believers going back to the time of Christ, and a difficulty not being able to identify common belief among various churches of different jurisdictions.

I am still very limited with time, and very, very exhausted by a number of things this past Christmas season.

You say communion is entering into communion with the life of the Holy Trinity. That is Catholic.

I finally went into a Mormon bookstore to read their materials. I came across Joseph Smith’s Doctrines and Covenants, and the writings are not at all reflected on your interpretation of Mormonism. I look at ‘Pearl of Great Price’, I came across what is now identified as Orson Pratt, writings going back to early 1850’s, the standard work of Mormonism then, and I am honestly telling you that what your beliefs are, are not at all what is being taught by Mormonism.

I read the life of early Mormonism and polygamy, and the ongoing condemnation and labelling of our faith going into 1980’s.

So why are you rejecting Catholicism, yet professing same beliefs as we in entering communion of the Holy Trinity…when Mormonism preaches Kolob and becoming gods and creating spirit children…what else do you do up there?

What do you really think it means to become a god? What kind of god?..

So you are coming across to me of professing Mormonism that on the outside now looks like Catholicism.

And this is exactly what I am perceiving that is happening in Mormonism, thanks to former Catholics like yourself who are re-writing Mormonism. I read a piece by the Mormon church that spoke of homosexuality…‘through no fault of their own’…the same phrase use by the Catholic Church.

But when I read the texts in Mormonism by Smith himself, it is truly a different religion and belief…and I cannot call it Christianity.

So I remember reading the books in the Deseret book store and your take on Mormonism is wearing the outward form and language and symbols now of Mormonism, but not the authentic Church I believe in.

I cannot understand how an intelligent person like yourself can point to past history of our church, perceiving a disjointed and self-invalidating Catholic Church, when you are not looking at the Church through the Holy Spirit.

 

[TOmNossor]

Jesus Christ was the “supernatural public revelation” for Christians. Therefore there was never a requirement that the full priesthood authority contained in the Office of Bishop include it.

I responded something similar above. I think Acts 10 and the writing of scripture speak to the abilities possessed by the Apostles but lacking in the Bishops. Perhaps you are agreeing here.
Now, to me Acts 10 seems like a lot less difficult of a situation than the Creator / Creature status of Jesus Christ. And of course if I am correct and creation ex nihilo is the reason for the Nicene and many future problems, surely that would be a cause for revelation. The idea that revelation was not needed does not seem particularly likely to me. Now Hegesippus (who I admit found a way to deal with error he was satisfied with) certainly seems to have recognized the importance of the apostles:

But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the ‘knowledge which is falsely so-called.’

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The history of Mormon apostles makes me think Joseph Smith never believed that apostles were required for authority either.

Could you explain to me what you mean here?
Thanks, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I believe the Mormon Church just claims a loss of authority and no historical examination is required. The claim is easy to support because you cannot see or touch authority, so you can claim it to be or not be anywhere they choose.

You cannot touch authority, but within Catholicism and Mormonism authority is passed via ordination in an apostolic chain.
LDS have claimed the Peter, James, and John gave authority to Joseph Smith and that this authority has been passed through an unbroken chain of ordinations.
I am suggesting that the idea that the authority to lead the entire church was present within Pope St. Clement but he didn’t know that was his is a historical examination that makes Catholic authority claims difficult. The author of Pseudo Clementine seems to have recognized this need long ago and tried to fill it, but nobody believe it is authentic and it conflicts with St. Irenaeus and others.
So, no you cannot touch authority, but you can see the evidence of it. Eno traces the self realization of the Papal authority and the later recognition by those outside of Rome. He cannot touch it, but he can trace it.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Joseph Smith said god was once a man and Brigham Young said this man was Adam. I don’t see how this can mean “the Father is the fount of divinity” in Mormon Church teaching. By rejecting “ex nihilo,” I don’t see how Mormonism can claim any “fount of divinity.”

The Adam-God theory is certainly rejected within the pew and the scholarly LDS community.
The idea that God the Father was once a man just as Jesus Christ was once a man is accepted within the pew and the scholarly LDS community.
The idea that God the Father like Jesus Christ was never not God is something that I think Joseph Smith taught and that is the best read of our scriptures, but this certainly is not as well accepted as the above two points.

Anyway, I think God the Father is the “fount of divinity.”
Here is Ostler’s excellent article:
web.archive.org/web/20101031162108/http://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.html

1. However, the problem is not so much the Bible as it is Mormon scripture. The Mormon scriptures say that “there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” (D&C 20:17). "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end "(D&C 20:28). When the term eternal is conjoined with infinite and from everlasting to everlasting, it is pretty clear that it means without beginning or end. The notion of infinity usually means unlimited, without bounds.
2. There are other Mormon scriptures that are even clearer: “Behold I am the Lord God Almighty, and endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is this not endless?” (Moses 1:3) “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Mormon 8:8). Further, Joseph Smith stated in 1840 that: “I believe that God is eternal. That He had not (sic) beginning and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end.” Given this clarification, it seems pretty clear to me that these scriptures mean that God has always been God in the same unchanging sense without beginning. Are the King Follett discourse and President Snows couplet simply inconsistent with scripture? It seems to me that there are several possibilities here.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Horaitus; 10174154:

I’m puzzled by this. When I read it, it was very easy to imagine Joseph Smith writing it unaided, and very difficult to see it as an ancient text. I wonder what it is you’re seeing that I’m not (or vice versa). But I guess different people see things differently.

I am not sure if you mean, “the religious genius Joseph Smith,” or “the simple farm boy Joseph Smith.” It is interesting to see the wild swings associated with how Joseph Smith is described by critic (and believer).
That being said, I think the BOM is a wonderful powerful religious book. It is not this however that leads me to say what I said.
I believe that Lehi left Jerusalem around 600BC. I think he passed Nahom and turned toward Bountiful. I think he landed in MesoAmerica. There is much more.
Horaitus; 10174154:

You’re mistaken. There’s no conflict between Vincent’s maxim and “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” nor is the Catholic Church moving away from the latter.

The way that Pope St. Gregory and Pope Pius X spoke about “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” and the way it is spoken about post Vatican II (even by conservative Catholics) IMO is a change. The hopes for “Baptism of Desire” and its conflict with “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was resolved during Vatican II, but I do not think St. Gregory or Pope Pius X would have guessed at the resolution IF they looked at it from the question, “Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church.”
It is my impression (based largely on some dialogue with SSPX and SSPV folks) that if you conducted a survey of Catholic leaders from 200-1900 (always believed) you would find all or almost all (believed by all) in all parts of the world (everywhere believed) and asked, “Is there salvation for those who are not members of the Catholic Church?” they would say no. If you then said, “well, you know that there are many folks who could receive salvation through the Catholic Church even as members that do not know they are members of the Catholic Church.” These folks would look at you like you had three heads.
You could also ask them if unbaptized infants could participate in the beatific vision and they would pretty universally say “no.”

Maybe I am wrong. This is not a subject I have personally researched. My anti-Vatican II Catholic friends are quite sure (and they do not seem too interested in the fact that I think they are like anti-Nicene semi-Arians).

Concerning the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins, Newman assails its usefulness quite effectively IMO. As a generic idea it is good but as a tool, it is not particularly effective.
Charity, TOm

 

[joe370]

I am not sure if you mean, “the religious genius Joseph Smith,” or “the simple farm boy Joseph Smith.” It is interesting to see the wild swings associated with how Joseph Smith is described by critic (and believer).
That being said, I think the BOM is a wonderful powerful religious book. It is not this however that leads me to say what I said.
I believe that Lehi left Jerusalem around 600BC. I think he passed Nahom and turned toward Bountiful. I think he landed in MesoAmerica. There is much more.

The way that Pope St. Gregory and Pope Pius X spoke about “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” and the way it is spoken about post Vatican II (even by conservative Catholics) IMO is a change. The hopes for “Baptism of Desire” and its conflict with “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was resolved during Vatican II, but I do not think St. Gregory or Pope Pius X would have guessed at the resolution IF they looked at it from the question, “Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church.”
It is my impression (based largely on some dialogue with SSPX and SSPV folks) that if you conducted a survey of Catholic leaders from 200-1900 (always believed) you would find all or almost all (believed by all) in all parts of the world (everywhere believed) and asked, “Is there salvation for those who are not members of the Catholic Church?” they would say no. If you then said, “well, you know that there are many folks who could receive salvation through the Catholic Church even as members that do not know they are members of the Catholic Church.” These folks would look at you like you had three heads.
You could also ask them if unbaptized infants could participate in the beatific vision and they would pretty universally say “no.”

Maybe I am wrong. This is not a subject I have personally researched. My anti-Vatican II Catholic friends are quite sure (and they do not seem too interested in the fact that I think they are like anti-Nicene semi-Arians).

Concerning the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins, Newman assails its usefulness quite effectively IMO. As a generic idea it is good but as a tool, it is not particularly effective.
Charity, TOm

Hey TOm. I was just curious about one thing: Do folks belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, believe that their church was established by Jesus?

 

[KathleenGee]

Another issue I have with Mormonism is that there is nothing about the Mother of Christ…which reveals to us Christ’s human nature.

Joseph Smith can only call our Church the great Babylon or whatever…but beyond that, he is not able to systematically face our beliefs and challenge them. He could only react and say our creed is an abomination.

Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God, Logos. Here is a letter by Saint Athanasius, bishop, 'how The Word took our nature from Mary. Mormon women want to learn about Mary but their bishops won’t let them.

Athanasius: 'The Apostle tells us: 'The Word took to himself the sons of Abraham, and so had to belike his brothers in all things, He had then to take a body like ours. This explains the fact of Mary’s presence: she is to provide him with a body of his own, to be offered for our sake. Scripture records her giving birth, and says: ‘She wrapped him in swaddling clothes’. Her breasts, which fed him, were called blessed. Sacrifice was offered because the child was her firstborn. Gabriel used careful and prudent language when he announced his birth. He did not speak of "what will be born in ‘you’ to avoid the impression that a body would be introduced into her womb from outside; he spoke of ‘what will be born from you,’ so that we might know by faith that her child originated within her and from her.

By taking our nature and offering it in sacrifice, the Word was to destroy it completely and then invest it with his own nature, and so prompt the Apostle to say: ‘This corruptible body must put on incorruption; this mortal body must put on immorality’.

This was not done in outward show only, as some have imagined. This is not so. Our Savior truly became man, and from this has followed the salvation of man as a whole. Our salvation is in no way fictitious, nor does it apply only to the body. The salvation of the whole man, that is, of soul and body, has really been achieved in the Word himself.

What was born of Mary was therefore human by nature, in accordance with the inspired Scriptures, and the body of the Lord was a true body: It was a true body because it was the same as ours. Mary, you see, is our sister, for we are all born from Adam.

The words of Saint John: ‘The Word was made Flesh’, bear the same meaning, as we may see from a similar turn of phrase in Saint Paul: ‘Christ was made a curse for our sake’. Man’s body has acquired something great through its communion and union with the Word. From being mortal it has been made immortal; though ti was a living body it has become a spiritual one; though it was made from earth it has passed through the gates of heaven.

Even when the Word takes a body from Mary, the Trinity remains a Trinity, with neither increase or decrease. It is for ever perfect. In the Trinity we acknowledge one Godhead, and thus one God, the Father of the Word, is proclaimed in the Church.’

Again, there has been no apostasy as the Catholic Church has remain faithful to reveal to us the truth of Jesus Christ who has already saved the whole man which has been achieved in His Word…the Word Made Flesh.

I was reading on the Ex Mormon site how all the Mormons could do was laugh and make fun of the Nicene Creed at their former conferences…but it appears that is all they could do…

 

[Stephen168]

Christ established His church when He was walking among us. He restored it in 1830.
Why did Christ come in Palestine when he did?
Why was He not the concurring king the Jews expected, but the suffering servant?
What price was paid and to who was it paid when Christ was killed for my sins? Why would God require such a horrible form of payment within any realm where He was ultimately in charge.

There are many questions that I cannot perfectly answer about why God does what God does. I am not suggesting that your questions are not part of determining where we are most likely to find Christ’s church, I am just saying that asking “why” God does things the way He does often does not result in certain answers.

With that being said, I believe that Christ was born in a unique time when His people would actually put Him to death. I cannot perfectly explain the atonement, but I think Ostler’s “Compassionate Theory of the Atonement” comes closer than the Catholic theories I have read (and many LDS theories I like less than Ostlers). But death was part of the plan and free men killed their God. Christ rose again. A necessary feature of this time was the “Pax Romana” that allowed for the message of Christ to spread and the Bible to be preserved. Surely God could have done this in 5800BC if He wanted, but I suspect golden chariots floating from region to region in this age would have resulted in different things that God intended.
As another feature (or side-effect) of this time was the impossibility of preserving the fullness of God’s church. Thing like LDS temple worship could not have existed in a similar form in the early church for any length of time across any significant area. This or something else necessitated an apostasy (which like Christ’s death, was freely chosen in some way and like Christ death was part of the plan).
Then in 1830 in America where there was supposed religious freedom, a restoration occurred. Did God try in 1794 and the people didn’t choose to follow? Maybe? But I think it took in 1830.

I do not know the CAUSE of the first apostasy. I do not know why the Jewish authority in Christ’s day prophesied, but rejected Christ just the same.
I do not believe that external forces “kill” the church. That was once a thought put forth by LDS, but I reject it (mostly because scripture seems to demand that it is always internal forces).
I think there was some conflict within the early church. Quoted previously in the thread is a place where Paul really calls Peter and others in Jerusalem the “so called pillars” or those “reputed (but not necessarily) pillars.” As HORRIBLE as I find this, I think the best explanation of God’s choosing to not have the authority promulgated through a continuous apostolic chain is that there was dissention in the church. Part of God’s plan AND part of the choices of those in the church.
I also think that the two way covenantal nature of the sacraments was lost and had impacts upon the authority of those with Holy Orders and those who were Baptized. I think St. Cyprian’s position on baptism was probably correct and was rejected. Ultimately the truth is I do not know the why.

First, the term “personal revelation” should not be here. Catholics claim that “personal revelation” continues today. So why would the Apostles not receive “personal revelation?”
I think Acts 10 is “public revelation” received by Peter.
I think the writing of scripture is “public revelation.”
In the Catholic paradigm, do the successors of the Apostles have the ability to receive inspiration necessary to write scripture? No!
Do they receive visions that solve conflicts within the church like Peter did in Acts 10?
No!

LDS leaders claim this same authority. You might not agree with the claim, but Catholics do not even come to the party. For a LDS to consider that the Pope is the real successor of the Apostles they must let go of much of what logic would suggest is the call of an Apostle (or Old Testament Prophet).

I understand the idea that Jesus Christ is the FINAL revelation, but I think Acts came later. I think much of the scripture we share was written via inspiration/revelation that is lacking in the Catholic Church.
Charity, TOm

My point being that the idea of an apostasy brings with it the question of the timing of God coming to earth. Christ could be murdered anytime from the beginning until this day. Christ did not come at a time of religious freedom and Pax Romana ended two hundred years before the Christian Bible was established. I agree I can not answer why he came when he did, but he did and established a Church then, which is still here today.

My next point was that Christianity has never claimed to have a prophet speak for the whole Church, and you are right I did mean public revelation. I think Act 10 is private revelation reminding Peter that the Catholic Church is for all of mankind, something Christ had already told him in person. Something lacking in early Mormonism.
Many people wrote about Christ and his teachings. It was the Holy Spirit working through the Bishops of his Church which decided which writings were worthy of repeating in Mass. The Bishops have resolved many conflicts the same way, before and since that time.
If Mormons truly believed Christ was the final revelation, they would not feel a need for more revelation.

 

[Stephen168]

I responded something similar above. I think Acts 10 and the writing of scripture speak to the abilities possessed by the Apostles but lacking in the Bishops. Perhaps you are agreeing here.
Now, to me Acts 10 seems like a lot less difficult of a situation than the Creator / Creature status of Jesus Christ. And of course if I am correct and creation ex nihilo is the reason for the Nicene and many future problems, surely that would be a cause for revelation. The idea that revelation was not needed does not seem particularly likely to me. Now Hegesippus (who I admit found a way to deal with error he was satisfied with) certainly seems to have recognized the importance of the apostles:

Charity, TOm

Hegesippus goes on to warn us of private revelation:

But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.

And he tells us about the great job the Bishops were doing through Apostolic Succession.

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.”

Clearly he was not concerned with a need for Apostles to maintain the deposit of faith.

 

[Stephen168]

You cannot touch authority, but within Catholicism and Mormonism authority is passed via ordination in an apostolic chain.
LDS have claimed the Peter, James, and John gave authority to Joseph Smith and that this authority has been passed through an unbroken chain of ordinations.
I am suggesting that the idea that the authority to lead the entire church was present within Pope St. Clement but he didn’t know that was his is a historical examination that makes Catholic authority claims difficult. The author of Pseudo Clementine seems to have recognized this need long ago and tried to fill it, but nobody believe it is authentic and it conflicts with St. Irenaeus and others.
So, no you cannot touch authority, but you can see the evidence of it. Eno traces the self realization of the Papal authority and the later recognition by those outside of Rome. He cannot touch it, but he can trace it.
Charity, TOm

Authority and Apostolic Succession have never been with the Pope. They are found in the Catholic Church which has authority because it has apostolic succession. Apostolic succession was never given to Joseph Smith, so he never had the authority to pass on to anyone else.
How could the Mormon Church lose authority (apostasy) and continue to exist? This is what you are claiming happened to the Catholic Church.

 

[Stephen168]

The Adam-God theory is certainly rejected within the pew and the scholarly LDS community.
The idea that God the Father was once a man just as Jesus Christ was once a man is accepted within the pew and the scholarly LDS community.
The idea that God the Father like Jesus Christ was never not God is something that I think Joseph Smith taught and that is the best read of our scriptures, but this certainly is not as well accepted as the above two points.

Anyway, I think God the Father is the “fount of divinity.”

Smith and Snow said god was the same as you and me; not divine. No divinity; no fount of divinity. Young said Adam was God. These are the teachings of your “prophets.” I find it interesting that these teachings about the very nature of who God is can be rejected by the lay Mormon. I think this proves Hegesippus was right about people trying to claim private revelation as public.