A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[TOmNossor]

Reading this article one should see the working of the Holy Spirit to protect our faith and insure we are indeed receiving orthodox teachings, especially from the papacy. The author presents Pope Honorious’ papacy in context.

Kathleen,
Thanks, and I should also say that I could see myself walking hand in hand with Cardinal Newman before, during, and after Vatican I (well, I would probably be walking a few steps behind carrying his books). I do not believe that the defined doctrine of Papal Infallibility as expressed at Vatican I together with the history of Catholicism PROVES Catholicism false. I would not have left the Catholic Church on account of Vatican I.
I find it an overwhelming and thankless task to try to correct all the presentations of my church that I think are false, but when I have the chance and Catholic scholars support me, I think the strength of the Catholic position should not be overstated (or understated for that matter).
Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

Why did you leave, Tom?

 

[TOmNossor]

So what was the nature of the apostasy that you claim? I’ll give you a hint–we believe that there was an apostasy-- and Mormonism is a restoration of it. It has to do with the sorting process of true from false doctrine in the early church. And Joseph Smith read a detailed history about that, and replicated it.

Jerusha,
All the no apostasy because Christ promised … AND Mormon’s believe Christ is a liar … AND Mormonism is from Satan … Are things with which I am quite familiar.
I have also encountered folks who speak of maps at Dartmouth College and Josephus and many other books being Joseph Smith’s source material for the BOM (there purpose being to explain how the BOM has the “hits” that LDS apologist claim). I typically criticize these as the extensive “basement library” theory. And there is not much of a basement in the Palmyra farm home.

Your position seems to be a little different and I wanted to make sure I understood what you are saying. Is the following about right?

After the production of the Book of Mormon which admittedly has very little of what critics call the unique (and false) teaching of the CoJCoLDS (and also has little of the smaller set of doctrines I too consider to be unique to the CoJCoLDS), Joseph Smith obtained a copy of Institutes of Ecclesiastical History by Mosheim. As Smith studied this he learned about many heresies through history. He then chose a subset of these heresies to call “Mormon doctrine.” Presumably Smith’s purpose in this was to demonstrate that Mormonism is a restoration of Christianity AND that Christianity falsely abandoned these doctrines. Then Joseph Smith could restore them and say “look here!” Thus when LDS apologist call these doctrines a “hit” you can explain them by Mosheim.

Is that about right? Any corrections?
Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Somewhere I have access to an article about the bookstores and libraries available to Joseph Smith and his family and friends. It is quite extensive. I don’t have time to look it up, but it is around somewhere.

The second aspect of your post is generally right, except they also borrowed from Masonic tradition and other Gnostics, such as Swedenborg. Again, there was a creative spirit in this gathering of abandoned heresies, which was continued into Utah, and documented in the Journal of Discourses. Of course, present-day Mormonism has abandoned many of those beliefs pronounced by past prophets.

I think we can agree that there is really nothing new about Mormonism.

Cherry-pickers condemning cherry-picking. What a conundrum!!

 

[LivingWaters7]

Somewhere I have access to an article about the bookstores and libraries available to Joseph Smith and his family and friends. It is quite extensive. I don’t have time to look it up, but it is around somewhere.

The second aspect of your post is generally right, except they also borrowed from Masonic tradition and other Gnostics, such as Swedenborg. Again, there was a creative spirit in this gathering of abandoned heresies, which was continued into Utah, and documented in the Journal of Discourses. Of course, present-day Mormonism has abandoned many of those beliefs pronounced by past prophets.

I think we can agree that there is really nothing new about Mormonism.

Cherry-pickers condemning cherry-picking. What a conundrum!!

They must have been quite the academic scholars!

 

[TOmNossor]

Why did you leave, Tom?

Kathleen,
I left the Catholic Church WITHOUT a concept of what I had before I left. I was part of a “Catholic Community.” I have had strong Catholics point to the self-appellation, “Catholic Community” as a sign of a liberal wish-washy parish. I have fond memories of my former parish, my parents are still members, and the priest is a wonderful God-fearing man. But, the UNIQUENESS of Catholicism was not something that shown through at least to me. I can remember thinking that others didn’t take their Catholicism as seriously as I did, but I truly believe there is evidence of the “beam in my eye” when I said this. Surely I still have a beam.

So, some of my lack of appreciations for my Catholicism when I was a Catholic was surely my fault, and some if it was probably the fault of less that wonderful catechesis.

From a position of ignorance I was willing to look around. I didn’t know that looking around meant loosing the Eucharist (something for which as I understand it now I have Holy Envy) or Apostolic succession.

I doubt I would have given the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS as much consideration if I knew and accepted the truth claims of Catholicism. But, I just accepted that God was there for me and I was Catholic (I had someone tell me 2 nights ago they were not looking around because they were SO HAPPY as a Catholic. I was happy as a Catholic, but I considered this happiness as from God and didn’t think attending a Protestant Church instead would be much different).
As I understood the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS, I found them credible (still do).
I have come to understand the truth claims of Catholicism and I do not find them ridiculous. I would not at this point in time be a Restorationist-in-Waiting were I to decide that the CoJCoLDS was not God’s Church. I would be at confession as soon as I could get there.

I write the above because it is true, not so that you might think I am just here being a nice guy. If I had infinite time I would make a rebuttal to every criticism of my church and offer plenty of opposition to evidence provided here for Catholicism. I do not currently think it at all likely I will be Catholic again. I will say, that if Catholicism is God’s Church and I do not figure it out, I hope to be a very informed but “invincible ignoranant” non-Catholic. I do not know what it is to have an intellectual witness and a spiritual witness in conflict, but I can say that there would need to be a radical shift in the evidence for my intellectual witness to point away from the CoJCoLDS.
Charity, TOm

 

[jrtrent]

No apostasy. To believe such is to believe that Christ was a poor teacher, a liar and that the bible is not inspired and infallible.

That is a belief you hold and is likely consistent with your interpretation of scripture, but we shouldn’t put those words into the mouths of others. Kimg901 said, “what you mormons are saying is Christ failed and He makes mistakes?” And my response was no, Mormons do not say that Christ failed or that He makes mistakes. There are many Christians who believe in some form of “great apostasy,” and a Wikipedia article tells us it’s found among Reformed teaching, anabaptists, LDS, JW, Adventists, and hyper-dispensationalists. I imagine preterists find a past fulfillment of apostasy also. None of these groups would say that Christ was a poor teacher, a liar, a failure, or that the Bible is not inspired, etc. They simply have a different perspective on certain passages of scripture than you do. That’s no reason to misrepresent or demonize them.

 

[Jerusha]

@ Tom

You are well-respected here. You are a star among Mormon apologists. In the past 7 1/2 (!) years, I have seen the best and the worst, here and elsewhere.

 

[TOmNossor]

I think we can agree that there is really nothing new about Mormonism.

That is funny!!!

 

[Jerusha]

That is funny!!!

I knew you would appreciate that.

Somewhere I have access to an article about the bookstores and libraries available to Joseph Smith and his family and friends. It is quite extensive

I started thinking-- obsessive-compulsive documentation— Mike Quinn: Magic World View, Chapter 6.

 

[Porknpie]

That is a belief you hold and is likely consistent with your interpretation of scripture, but we shouldn’t put those words into the mouths of others. Kimg901 said, “what you mormons are saying is Christ failed and He makes mistakes?” And my response was no, Mormons do not say that Christ failed or that He makes mistakes. There are many Christians who believe in some form of “great apostasy,” and a Wikipedia article tells us it’s found among Reformed teaching, anabaptists, LDS, JW, Adventists, and hyper-dispensationalists. I imagine preterists find a past fulfillment of apostasy also. None of these groups would say that Christ was a poor teacher, a liar, a failure, or that the Bible is not inspired, etc. They simply have a different perspective on certain passages of scripture than you do. That’s no reason to misrepresent or demonize them.

Hi JR -

There was no “Great Apostasy”. Doesn’t matter if one was Mormon, SDA, SDB, Anabaptist, Church of God, Church of Christ, JW etc. To argue that there was one, a person needs to state where and when it occurred and support their contention with facts, not speculation. Catholics interpret the bible with the Church as the authority as the biblical canon came from the Church and Christ gave power & authority to the Church. We can also look at the early church fathers to see what they wrote as this gives insight to what the church was practicing and believing before and after the bible was canonized. If you can not trust this Catholic Church on faith and morals, neither then can you trust it to have infallibly selected the books in your bible. I should note that the Mormons do not believe that the bible is infallible.

If you believe that there was a great apostasy, and one of the points below is inaccurate, state which one is inaccurate, when and how the apostasy occurred. None of the groups that you highlight say that Christ was a poor teacher…but that is the implication of what they say OR they by reason believe Christ failed to keep his promises (he lied). One can not say that Christ would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all Truth… that the Church was the Pillar of Truth…that he would be with the Church until the end of time…and then have the Church be wrong on faith and morals. To say so is an invention of man.

• Christ taught the apostles for 3 years and 40 days…
• Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all Truth.
• Scripture says that “the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth”.
• This makes sense as Christ is the head of the Church.
• Christ says that “those who listen to you, listen to me…and the one who sent me”
• And he says that he would be with the Church until the “end of time.”
• Scripture says that the Church membership grew greatly, guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Old_Ephriam]

That is a belief you hold and is likely consistent with your interpretation of scripture, but we shouldn’t put those words into the mouths of others. Kimg901 said, “what you mormons are saying is Christ failed and He makes mistakes?” And my response was no, Mormons do not say that Christ failed or that He makes mistakes. There are many Christians who believe in some form of “great apostasy,” and a Wikipedia article tells us it’s found among Reformed teaching, anabaptists, LDS, JW, Adventists, and hyper-dispensationalists. I imagine preterists find a past fulfillment of apostasy also. None of these groups would say that Christ was a poor teacher, a liar, a failure, or that the Bible is not inspired, etc. They simply have a different perspective on certain passages of scripture than you do. That’s no reason to misrepresent or demonize them.

I think your missing the point. It’s not that any of these groups would come out and say Jesus was a liar, a failure, incompetent, etc. The point is that the full implications of believing in a great apostasy when fully explored to thier ends tend to point that way.

 

[TexanKnight]

I think your missing the point. It’s not that any of these groups would come out and say Jesus was a liar, a failure, incompetent, etc. The point is that the full implications of believing in a great apostasy when fully explored to thier ends tend to point that way.

One does not have to come out and call someone a liar to, in effect, call someone a liar.

If you tell me that you have ridden horses and I turn to someone in your presence and say, “I do not know anyone who has truthfully ridden horses” I am, in effect, calling you a liar.

Jesus said He would NEVER leave us and that Hell would NEVER prevail against His Church.

people who claim there was an Apostasy say, “Jesus actually left and hell, for a period of time DID prevail”. they are, in effect, calling Jesus a liar.

 

[Nicea325]

One does not have to come out and call someone a liar to, in effect, call someone a liar.

If you tell me that you have ridden horses and I turn to someone in your presence and say, “I do not know anyone who has truthfully ridden horses” I am, in effect, calling you a liar.

Jesus said He would NEVER leave us and that Hell would NEVER prevail against His Church.

people who claim there was an Apostasy say, “Jesus actually left and hell, for a period of time DID prevail”. they are, in effect, calling Jesus a liar.

Exactly! Likewise, many believe claim Jesus was a very good man and this is the one thing he could not possibly be. For a mere man who says he is God is not a good man; he is a liar or lunatic. Equally important, if the Gospel records make it impossible to call this man either a liar or a lunatic, either a wicked blasphemer or a deranged egomaniac, then he is Lord. Not only faith,but also logic forces one to their knees.

 

[kimg901]

Im just going to throw my hands up in the air because even though you mormons wont admit it, All of you who believe in this “apostacy” are calling Jesus a LIAR. So with that being said, when will Jesus leave your church? Thats right, if He did this once, He will do it again because He is a Liar. But I will continue to pray for you regardless.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Tom for responding to me.

We all have to go on the journey that is sensible to us. And yes, I can see from your comments that you have a deep desire for God. I wish you did not have the simultaneous conflict of spiritual vs intellectual.

For myself, the Catholic Church satisfies both. But the important thing is to hold on to the love of God I have for Him, the presence of God I acknowledge in the Church, and to be faithful to Him through those around me.

We have to remember that God is the Author of Life, and source of our salvation, that the Church is as Mother who is guiding us and nurturing us to be closer to Him…a matter of finding our focus and keeping it there.

Blessings.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Kathleen,
I left the Catholic Church WITHOUT a concept of what I had before I left. I was part of a “Catholic Community.” I have had strong Catholics point to the self-appellation, “Catholic Community” as a sign of a liberal wish-washy parish. I have fond memories of my former parish, my parents are still members, and the priest is a wonderful God-fearing man. But, the UNIQUENESS of Catholicism was not something that shown through at least to me. I can remember thinking that others didn’t take their Catholicism as seriously as I did, but I truly believe there is evidence of the “beam in my eye” when I said this. Surely I still have a beam.

So, some of my lack of appreciations for my Catholicism when I was a Catholic was surely my fault, and some if it was probably the fault of less that wonderful catechesis.

From a position of ignorance I was willing to look around. I didn’t know that looking around meant loosing the Eucharist (something for which as I understand it now I have Holy Envy) or Apostolic succession.

I doubt I would have given the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS as much consideration if I knew and accepted the truth claims of Catholicism. But, I just accepted that God was there for me and I was Catholic (I had someone tell me 2 nights ago they were not looking around because they were SO HAPPY as a Catholic. I was happy as a Catholic, but I considered this happiness as from God and didn’t think attending a Protestant Church instead would be much different).
As I understood the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS, I found them credible (still do).
I have come to understand the truth claims of Catholicism and I do not find them ridiculous. I would not at this point in time be a Restorationist-in-Waiting were I to decide that the CoJCoLDS was not God’s Church. I would be at confession as soon as I could get there.

I write the above because it is true, not so that you might think I am just here being a nice guy. If I had infinite time I would make a rebuttal to every criticism of my church and offer plenty of opposition to evidence provided here for Catholicism. I do not currently think it at all likely I will be Catholic again. I will say, that if Catholicism is God’s Church and I do not figure it out, I hope to be a very informed but “invincible ignoranant” non-Catholic. I do not know what it is to have an intellectual witness and a spiritual witness in conflict, but I can say that there would need to be a radical shift in the evidence for my intellectual witness to point away from the CoJCoLDS.
Charity, TOm

What pushed you from Catholicism to Mormonism?

 

[jrtrent]

I think your missing the point. It’s not that any of these groups would come out and say Jesus was a liar, a failure, incompetent, etc. The point is that the full implications of believing in a great apostasy when fully explored to thier ends tend to point that way.

I appreciate your point of view, and the further explanations given by Porknpie, but you do see that the implied calling of Jesus a liar, failure, etc., is dependent upon acceptance of a particular interpretation of certain passages of scripture. As TexanKnight put is, “Jesus said He would NEVER leave us and that Hell would NEVER prevail against His Church.” His understanding scripture in this way precludes the idea of a great apostasy, but not everyone interprets scripture the same way. Here is a different take on it (I apologize if this reference has already been given; I’ve followed this thread casually, and may well have forgotten what’s already been discussed):

"In Matthew 28:20, the Greek has Jesus saying that he will be with the church until the end of the “aion” – which means “eon,” “epoch,” “age,” or “period.” We believe that Jesus was with His Church until the end of that dispensation. Then came the apostasy. But for those who follow Him in any age, He is always there. However, there are times when the truth is not found on earth - or when authorized prophets and apostles are absent. Such a time was predicted in Amos 8:11,12, referring to a coming age in which there will be a famine of truth. Fits the dark age of the Apostasy very well! That’s why there had to be a time of refreshing (Acts 3:19), to bring again that which was lost.

Remember, Christ is always with His followers, but that does not mean that they are always with Him. It was the rejection of Christ and His gospel in favor of worldly doctrines and practices that resulted in the Apostasy - this was not caused by Christ withdrawing from us, but the other way around." jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Restoration.shtml#gates

For more specifics on Mormon belief on the great apostasy, Talmage’s work is available to read online for free at this site: gutenberg.org/ebooks/35514

Many others besides Mormons have taught that there has been an apostasy from the truth. Talmage covers some of those from a Protestant perspective in the last chapter. Christians disagree on many point of doctrine and practice, such as infant baptism, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the “real presence” in the elements of communion, the structure of church government, the meaning of predestination, etc., etc. I had thought that the idea of the Non-Catholics Religions forum was to engage in dialogue toward better understanding of our many and various positions, not to engage in polemics.

I’m sure most here belong to the church they do because they believe it to teach what is true, so it can be hard not to say I’m right so the rest of you must be wrong, or that the only way to embrace truth is to join my church. When kimg901 wrote, “Im just going to throw my hands up in the air because even though you mormons wont admit it, All of you who believe in this “apostacy” are calling Jesus a LIAR,” I’m sure that’s an honest sentiment, but it doesn’t seem in spirit with the idea of better understanding each other’s religions.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Lax:

couple years ago I met a dentist originally from India & a life-long Catholic. He told me he was from St Thomas’s line who went there evangelizing when the Apostles’ spread out after the Ascension of our Lord. As a result, Catholicism caught hold & survived many centuries without much communication from Mother Church!

How can LDS claim an “apostasy” in this instance?

 

[Porknpie]

TexasKnight -

From JR’s previous post…and gutenberg.org link… being a former Mormon, is the history below “doctrine”? Does the (suggested) history below add credibility to the Mormon doctrine of a “great apostasy”? If this doctrine below is proven false…what does that say about belief in other doctrine including a “great apostasy”?

1. Nephites and Lamanites. The progenitors of the Nephite nation “were led from Jerusalem 600 B. C., by Lehi, a Jewish prophet of the tribe of Manasseh. His immediate family, at the time of their departure from Jerusalem, comprised his wife Sariah, and their sons Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi; at a later stage of the history, daughters are mentioned, but whether any of these were born before the family exodus we are not told. Beside his own family, the colony of Lehi included Zoram and Ishmael, the latter an Israelite of the tribe of Ephraim. Ishmael, with his family, joined Lehi in the wilderness; and his descendants were numbered with the nation of whom we are speaking. The company journeyed somewhat east of south, keeping near the borders of the Red Sea; then changing their course to the eastward, crossed the peninsula of Arabia; and there, on the shores of the Arabian Sea, built and provisioned a vessel in which they committed themselves to Divine care upon the waters. Their voyage carried them eastward across the Indian Ocean, then over the south Pacific Ocean to the western coast of South America, whereon they landed (590 B. C.) * * * The people established themselves on what to them was the land of promise; many children were born, and in the course of a few generations a numerous posterity held possession of the land. After the death of Lehi, a division occurred, some of the people accepting as their leader Nephi, who had been duly appointed to the prophetic office; while the rest proclaimed Laman, the eldest of Lehi’s sons, as their chief. Henceforth the divided people were known as Nephites and Lamanites respectively. At times they observed toward each other fairly friendly relations; but generally they were opposed, the Lamanites manifesting implacable hatred and hostility toward their Nephite kindred. The Nephites advanced in the arts of civilization, built large cities, and established prosperous commonwealths; yet they often fell into transgression; and the Lord chastened them by making their foes victorious. They spread northward, occupying the northern part of South America; then, crossing the Isthmus, they extended their domain over the southern, central, and eastern portions of what is now the United States of America. The Lamanites, while increasing in numbers, fell under the curse of darkness; they became dark in skin and benighted in spirit, forgot the God of their fathers, lived a wild nomadic life, and degenerated into the fallen state in which the American Indians,—their lineal descendants,—were found by those who re-discovered the western continent in later times.” (The Author, “Articles of Faith,” Lect. 14:7, 8.)