A Treatise on the "Great Apostasy" (A Latter-Day Saints Teaching)

[iepuras]

Arandur -

That could be a more fruitful approach. In my experience, with family a reasoned approach may not work all that well due to the family dynamic. My mother is very controlling, manipulative and emotionally abusive. I was also always the scapegoat no matter how good of a Mormon I was. I never really lived my life according to the Mormon narrative my mother intended. I wanted an education and career. I was open to marriage and children but it was not my ultimate desire. I didn’t get married until I was an old maid (30), and she never particularly liked my husband. So I was already a disappointment in my mother’s eyes in many respects. I had always resisted her control in many respects and my leaving the LDS church just put her attempts at manipulation and control into overdrive. As a result, I had to cut things off. And as a good scapegoat, it is, of course, all my fault because I am unforgiving and cruel.

I think your approach may work if there are good, respectful relationships with the relatives. If there is already a toxic relationship, I don’t think anything would really work.

 

[CarolNoel]

Interesting thread. Thanks all.

 

[TOmNossor]

First, let us first acknowledge that the Evil One, and his minions, seek the ruin of souls. The Prince of Lies will stop at nothing to have us join him.
Let us next acknowledge that the Evil One, and his minions, can disguise themselves as angels of light. As a fallen angel, he has no doubt knowledge of Scriptural precedents that humans will listen to an angelic messenger of God - and could disguise himself accordingly.
Let us without question acknowledge that because of this, any time one receives a message from from what appears to be the Lord or it must be tested, preferably with someone with a strong gift of discernment.

Hello, I thought I would comment a little on your ideas. I hope that is not too offensive.
This first part seems fine, but I would not consider a weighing of one person’s “gift of discernment” to be any kind of objective measure. As such I can see no way to decide if “the young men’s president” has a stronger gift of discernment than the “host of the archbishops hour.” If one finds Joseph Smith credible and the other does not, how do I weigh their “gifts of discernment?”

Let us then agree that the statement “turned aside from the gospel” denotes that a radical departure from the Christian faith had occurred.

Certainly the departure postulated by those who believe in a restoration is “radical” to the degree it requires a restoration rather than a reformation (or a schism without appeal to divine authority).

Let us note that this departure must be doctrinal in nature, as if it was simply customs or how people lived their lives, there is no need to start a new church - just reform the old one.

This is the first place where I disagree almost completely. It is a fittingly Catholic statement, but to presume it would be to presume the Catholic way of looking at this. The Catholic Church has a long history of excising those who believed wrongly from the “body of Christ” aka the church. Until recently this excision was presumed to be very linked to salvation/damnation (and it is not unlinked now, just things are not so clear). LDS have a long history of tolerating a great deal of diversity in belief and even in teaching. The Brother Brown story seems illustrative. While I enjoy theology and I would advocate SOME restrictions on what the Gospel Doctrine teacher may teach, ORTHODOXY seems much less important for the LDS than ORTHOPRAXY. We “sustain the prophet,” we “magnify our callings,” and we “bear our testimonies.” Some of us may have strong opinions on the flaws of “Augustinian Trinitarianism” and the merits of “Social Trinitarianism,” but such are peripheral.
Since your long thesis SEEMS to me to hang on this flawed IMO point I could probably leave the rest uncommented upon (but want to point at one more thing which though harder to defend is still IMO another fatal flaw).

… human life (…, life begins at conception), the Church has remained consistent… as the Trinity, …, have remained consistent.

My research suggest that the church has always been opposed to abortions, but has been less clear on “life begins at conception” (it might approach reasonably to claim this is because Catholic theologians of the middle ages lack the scientific understanding of conception and … but I personally think different periods of gestation for “ensoulment” for the male and female has little to do with poor scientific understanding).
The Trinity likewise has not been “consistent.” The Trinity has DEVELOPED considerably from pre-Nicea to post Lateran IV (though most of this was during the 4th century).
Neither of these and the myriad of other developments are particularly important (if it is not about doctrine at all), but in the absence of Divine Revelation for the leading of the church, scholars (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, and Secular) have traced DEVELOPMENT.

Your long treatise has a few places that if it were flawed the conclusion would not follow. That it is about doctrine is one such place. That there is some clearly divinely guided consistency/development is another. I find the “about doctrine” to be the easier place to poke at, but neither place is strong enough to convince this thorough going heretic.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I submit … Let us acknowledge … that LDS start from the fact/belief/conviction that a restoration occurred initiated by God through Joseph Smith. From this point many ideas have surfaced to explain why GOD felt the need to restore something and what that thing was that was lacking. Are there doctrines believed in some form by the early church that were almost universally mocked when Joseph Smith “restored” them? Yes. This is an interesting avenue for exploration, but not where I focus folk. Is the passing of the baton from Peter to the Pope or from the Apostles to the Bishops a difficulty? Yes, IMO it is. Recently however I have focused on a very small slice of this however.

Let me offer you a shorter argument that I think is more solid:
Let us acknowledge that God is the same unchangeable being from everlasting to everlasting (D&C 20:17). Let us acknowledge that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe that God delivered revelation for all mankind through prophets of the Old Testament. We might say there is a “Chair of Moses” and Moses received revelation for all mankind. Let us acknowledge that Christians all believe that God delivered revelation for all mankind through Apostles (Prophet being one who speaks for God). Some Christians (Catholics) might even say there is a “Chair of Peter” which is the New Testament “Chair of Moses.”
We may lose some Protestants here, but the Catholics should follow along quite nicely. Let us acknowledge that there is a man today who sits in the “Chair of Moses/Chair of Peter” and that this man is the earthly leader of God’s church on earth. Of the handful of faiths that claim to have someone who is the valid successor of Moses, the valid successor of Peter, there is only one church that claims that God still communicates via revelation through Peter’s successor to the world. That is the CoJCoLDS. Others who claim to have someone who leads in the Chair of Peter of necessity must claim that God CHANGED the way He leads His church because for millennia these folks have not received revelation like Peter and Moses did.
I submit that God still leads His church as He did in the Old Testament, as He did in the New Testament, and as He does in the Restoration Testament by revelation! Thus, the church with the most solid claim of being God’s church on earth today is the CoJCoLDS.

I think that is a more solid and easier to follow argument than the one you offer. Most folks I explain it to nod with some amount of approval, but these folks are either LDS or investigators. I do not expect wild nods of approval here at Catholic Answers. Note: I think I can offer the Catholic response to this as well as anyone (except for the Catholics early in another thread who denied revelation to be delivered to the entire church stopped which I think is unwarranted and at odds with at least 1800 years of Catholic tradition - 1800 years coming after Tertullian who was once a bright light in the Christian Church, but … ).
Anyway, I have been meaning to offer my two cents. You may return to your “echo chamber” now.
Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

Tom, what don’t you get about all this? Nothing needed to be restored. Jesus wasn’t important enough to tell him about what needed to be restored and smith was? God’s only son was killed for nothing then? So Jesus wasn’t the Last Word or the Word of God? What are you going to tell Jesus when you die and He is there to judge you?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, what don’t you get about all this? Nothing needed to be restored. Jesus wasn’t important enough to tell him about what needed to be restored and smith was? God’s only son was killed for nothing then? So Jesus wasn’t the Last Word or the Word of God? What are you going to tell Jesus when you die and He is there to judge you?

Just what he keeps saying, in his private echo chamber.

 

[Tarquin]

LDS have a long history of tolerating a great deal of diversity in belief and even in teaching.

Absolutely not! Quite the contrary. The LDS have a long history of intolerance when they are in the majority, and shunning when they are in the minority. Diversity in teaching? Absolutely not. Teaching methods, points, examples, questions to ask, answers to elicit, are spelled out in teachers’ manuals and missionary training manuals. Say what you want, deny what you want, claim what you want; but this is what history and experience show.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I submit … Let us acknowledge … that LDS start from the fact/belief/conviction that a restoration occurred initiated by God through Joseph Smith. From this point many ideas have surfaced to explain why GOD felt the need to restore something and what that thing was that was lacking. Are there doctrines believed in some form by the early church that were almost universally mocked when Joseph Smith “restored” them? Yes. This is an interesting avenue for exploration, but not where I focus folk. Is the passing of the baton from Peter to the Pope or from the Apostles to the Bishops a difficulty? Yes, IMO it is. Recently however I have focused on a very small slice of this however.

Let me offer you a shorter argument that I think is more solid:
Let us acknowledge that God is the same unchangeable being from everlasting to everlasting (D&C 20:17). Let us acknowledge that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe that God delivered revelation for all mankind through prophets of the Old Testament. We might say there is a “Chair of Moses” and Moses received revelation for all mankind. Let us acknowledge that Christians all believe that God delivered revelation for all mankind through Apostles (Prophet being one who speaks for God). Some Christians (Catholics) might even say there is a “Chair of Peter” which is the New Testament “Chair of Moses.”
We may lose some Protestants here, but the Catholics should follow along quite nicely. Let us acknowledge that there is a man today who sits in the “Chair of Moses/Chair of Peter” and that this man is the earthly leader of God’s church on earth. Of the handful of faiths that claim to have someone who is the valid successor of Moses, the valid successor of Peter, there is only one church that claims that God still communicates via revelation through Peter’s successor to the world. That is the CoJCoLDS. Others who claim to have someone who leads in the Chair of Peter of necessity must claim that God CHANGED the way He leads His church because for millennia these folks have not received revelation like Peter and Moses did.
I submit that God still leads His church as He did in the Old Testament, as He did in the New Testament, and as He does in the Restoration Testament by revelation! Thus, the church with the most solid claim of being God’s church on earth today is the CoJCoLDS.

I think that is a more solid and easier to follow argument than the one you offer. Most folks I explain it to nod with some amount of approval, but these folks are either LDS or investigators. I do not expect wild nods of approval here at Catholic Answers. Note: I think I can offer the Catholic response to this as well as anyone (except for the Catholics early in another thread who denied revelation to be delivered to the entire church stopped which I think is unwarranted and at odds with at least 1800 years of Catholic tradition - 1800 years coming after Tertullian who was once a bright light in the Christian Church, but … ).
Anyway, I have been meaning to offer my two cents. You may return to your “echo chamber” now.
Charity, TOm

I find it interesting that you go from Moses to Peter completely skipping Christ. I also find it interesting that LDS never acknowledge that God CHANGED the method of revelation when He entered history and walked, talked, ate and, lived with us. He lived with us as we are, fallen, sinful and broken. Why CHANGE things so monumentally and then go back to the same old, same old?

 

[Tarquin]

Let us acknowledge that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe that God delivered revelation for all mankind through prophets of the Old Testament.

If Mormons believed that, they should believe those prophets. Perhaps they don’t because their translation of the Bible has not been translated correct.

Let us acknowledge that there is a man today who sits in the “Chair of Moses/Chair of Peter” and that this man is the earthly leader of God’s church on earth. Of the handful of faiths that claim to have someone who is the valid successor of Moses, the valid successor of Peter, there is only one church that claims that God still communicates via revelation through Peter’s successor to the world. That is the CoJCoLDS. Others who claim to have someone who leads in the Chair of Peter of necessity must claim that God CHANGED the way He leads His church because for millennia these folks have not received revelation like Peter and Moses did.

I find the reasoning ridiculous. Is it necessary to believe God “changed the way He leads His church” if there is no “revelation like Peter and Moses” - “for millennia”? What is the break-off time to establish this conclusion? “Millennia”? How many - 2, 3? What about centuries? What if God did not give “revelation like Peter and Moses” for decades? For years? For months? What is the break off point to ascertain when God is no longer leading the Church? What if there is nothing new that is necessary to be revealed for millennia? Does God have to say something anyway, to satisfy your arbitrary time restraints? What new grand revelations comparable to those of Peter and Moses have your prophets presented during the last decade? Last century? I’m not asking for dreams and visions and mere opinions. We all have those. I mean literal revelations direct from Deity.

You leave me wondering what you believe those “only a handful of faiths” are which recognize a successor to Moses. More importantly, except by a circular appeal claiming that since your church is the only one therefore it is the only one, I do not see how you can argue that your apostate denomination is the “only” church that claims “God still communicates via revelation through Peter’s successor to the world.” Because I know that claim is false. Warren Jeffs, William Blackmoor, John Hajicek, Paul Palmieri, Art Bulla, John W. Timpson, Gerald Peterson, Jr., and those are just *some *rival Mormon claimants. Groups within Judaism and Islam also claim to be led by men with prophetic, sometimes even messianic, callings. Thomas Monson is far from being the only one, and he is far from following the Biblical pattern of prophets, his prophetic powers are all but non-existent, and his .

I submit that God still leads His church as He did in the Old Testament, as He did in the New Testament, and as He does in the Restoration Testament by revelation! Thus, the church with the most solid claim of being God’s church on earth today is the CoJCoLDS.

No man who contradicts the central doctrine of divinity in the Old Testament - monotheism along with the original Creation of the entire complete cosmos, of and at the beginning of Time, by God - qualifies as an Old Testament prophet. No man who ignores or contradicts the teachings of Jesus - such as monotheism, monogamy, forgiveness, curbing anger, prohibiting murder, suffering with the persecuted, non-discrimination, and other doctrines - qualifies as a New Testament prophet.

 

[Stephen168]

Let us see that in key doctrinal teachings such as marriage (prohibition of divorce, marriage is to be between one man and one woman), human life (prohibition on direct abortions, life begins at conception), the Church has remained consistent.

My research suggest that the church has always been opposed to abortions, but has been less clear on “life begins at conception” (it might approach reasonably to claim this is because Catholic theologians of the middle ages lack the scientific understanding of conception and … but I personally think different periods of gestation for “ensoulment” for the male and female has little to do with poor scientific understanding).

The Mormon Church now believes abortion can be OK. This is a change in doctrine. A change inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles of the ancient Church. The Catholic Church has NEVER changed its teaching on abortion being wrong.

 

[Stephen168]

Let us note that this departure must be doctrinal in nature, as if it was simply customs or how people lived their lives, there is no need to start a new church - just reform the old one.

This is the first place where I disagree almost completely. It is a fittingly Catholic statement, but to presume it would be to presume the Catholic way of looking at this.

The Mormon Church has always claimed a change in doctrine as a sign of the Great Apostasy. And Tom does too; or not when it is convenient.
TOmNossor; 972992:

LDS also use the ECF to show that as time passed doctrine moved from things LDS embrace to things that are considered orthodoxy.

The above are the areas in which I think Catholic doctrine development is attackable toward showing an apostasy.

 

[TOmNossor]

I see some points at which my thesis is challenged.

So Jesus wasn’t the Last Word or the Word of God?

Wasn’t Jesus the FINAL revelation?
The Catholic Church came to that understanding in the ABSENCE of revelation, but did not have that understanding for quite a while.
Many books were purported to be inspired that were written after the Apostles. The Shepard of Hermas was one of the most widely accepted as inspired and was called divine by Clement of Alexandria and quoted by Irenaeus in the same way as scripture was quoted. It was widely read in churches. Other writings were treated as scripture less widely.
Tertullian was quite clear that revelation continued. His “Catholic” and some of his post “Catholic” writings and his intellect were respected and are respected to this day. “Continuing revelation” in the 2nd Century lead to Tertullian’s departure from what Catholics call the church.
Pope Eluetherius also initial approved of continuing revelation, but later rejected it at least in the specific continuing revelations of Montanism.
Aside from how the Bible is NOW interpreted there are no writings that claim revelation ended for over a century after Christ’s resurrection.
Note: I have no intention of defending Montanus revelation in its content. I only include it to illustrate that the Catholic Church decided LATE that revelation ended. It was not like the Apostles made it CLEAR that revelation was to end.
So, as I said, I understand the response of Catholics. If revelation ended, it took the church a long time to “figure it out.” I think the historical record shows most clearly that the absence of revelation that is considered authentic by “the church” leads to the understanding that revelation ceased; not that God planned and “the church” understood revelation would cease. At the very least, “the church” didn’t UNDERSTAND. I submit that the church that became Catholic didn’t receive revelation and feared revelation purportedly received by others SO they declared revelation ceased. Tertullian criticizes the Catholic Church for just this “lack of spirit.” His criticism IMO is well founded. The Catholic Church MUST believe that revelation ceased and would NEVER continue else the Catholic Church is not God’s church because revelation DID cease for Catholic leaders (again for revelation the purpose of leading Christ’s Church).

I find it interesting that you go from Moses to Peter completely skipping Christ. I also find it interesting that LDS never acknowledge that God CHANGED the method of revelation when He entered history and walked, talked, ate and, lived with us. He lived with us as we are, fallen, sinful and broken. Why CHANGE things so monumentally and then go back to the same old, same old?

Have you read 1st Clement or any one of dozens of Catholic apologetic works? I go from Moses to Peter because they have “Chairs” in Catholic thought. Christ is the God-Man. LDS like the Early Church recognize the unique place of Christ, but do not believe that revelation to the entire world was to end with Christ. Catholics came to this understanding LATE and I suggest because there was something missing that needed to be restored.
Concerning “centrality of doctrine.” I referenced the “Brother Brown story.” He taught something considered ridiculous, but Joseph Smith defended his right to teach and believe as Brother Brown saw fit. Another resent thread here points out that there is no equivalent to the CCC in the CoJCoLDS. I also have a great deal of experience with different theological positions in the CoJCoLDS. I appreciate Tarquin’s experience and how he might interpret that to be an “intolerantance” or to be tight control of doctrine. But I see it very differently. There has been an effort to create a consistency in teaching and thus some consistency in belief. But, there has been little debate about what theological positions define as “orthodox” and an attempt to remove folks who claim to believe differently from the CoJCoLDS. Publically teaching the brethren are wrong is a cause for concern, but “right belief” is not often an issue.
And the “centrality of doctrine” or lack of “centrality of doctrine” does not undermine my thesis that it is about revelation anyway.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I see some points at which my thesis is challenged.

Wasn’t Jesus the FINAL revelation?
The Catholic Church came to that understanding in the ABSENCE of revelation, but did not have that understanding for quite a while.

No, it did not.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh. He was God fully revealed; the revelation. (John 1:1-18, Eph 1:9, Hebrews 1:1-2)

He revealed the Gospel and the Deposit of Christian Faith. He revealed it to the Twelve, the Apostles, and disciples. (Matthew 4:23, 7:29, Mark 1:21-27, Luke 10:39, 19:47, John 7:14)

God’s Church was establish by Jesus Christ at Pentecost, 50 days after his resurrection. In Christ’s body and blood a new covenant with God is made (Jeremiah 31:31, Mark 14:23-25, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:24-26) and the old covenant is no more (Hebrews 7:11, 8:7-8, 8:13, 2 Cor 3:6). The new covenant is to be sent to the world (Matthew 28:19, Acts 9:15)

After Judas’ apostasy and suicide, Peter wanted to restore the twelve. Because the Twelve were witnesses to the resurrection, Peter said the man must have walked with Christ since the baptism of John. They picked two. They prayed to have God show them who it should be. This was not revelation but the Holy Spirit working through the Church. There was no addition to the Deposit of Faith and we learn the title Apostle could not be passed on forever.

At the Council of Jerusalem, the disciples gathered to decided whether circumcision would be requirement for Church membership. They debated the issue and decided it was an unnecessary yoke to put on the Gentiles. James as the Bishop of Jerusalem made the final announcement. They had been taught by Christ the law of Moses under the old covenant had been fulfilled. There was no change to the Deposit of Faith.

Saul heard Jesus’ voice on the way to Damascus, which converted him to Christianity. But Paul did not receive revelation or any addition to the deposit of faith. The disciples taught him in Damascus. (Acts 9:19, Gal 1:17) And His understanding was blessed by Peter (Gal 1:18, 2:9) and he submitted to the Church (Acts 15:2)

After Jesus was crucified, two women had a vision that Christ was alive. Peter had a vision reminding him that the good news was for all nations, not just the Jews. Nothing new was added to the Deposit of Faith.

All the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

In New Testament times, many people were called prophets (Luke 2:36, Acts 13:1, Acts 21:10), but Simon Peter was never called a prophet.

Peter and other men wrote about Jesus Christ and the new covenant. In the 4th century, the Catholic Church declared 27 of the writings to be scripture.

Prophecy, the inspiration to write scripture, and visions are all gifts of God; the Holy Spirit. They are not associated with a position within the Church of God.

Peter received revelation from the Word of God, he wrote scripture, and we was one of the Twelve Apostles; witnesses to the resurrection. Peter’s successor could not have been an apostle because he did not witness the resurrection or were sent out (apostles) by Christ. Linus could not receive revelation because Christ no longer walked the earth. Linus could have wrote scripture, had visions, or been a prophet, but it was not a requirement of his position as the Bishop of Rome and holder of the keys.
That was the condition of the Church 2000 years ago

The Catholic Church today has a Pope who is the successor of Simon Peter, holder of the keys, as the head of the Church. Except for not walking the earth with Christ and witnessing his resurrection, he is the same as Simon Peter. Like Linus and everyone born after the ascension, he does not receive public revelation. Like Linus and everyone who is not the Twelve, he is not an Apostle.

That is the condition of the Catholic Church today same as 2000 years ago.

Mormons believe Peter was an Apostle, prophet, revelator, and President of his Church. They believe all four are required to lead the church. As we see in scripture and the historical record. This is not true. It was made up by the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church originally claimed the Apostasy to have taken place in 570 AD. This means at that time all the Popes would have been rightful leaders of the Church. Mormons would have accepted the trinity as defined at the Council of Nicaea, which they did until Joseph Smith led them into apostasy.

I believe the Mormon Church had to push back the date of the apostasy when they discovered there was too much written from 50AD to 570AD which proved Mormonism wrong as they moved away from Christianity. At some point, after the death of Joseph Smith, they decided it happened with the death of the last Apostle, and made up the story about a Church led by an apostle, prophet, and revelator,

 

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe someday it will sink in, that Jesus Christ is THE Christian Revelation. Period.

The Holy Spirit is given to Christ’s Church. Inspired by the Spirit, She is led to all truth. Jesus did not leave us as orphans to wander around, poking in the dark, hoping to get it right. The Mormon lack of faith in this matter, is the most telling thing of all about Mormonism. Mormonism NEEDS the failure of Christ’s Church, so it is manufactured from nothing.

There is nothing to restore. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the central Revelation of Christians. Not Joseph Smith or any other number of people who have claimed to be prophet-usurpers, through the ages.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Mormon Church has always claimed a change in doctrine as a sign of the Great Apostasy. And Tom does too; or not when it is convenient.
…
TOmNossor;975060:

The above are the areas in which I think Catholic doctrine development is attackable toward showing an apostasy.

Stephen,
You had to specifically delete part of that quote to make it say something different than I was saying, at least there (I do not find it worthless to point to ECF who taught things LDS are condemned for believing today, but that is different than saying ORTHODOXY is a LDS principle).
So, in the thread you reference, I question if there is any real “preservation of tradition” in Catholicism. “Development” is a nice word for CHANGE. Newman’s essay was specifically condemned by an American scholar at the request of 1-3 Bishops. Newman’s essay was received with suspicion at the Vatican. Development is Catholic orthodoxy now, but it was not obviously so in the 19th century.
After pointing this out, the full quote (all on the same line):

The above are the areas in which I think Catholic doctrine development is attackable toward showing an apostasy. Is there an internal contradiction?

My point is that Catholicism DEVELOPS sometimes in ways that have virtually no (or totally no) “early anticipation.” In the thread you quote from I stated:

It is absolutely true that the CoJCoLDS has changed its teachings. This shifting may also be examined to determine its effect upon LDS truth claims. I however suggest that the CoJCoLDS CLAIMS to be able to change and thus change does not create an internal contradiction.

And of course we are back to who can receive revelation to be delivered to the entire world. The Old Testament Prophets, yes; The New Testament Apostles, yes; The Restoration Testament Apostle/Prophets, yes; The Catholic Pope/Leaders, no.
People without preconceptions concerning the CoJCoLDS and Christian Churches, receive the above with nods of understanding. It is simple and clear. Being simple and clear does not make it right, I acknowledge; but in the details it is IMO quite STRONG.
That the “preservations of tradition” is part of Catholicism and that I know of many places where such a test APPEARS to show Catholicism does not preserve Tradition, is another issue. It is harder to demonstrate the Catholicism does not preserver Tradition (especially after Newman) than it is to show that Catholicism lacks “revelation to be delivered to the world.” One thing I think is clear, it would be an ineffective argument to say that Catholicism has supernaturally protected the deposit of faith without CHANGING it. Instead Catholics must constantly build apologetic responses to the many places where they APPEAR to have changed.
Charity, TOm

 

[Tarquin]

All the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

1 Cor. 12:28
KJ: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”

The KJV at lds.org:
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”

Several Mormon denominations (Mormons who recognize administrative heads other than Thomas Monson) are structured in harmony with this passage of scripture. Their apostles are the top administrators. They would agree with the Catholic belief that no one comes between Christ and the apostles.

Peter’s successor could not have been an apostle because he did not witness the resurrection or were sent out (apostles) by Christ. Linus could not receive revelation because Christ no longer walked the earth. Linus could have wrote scripture, had visions, or been a prophet, but it was not a requirement of his position as the Bishop of Rome and holder of the keys.

The Mormon Church originally claimed the Apostasy to have taken place in 570 AD. This means at that time all the Popes would have been rightful leaders of the Church. Mormons would have accepted the trinity as defined at the Council of Nicaea, which they did until Joseph Smith led them into apostasy.

I believe the Mormon Church had to push back the date of the apostasy when they discovered there was too much written from 50AD to 570AD which proved Mormonism wrong as they moved away from Christianity. At some point, after the death of Joseph Smith, they decided it happened with the death of the last Apostle, and made up the story about a Church led by an apostle, prophet, and revelator,

I suspect that Mormons only taught that apostles were also prophets after Brigham Young had himself ordained president of the Church. Even the Articles of Faith list apostles before prophets: *“We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.” * Not too long after that declaration by Joseph Smith, he claimed and exercised more and more authority in the Church, so that it was recognized that a (Mormon) prophet is *de facto *“higher” than an apostle.

Since Mormons argue that the lesser cannot ordain the greater, when it was decided to ordain Young to something higher than an apostle, it became necessary to imbue the (Mormon) apostles with a power or authority at least equal to that of a prophet. Justifying the act, but further confusing the members.

 

[Stephen168]

The Mormon Church has always claimed a change in doctrine as a sign of the Great Apostasy. And Tom does too; or not when it is convenient.

You had to specifically delete part of that quote to make it say something different than I was saying, at least there

I don’t think I did. I’ll leave it the interested reader to decide. My point about Mormon teaching stands.

 

[XuDan]

I believe the Mormon Church had to push back the date of the apostasy when they discovered there was too much written from 50AD to 570AD which proved Mormonism wrong as they moved away from Christianity. At some point, after the death of Joseph Smith, they decided it happened with the death of the last Apostle, and made up the story about a Church led by an apostle, prophet, and revelator,

Even here, the LDS claim is defeated by their claim that John never died. If John never died, then the apostasy could never of happened upon the death of the last apostle.

Source 1

And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people. (D&C 7:1-3)

Source 2

Source 3

During this conference [in Kirtland, OH, June 3, 1831] a significant new office was conferred upon a number of the brethren, that of high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Prophet Joseph Smith received the spirit of prophecy and prophesied that John the Revelator was among the ten tribes preparing them to return from their long dispersion. (See History of the Church, 1:175–76).

So, if the claim is that the apostasy is contingent upon the death of the last Apostle, then there never was an apostasy if their claim of John’s “power over death” is correct. Further, the claim suggests that John would have permitted the Church established by Christ to wither and corrupt thus being derelict in his duties as an apostle!

No matter how you look at the LDS claim, it is self defeating, and falls apart.

 

[kimg901]

I see some points at which my thesis is challenged.

Wasn’t Jesus the FINAL revelation?
The Catholic Church came to that understanding in the ABSENCE of revelation, but did not have that understanding for quite a while.
Many books were purported to be inspired that were written after the Apostles. The Shepard of Hermas was one of the most widely accepted as inspired and was called divine by Clement of Alexandria and quoted by Irenaeus in the same way as scripture was quoted. It was widely read in churches. Other writings were treated as scripture less widely.
Tertullian was quite clear that revelation continued. His “Catholic” and some of his post “Catholic” writings and his intellect were respected and are respected to this day. “Continuing revelation” in the 2nd Century lead to Tertullian’s departure from what Catholics call the church.
Pope Eluetherius also initial approved of continuing revelation, but later rejected it at least in the specific continuing revelations of Montanism.
Aside from how the Bible is NOW interpreted there are no writings that claim revelation ended for over a century after Christ’s resurrection.
Note: I have no intention of defending Montanus revelation in its content. I only include it to illustrate that the Catholic Church decided LATE that revelation ended. It was not like the Apostles made it CLEAR that revelation was to end.
So, as I said, I understand the response of Catholics. If revelation ended, it took the church a long time to “figure it out.” I think the historical record shows most clearly that the absence of revelation that is considered authentic by “the church” leads to the understanding that revelation ceased; not that God planned and “the church” understood revelation would cease. At the very least, “the church” didn’t UNDERSTAND. I submit that the church that became Catholic didn’t receive revelation and feared revelation purportedly received by others SO they declared revelation ceased. Tertullian criticizes the Catholic Church for just this “lack of spirit.” His criticism IMO is well founded. The Catholic Church MUST believe that revelation ceased and would NEVER continue else the Catholic Church is not God’s church because revelation DID cease for Catholic leaders (again for revelation the purpose of leading Christ’s Church).

Have you read 1st Clement or any one of dozens of Catholic apologetic works? I go from Moses to Peter because they have “Chairs” in Catholic thought. Christ is the God-Man. LDS like the Early Church recognize the unique place of Christ, but do not believe that revelation to the entire world was to end with Christ. Catholics came to this understanding LATE and I suggest because there was something missing that needed to be restored.
Concerning “centrality of doctrine.” I referenced the “Brother Brown story.” He taught something considered ridiculous, but Joseph Smith defended his right to teach and believe as Brother Brown saw fit. Another resent thread here points out that there is no equivalent to the CCC in the CoJCoLDS. I also have a great deal of experience with different theological positions in the CoJCoLDS. I appreciate Tarquin’s experience and how he might interpret that to be an “intolerantance” or to be tight control of doctrine. But I see it very differently. There has been an effort to create a consistency in teaching and thus some consistency in belief. But, there has been little debate about what theological positions define as “orthodox” and an attempt to remove folks who claim to believe differently from the CoJCoLDS. Publically teaching the brethren are wrong is a cause for concern, but “right belief” is not often an issue.
And the “centrality of doctrine” or lack of “centrality of doctrine” does not undermine my thesis that it is about revelation anyway.
Charity, TOm

Another word fit from Tom You didn’t answer my questions Tom. You picked out a sentence and disregarded the rest. Typical Mormon tactic.

 

[kimg901]

I don’t think I did. I’ll leave it the interested reader to decide. My point about Mormon teaching stands.

I know you didn’t. Just like he did mine and yours (Picking a sentence and leaving the rest out). Hypocrite maybe? Jesus taught us about men like this