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

[Stephen168]

The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:6)

Joseph Smith changed it in his version to read 1260 years so it would literally be years and not metaphorical years. Then they did the math 1830-1260=570AD.

 

[TOmNossor]

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

If I didn’t answer your question I didn’t mean to fail. I choose not answer what I will say to Christ on judgment day, but if that was what I neglected to answer then I would be willing to think about it.
I thought your message and Rebecca’s message was that Christ was the “final revelation” and that it is obvious that there would be no more revelation after Christ. Perhaps you were more interested in something I considered tangential. I commented on Catholic understanding. I said concerning “Christ being 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).

…

As long as you agree with all I said here I could perhaps explore the other directions possible from your post, but this was the most Catholic of your points (or so I though) that is why I addressed it. And what I claim above is all that I think needs to be true to point strongly toward my thesis EVEN when Catholics claim, “but Christ is the final revelation, obviously there will be no more revelation.”
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

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).

See post #33

 

[kimg901]

If I didn’t answer your question I didn’t mean to fail. I choose not answer what I will say to Christ on judgment day, but if that was what I neglected to answer then I would be willing to think about it.
I thought your message and Rebecca’s message was that Christ was the “final revelation” and that it is obvious that there would be no more revelation after Christ. Perhaps you were more interested in something I considered tangential. I commented on Catholic understanding. I said concerning “Christ being 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).

…

As long as you agree with all I said here I could perhaps explore the other directions possible from your post, but this was the most Catholic of your points (or so I though) that is why I addressed it. And what I claim above is all that I think needs to be true to point strongly toward my thesis EVEN when Catholics claim, “but Christ is the final revelation, obviously there will be no more revelation.”
Charity, TOm

Okay Tom, lets say revelation did not cease after Christ. Your prophets claim to receive revelation from God today as well as when Smith claimed to receive it (face to face) read here eom.byu.edu/index.php/Revelation.
Then why are such revelations from God used as doctrine then dismissed as “opinion” by your own church? If it’s received from the H.S then it must be good and true (according to the link I posted) but then dismissed when it sheds a bad light on your church and it reveals things not found in the Bible?

 

[Stephen168]

Okay Tom, lets say revelation did not cease after Christ. Your prophets claim to receive revelation from God today as well as when Smith claimed to receive it (face to face) read here eom.byu.edu/index.php/Revelation.
Then why are such revelations from God used as doctrine then dismissed as “opinion” by your own church? If it’s received from the H.S then it must be good and true (according to the link I posted) but then dismissed when it sheds a bad light on your church and it reveals things not found in the Bible?

1. Mormon Church claims changing doctrine is a sign of the Apostasy.
2. The Mormon Church fails in its ability to maintain dogma.
3. Tom’s proselyting efforts are strained.
   Therefore Tom must claim the Mormon Church rejects 2).

-OR-

1. Mormon Church claims changing doctrine is a sign of the Apostasy.
2. Tom claims the Catholic Church changed doctrine.
3. The Mormon Church fails in its ability to maintain dogma.
   Therefore Tom must claim the Mormon Church rejects 3) and the hypocrisy of maintaining 1 and 3 at the same time.

 

[kimg901]

1. **Mormon Church claims changing doctrine is a sign of the Apostasy.
   **2) The Mormon Church fails in its ability to maintain dogma
2. Tom’s proselyting efforts are strained.
   Therefore Tom must claim the Mormon Church rejects 2).

Then it would be safe to say their church has fallen into an apostasy shortly after is was founded? Yes, his proselyting is straining. I also think the Mormon church fails in all regards. It’s a business where the workers pay to go to work.

 

[kimg901]

Tom, your writing a lot of words may impress the less informed and gullible but not here friend. I know you are trying to come to Christ (and it’s not your fault you have been led astray) but that’s up to you to find it. Let me explain something about myself. I used to loathe God. I didn’t want anything to do with Him or Christ. I fell away for many years but I would still get a good feeling when I helped people (burning feeling) but I knew it was just human nature, not God. The feelings I have now are not of a burning feeling but an overwhelming from God. Don’t be deceived in what you feel and what you think you feel. I hope you do find Christ, but the right way!

 

[Tarquin]

The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:6)

Joseph Smith changed it in his version to read 1260 years so it would literally be years and not metaphorical years. Then they did the math 1830-1260=570AD.

Ah-ha, that proves the Apostasy!

Actually, Stephen168, I was enlightened by your post and was thanking you. Thank you for the details.

 

[Stephen168]

Then it would be safe to say their church has fallen into an apostasy shortly after is was founded? Yes, his proselyting is straining. I also think the Mormon church fails in all regards. It’s a business where the workers pay to go to work.

Yes, Joseph Smith lead his people into apostasy when he changed who God is. This is a change in dogma.

 

[XuDan]

Yes, Joseph Smith lead his people into apostasy when he changed who God is. This is a change in dogma.

For the sake of argument, let’s play with the idea that Smith did bring about a “restoration,” the problem for the LDS still exist by their own logic. If a change in dogma is an indicator of apostasy, then the LDS church has fallen victim to the same thing they accuse the Catholic church of. The LDS church of today doesn’t believe, practice, or express/teach their faith in any way that would be recognized by the members of the Smith/Young era. In fact, the things that Smith and Young taught and practiced are heretical to contemporary LDS and would result in excommunication if pursued by members today. So even if Smith lead a “restoration” as claimed, the LDS of today are apostates to the “restoration” as “revealed” by Smith and Young.

 

[kimg901]

For the sake of argument, let’s play with the idea that Smith did bring about a “restoration,” the problem for the LDS still exist by their own logic. If a change in dogma is an indicator of apostasy, then the LDS church has fallen victim to the same thing they accuse the Catholic church of. The LDS church of today doesn’t believe, practice, or express/teach their faith in any way that would be recognized by the members of the Smith/Young era. In fact, the things that Smith and Young taught and practiced are heretical to contemporary LDS and would result in excommunication if pursued by members today. So even if Smith lead a “restoration” as claimed, the LDS of today are apostates to the “restoration” as “revealed” by Smith and Young.

But aren’t a lot of what was taught by Smith/Young still “doctrine” or at least still in their books? They are just not taught openly to the masses?

 

[Stephen168]

For the sake of argument, let’s play with the idea that Smith did bring about a “restoration,” the problem for the LDS still exist by their own logic. If a change in dogma is an indicator of apostasy, then the LDS church has fallen victim to the same thing they accuse the Catholic church of. The LDS church of today doesn’t believe, practice, or express/teach their faith in any way that would be recognized by the members of the Smith/Young era. In fact, the things that Smith and Young taught and practiced are heretical to contemporary LDS and would result in excommunication if pursued by members today. So even if Smith lead a “restoration” as claimed, the LDS of today are apostates to the “restoration” as “revealed” by Smith and Young.

:thumbsup:Exactly!

 

[TOmNossor]

See post #33

Stephen168,
I had already read post #33 and I just re-read it. I think this might be some of our disconnect that we frequently experience.
Post #33 is built upon interpretation of scripture not shared/understood by the folks I referenced in my post. Tertullian, Pope Eluetherius, the majority of the church that considered the Shepard inspired, the numerous folks who considered the Epistle of Barnabas inspired, … these folks had the books of the Bible. Tertullian is one of the Father’s used to show how widespread quoting of scripture was. But the Church did not understand that revelation would end. They didn’t claim it had ended. They didn’t read those scriptures as the Catholic Church does today.
So my thought on Post #33 was that I had already anticipated it when in post #32 I said:

Aside from how the Bible is NOW interpreted there are no writings that claim revelation ended for over a century after Christ’s resurrection.

Thus I didn’t think I need to respond to past #33. You are welcome to your modern interpretation of the Bible, but I am point to the understanding folks like Pope Eluertherius and Tertullian had!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Okay Tom, lets say revelation did not cease after Christ. Your prophets claim to receive revelation from God today as well as when Smith claimed to receive it (face to face) read here eom.byu.edu/index.php/Revelation.
Then why are such revelations from God used as doctrine then dismissed as “opinion” by your own church? If it’s received from the H.S then it must be good and true (according to the link I posted) but then dismissed when it sheds a bad light on your church and it reveals things not found in the Bible?

Your text does not say that “face to face” is the ONLY way to receive revelation.
I just do not expect perfection from human vessels whether they receive revelation on a subject, “face to face,” “receiving the still small voice of the Holy Spirit,” in the 9 other ways mentioned in your link OR if they express an idea not received via revelation from any of the 11 ways.
And again, doctrine/theology are less important than guidance for the church so that individuals can enter into a relationship with God.
But, if you “say revelation did not cease after Christ,” you can deal with whatever problems exist within the CoJCoLDS however you might, but you cannot be Catholic because there is no more revelation to be delivered to the entire world!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

1. Mormon Church claims changing doctrine is a sign of the Apostasy.
2. The Mormon Church fails in its ability to maintain dogma.
3. Tom’s proselyting efforts are strained.
   Therefore Tom must claim the Mormon Church rejects 2).

-OR-

1. Mormon Church claims changing doctrine is a sign of the Apostasy.
2. Tom claims the Catholic Church changed doctrine.
3. The Mormon Church fails in its ability to maintain dogma.
   Therefore Tom must claim the Mormon Church rejects 3) and the hypocrisy of maintaining 1 and 3 at the same time.

Let me try this very briefly.

1. When the Catholic Church CHANGES dogma they violate Catholic teachings concerning “preservation of tradition.” If this can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, Catholicism ceases to have any chance of being God’s Church.
2. When the CoJCoLDS changes teachings on a subject, you can criticize this and maybe it is a problem, but since “preservation of tradition” is not a LDS doctrine, our change/development has much less impact upon the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
3. When the CoJCoLDS is criticized for teaching doctrine xyz, and then in the 20th century the doctrine xyz is the subject of numerous books pointing to its belief by the Early Church this has 2 effects. First, the criticism is unfounded and may be dismissed as such. Second, the existence of such a doctrine in the 1840’s requires explanation and “God as the source” becomes more likely than it was before.
4. 1-3 does not mean that LDS emphasize ORTHDOXY like Catholics do. Nothing in 1-3 is inconsistent with a lack of emphasis upon ORTHDOXY.
   Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

Your text does not say that “face to face” is the ONLY way to receive revelation.
I know it doesnt
I just do not expect perfection from human vessels whether they receive revelation on a subject, “face to face,” “receiving the still small voice of the Holy Spirit,” in the 9 other ways mentioned in your link OR if they express an idea not received via revelation from any of the 11 ways.
Neither do I expect perfection from sinners. But ideas pop into peoples minds all the time. They don’t make it a revelation
And again, doctrine/theology are less important than guidance for the church so that individuals can enter into a relationship with God.
Less important? Then how does one receive guidance without doctrine/theology spoken from Christ himself?
But, if you “say revelation did not cease after Christ,” you can deal with whatever problems exist within the CoJCoLDS however you might, but you cannot be Catholic because there is no more revelation to be delivered to the entire world!
Of course I can be Catholic. Jesus himself told me to protect His Church in one of my visions. And again you are twisting things. I was asking a question if revelation did not cease after Christ how does your church continue to say it’s true when lds revelations are always said to be opinion rather than the doctrine they came from when they don’t make your church look good?
Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

Let me try this very briefly.

1. When the Catholic Church CHANGES dogma they violate Catholic teachings concerning “preservation of tradition.” If this can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, Catholicism ceases to have any chance of being God’s Church.
2. When the CoJCoLDS changes teachings on a subject, you can criticize this and maybe it is a problem, but since “preservation of tradition” is not a LDS doctrine, our change/development has much less impact upon the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
3. When the CoJCoLDS is criticized for teaching doctrine xyz, and then in the 20th century the doctrine xyz is the subject of numerous books pointing to its belief by the Early Church this has 2 effects. First, the criticism is unfounded and may be dismissed as such. Second, the existence of such a doctrine in the 1840’s requires explanation and “God as the source” becomes more likely than it was before.
4. 1-3 does not mean that LDS emphasize ORTHDOXY like Catholics do. Nothing in 1-3 is inconsistent with a lack of emphasis upon ORTHDOXY.
   Charity, TOm

Tom, please quote or show references that the C.C has or changed dogma(s)? And as for #3, none of your doctrine comes from the early church, your church has changed it to make it look as if it always was there. There is a word for this that escapes me at this moment. For #1, you would call God and Jesus a failure? They let mortal men destroy their Church? Wow!!!

 

[Stephen168]

So, I know that a pope or a Cardinal/Saint/Doctor can be theologically mistaken even concerning faith and morals (or in this case concerning the content of what is “faith and morals.”

Stephen168,
I had already read post #33 and I just re-read it. I think this might be some of our disconnect that we frequently experience.
Post #33 is built upon interpretation of scripture not shared/understood by the folks I referenced in my post. Tertullian, Pope Eluetherius, the majority of the church that considered the Shepard inspired, the numerous folks who considered the Epistle of Barnabas inspired, … these folks had the books of the Bible. Tertullian is one of the Father’s used to show how widespread quoting of scripture was. But the Church did not understand that revelation would end. They didn’t claim it had ended. They didn’t read those scriptures as the Catholic Church does today.
So my thought on Post #33 was that I had already anticipated it when in post #32 I said:

Thus I didn’t think I need to respond to past #33. You are welcome to your modern interpretation of the Bible, but I am point to the understanding folks like Pope Eluertherius and Tertullian had!

I thought I would point out your dishonesty as I did in post #31. You know that quote mining does nothing to prove the teaching of the Church. The disconnect is caused by your dishonesty.

The reason you cannot respond to post #33 is because it is based on the Christian New Testament which Mormons reject. The New Testament clearly says that Jesus Christ is The revelation; the Word of God. When he ascended into heaven the Church knew there would be no more revelation.

Mormon “revelation” historically is guys making up stuff until it is proven wrong and then they make up more stuff, that is why Mormon Doctrine changes; each new president wants to be free to make up his own stuff. AND changing Doctrine according to Mormonism is a sign of the Great Apostasy.

 

[Stephen168]

1. Mormon Church claims changing doctrine is a sign of the Apostasy.

LDS.com:

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

The most important of the internal causes by which the apostasy of the Primitive Church was brought about may be thus summarized: (1) The corrupting of the simple doctrines of the gospel of Christ by admixture with so-called philosophic systems. (2) Unauthorized additions to the prescribed rites of the Church and the introduction of vital alterations in essential ordinances. (3) Unauthorized changes in Church organization and government (Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 748–49).

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

1. Tom claims the Catholic Church changed doctrine.

**When **

the Catholic Church CHANGES dogma they violate Catholic teachings concerning “preservation of tradition.” If this can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, Catholicism ceases to have any chance of being God’s Church.

You have NEVER proved the Catholic Church has changed any Dogma ever.

1. The Mormon Church fails in its ability to maintain dogma.

TOmNossor;12952059:

1. When the CoJCoLDS changes teachings on a subject, you can criticize this and maybe it is a problem, but since “preservation of tradition” is not a LDS doctrine, our change/development has much less impact upon the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
2. When the CoJCoLDS is criticized for teaching doctrine xyz, and then in the 20th century the doctrine xyz is the subject of numerous books pointing to its belief by the Early Church this has 2 effects. First, the criticism is unfounded and may be dismissed as such. Second, the existence of such a doctrine in the 1840’s requires explanation and “God as the source” becomes more likely than it was before.

Yes, You can call it teaching, doctrine or anything you like, but the fact is the Mormon Church changes dogma.

Therefore Tom must claim the Mormon Church rejects 3) and the hypocrisy of maintaining 1 and 3 at the same time.

Tom, you proved my point. The hypocrisy continues.

 

[Stephen168]

Ah-ha, that proves the Apostasy!

Actually, Stephen168, I was enlightened by your post and was thanking you. Thank you for the details.

And this is from the founding ‘prophet’ whose words and ONLY his words are the foundation of Mormonism. When the Apostasy took place would be dogma, like who God is, and the priesthood ban but they changed.