Apostasy and Restoration in Mormonism (Mainly for Gabriel!)

[zerinus]

I am starting this thread primarily in response to Gabriel’s thread, which I hadn’t been able to respond to before.

Hi Gabriel!

Sorry I hadn’t replied to your thread before. That was because in order to do so I needed to write a lengthy treatise, which required more effort than I was willing to expend on it at that time. But during the past week I had more time to spend, and I decided to make the effort to write it. Feel free to continue the discussion here, as the other thread seems to have gone astray, and run out of steam. The answer to you question is given in this post here:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/apostasy-and-restoration.html

It is a lengthy article; so make sure you read it all before replying, because in it I have tried to address all the common objections to the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy that I could think of—unless you can come up with some new ones that I hadn’t thought of before. Anyways, read it and give me your answers. Others can comment too if they wish.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I am starting this thread primarily in response to Gabriel’s thread, which I hadn’t been able to respond to before.

Hi Gabriel!

Sorry I hadn’t replied to your thread before. That was because in order to do so I needed to write a lengthy treatise, which required more effort than I was willing to expend on it at that time. But during the past week I had more time to spend, and I decided to make the effort to write it. Feel free to continue the discussion here, as the other thread seems to have gone astray, and run out of steam. The answer to you question is given in this post here:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/apostasy-and-restoration.html

It is a lengthy article; so make sure you read it all before replying, because in it I have tried to address all the common objections to the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy that I could think of—unless you can come up with some new ones that I hadn’t thought of before. Anyways, read it and give me your answers. Others can comment too if they wish.

zerinus

Bump for Gabriel, or anybody else who might be interested.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

Glad that you are back. I thought that you were heading for a banning. Hopefully people will respond to your thread.

 

[zerinus]

Glad that you are back. I thought that you were heading for a banning.

No, I was just in limbo!

zerinus

 

[why_me]

No, I was just in limbo!

zerinus

Now be good. I don’t want you to suddenly disappear. Now lets hope people will discuss your OP.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t think it had to be that long. The salient points are:

1. Apostasy is the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church, which resulted in the loss of the ability to communicate directly with God, and to lead the church by revelation, as it used to be while the Twelve Apostles were still on the earth.
2. It was never intended that the institution of the Twelve Apostles should be done away with.
3. The bishops were never intended to be successors to the Apostles.
4. John the Revelator (the last Apostle) is believed to have continued in the church until around 90 AD, I would put the date of the Apostasy at the close of the first century. By the end of the first century the Apostasy was complete.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[zerinus]

I don’t think it had to be that long. The salient points are:

1. Apostasy is the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church, which resulted in the loss of the ability to communicate directly with God, and to lead the church by revelation, as it used to be while the Twelve Apostles were still on the earth.
2. It was never intended that the institution of the Twelve Apostles should be done away with.
3. The bishops were never intended to be successors to the Apostles.
4. John the Revelator (the last Apostle) is believed to have continued in the church until around 90 AD, I would put the date of the Apostasy at the close of the first century. By the end of the first century the Apostasy was complete.

Does that about sum it up?

Well, that is the bare skeleton of it. The problem is that if I gave them just that, then they would ask me all those questions that I have already answered, or raise all those objections that I have already addressed. The idea of making it that long and comprehensive was to preempt all those questions and objections before they were asked or raised. I have been here longer than you, and have already addressed or answered those questions many times before. It gets a bit tedious to have to address them again and again.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I don’t think it had to be that long. The salient points are:

1. Apostasy is the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church, which resulted in the loss of the ability to communicate directly with God, and to lead the church by revelation, as it used to be while the Twelve Apostles were still on the earth.
2. It was never intended that the institution of the Twelve Apostles should be done away with.
3. The bishops were never intended to be successors to the Apostles.
4. John the Revelator (the last Apostle) is believed to have continued in the church until around 90 AD, I would put the date of the Apostasy at the close of the first century. By the end of the first century the Apostasy was complete.

Does that about sum it up?

The only other thing that I would add to your “summing up” is that,

1. In Christianity, during the history of its existence (which means mainly Catholic, but also Orthodox and Protestant) there have been many genuine, faithful, and believing Christians in the world who have had a true saving faith in Christ, with a desire to abide by His precepts. These people have constituted God’s true Church, and they are saved.

We don’t believe that the influence of the Catholic Church has been wholly evil, or even mostly evil in the world. We think it has been mostly good. We are not like the Protestants who believe that the Catholic Church is evil and the Church of the devil and all that. We believe that all churches have done some good, and the Catholic Church has done so more than most. We believe that in general, the influence of Christianity in the world during the history of its existence, has on balance been good, not evil. The Apostasy as we define it has not prevented it from doing that.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

The only other thing that I would add to your “summing up” is that,

1. In Christianity, during the history of its existence (which means mainly Catholic, but also Orthodox and Protestant) there have been many genuine, faithful, and believing Christians in the world who have had a true saving faith in Christ, with a desire to abide by His precepts. These people have constituted God’s true Church, and they are saved.

We don’t believe that the influence of the Catholic Church has been wholly evil, or even mostly evil in the world. We think it has been mostly good. We are not like the Protestants who believe that the Catholic Church is evil and the Church of the devil and all that. We believe that all churches have done some good, and the Catholic Church has done so more than most. We believe that in general, the influence of Christianity in the world during the history of its existence, has on balance been good, not evil. The Apostasy as we define it has not prevented it from doing that.

zerinus

That is a very recent innovation in Mormonism. Until the last few years, Mormon leaders railed against the apostate Catholic and Protestant churches as Satan’s servants. Even the pre-1990 temple endowment characterized the Christian clergy as being employees of Satan.

I remember that great line in “A Marvelous Work and A Wonder” by LeGrand Richards (required reading for missionaries back in the day) that read “Under cover of darkness, the Roman Catholic Church continued its fungoid growth.”

Yeah, they like us a lot. :nope:

Paul

 

[Stephen168]

So it seems to me that the simple arguments turns on point number two: “It was never intended that the institution of the Twelve Apostles should be done away with.”

If the Institution of Apostle was designed to be temporary, then the argument would turn to finding LDS, SDA, Catholic, or maybe Disciples of Christ Dogmas in the first century church.

 

[PaulDupre]

So it seems to me that the simple arguments turns on point number two: "It was never intended that the institution of the Twelve Apostles should be done away with.

That’s a simple point to refute. Just study Acts chapter 1. It outlines the specific requirements to be one of the twelve. No modern man can possibly meet those requirements.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

• Acts 1:21-22

Paul

 

[zerinus]

So it seems to me that the simple arguments turns on point number two: “It was never intended that the institution of the Twelve Apostles should be done away with.”

That is a bit of an oversimplification. You seem to be fond of oversimplifications. The “simple argument” turns on the numerous scriptural passages both prophesying of, and/or detailing the Apostasy. If you really want to oversimplify it still more, I will show you an even better way. There was an Apostasy because we know that Mormonism is true! The truth of Mormonism is not dependent on establishing independently the truth of the Apostasy. I have discussed that in another one of my Blog posts here. Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument I will grant your premise. I will accept that the argument centers on the perpetuity of the council of the Twelve Apostles. I want to see you are going to develop that line of argument.

If the Institution of Apostle was designed to be temporary, then the argument would turn to finding LDS, SDA, Catholic, or maybe Disciples of Christ Dogmas in the first century church.

That was not very clear. You need to explain that a bit better for me to understand.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

I read *The Great Apostasy *by James E. Talmage. The two things I was hoping to find in his work were a definition and a date. I started to reread The Great Apostasy when I found what might have been his definition, “the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only.” This definition seems to match yours so I will take it as the LDS definition of Apostasy. Now I know what we are talking about.

The definition and the date are required and related. To use the Rome Fell Analogy. You state, “For example, when did the Roman Empire fall? Ask two different historians that question, and you may get two different answers.” That is because there are many definitions of “Rome Falling.” Is your definition: the Empire splitting in two (395), the western Empire falling to a Germanic King (476), the eastern Empire falling to the Ottoman Empire (1453), or the complete and total destruction of the city of Rome (never)? We do know; it just depends on your definition.

The LDS definition of Apostasy is a statement of faith and could never be proved or disproved. What brings this definition into a factual/historical context is the Twelve Apostles. The Keys are the power and authority, the Apostles held the keys; so no Apostles, no keys, no authority. That is why this is “The Argument.”

An example:
If a group defined Christianity as people filled with the Holy Spirit. That would just be a faith statement. But if the group also declared that regular church attendance was proof of being filled with Holy Spirit. This is something factual. The group could say that Christopher Columbus was not Christian because he was not filled with the Holy Spirit, and we know that because he never went to church. Now we can argue Columbus’ status as a Christian but the only thing worthy of discussion is his church attendance. Whether he was filled with the Holy Spirit could never be proved or disproved.

 

[zerinus]

I want to see you are going to develop that line of argument.

Sorry. I meant to say,

I want to see how you are going to develop that line of argument.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I read *The Great Apostasy *by James E. Talmage. The two things I was hoping to find in his work were a definition and a date. I started to reread The Great Apostasy when I found what might have been his definition, “the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only.” This definition seems to match yours so I will take it as the LDS definition of Apostasy. Now I know what we are talking about.

The definition and the date are required and related. To use the Rome Fell Analogy. You state, “For example, when did the Roman Empire fall? Ask two different historians that question, and you may get two different answers.” That is because there are many definitions of “Rome Falling.” Is your definition: the Empire splitting in two (395), the western Empire falling to a Germanic King (476), the eastern Empire falling to the Ottoman Empire (1453), or the complete and total destruction of the city of Rome (never)? We do know; it just depends on your definition.

The LDS definition of Apostasy is a statement of faith and could never be proved or disproved. What brings this definition into a factual/historical context is the Twelve Apostles. The Keys are the power and authority, the Apostles held the keys; so no Apostles, no keys, no authority. That is why this is “The Argument.”

An example:
If a group defined Christianity as people filled with the Holy Spirit. That would just be a faith statement. But if the group also declared that regular church attendance was proof of being filled with Holy Spirit. This is something factual. The group could say that Christopher Columbus was not Christian because he was not filled with the Holy Spirit, and we know that because he never went to church. Now we can argue Columbus’ status as a Christian but the only thing worthy of discussion is his church attendance. Whether he was filled with the Holy Spirit could never be proved or disproved.

OK, and your point?

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

The purpose of being an Apostle and of course a major qualification to be an Apostle was to be a witness to the resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:22). In addition, they were required to have been in the company of the twelve while the Lord was on earth (Acts1:21).

Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon ( the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot.

Judas was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:21-26). James the Greater (Acts 12:2) was replaced by Simeon (the Apostle/Zealot/son of Alphaeus) (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3.32).
Additional Apostles: Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14)
Andronicus (Romans 16:7)
James (Galatians 1:19)

I count at least 16 Apostles alive at the same time as witnesses to the resurrection. It seems to me that The Twelve were all Apostles, but not all Apostles were members of The Twelve. When there were no more witnesses there were no more Apostles. Just as there was no need to replace Christ after the crucifixion, the Apostles were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

Paul put it all together nicely in his letter to the Ephesians. In chapter two (19-22) he wrote, “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

The corner stone and foundation are laid once; upon which we build the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am starting this thread primarily in response to Gabriel’s thread, which I hadn’t been able to respond to before.

Hi Gabriel!

Sorry I hadn’t replied to your thread before. That was because in order to do so I needed to write a lengthy treatise, which required more effort than I was willing to expend on it at that time. But during the past week I had more time to spend, and I decided to make the effort to write it. Feel free to continue the discussion here, as the other thread seems to have gone astray, and run out of steam. The answer to you question is given in this post here:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/apostasy-and-restoration.html

It is a lengthy article; so make sure you read it all before replying, because in it I have tried to address all the common objections to the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy that I could think of—unless you can come up with some new ones that I hadn’t thought of before. Anyways, read it and give me your answers. Others can comment too if they wish.

zerinus

Well, well zerinus, I have read your commentary, I must confess it does not prove or disprove an apostacy. Your commentary has not answered the basic questions of an apostacy. I dont find an apostacy in your argument, only your opinion of an apostacy that never happened. You have used sacred scriptures to support your improved 18th century argument (opinion) of an apostacy that never occurred. I am disappointed with your proof, I was expecting some historical facts, names, historical events. All you have provided was an opinion that has no credence or historical support. Why is it that the Roman Catholic church posseses these first century documents of an apostacy, and you dont? This is what is disappointing. I cannot stay long here, before I Release to you the first century interpretations of your scriptures, and how they conflict with your present day interpretation. Could you provide some historical data to support your apostacy. If you can only give definitions to the word of apostacy, and not facts, why is any one believing this false doctrine?

I hope to discuss further
Peace be with you

 

[zerinus]

The purpose of being an Apostle and of course a major qualification to be an Apostle was to be a witness to the resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:22).

If by that you mean an immediate witness, then that would have exclude Paul, because he was not an immediate witness of Christ’s resurrection with the original disciples and the Twelve. But he was a witness nevertheless, because Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection to call him to the ministry, and at other times as well. In that sense of the term, no one can be excluded from becoming an Apostle, including a modern day Apostle, because he could become a “witness” of Christ’s resurrection in the same way that Paul had been. So that does not exclude any further or future Apostles.

In addition, they were required to have been in the company of the twelve while the Lord was on earth (Acts1:21).

If that were true, it would have excluded Paul altogether. But we know that it did not, therefore it cannot exclude any future Apostles.

Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon ( the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot.

Judas was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:21-26). James the Greater (Acts 12:2) was replaced by Simeon (the Apostle/Zealot/son of Alphaeus) (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3.32).

I have not studied that particular piece of information myself, so I cannot judge how reliable it is; but I will take your word for it that it is reliable. If so, that is only further proof that whenever a vacancy arose in the Twelve by the death of one of the members, someone was ordained to fill the vacancy in order to maintain the Quorum at Twelve. In other words, Judas/Matthias was not a unique case. This is only further proof that the Twelve were always meant to remain Twelve.

Additional Apostles: Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14)

This is an extremely questionable case. There is really no evidence that Barnabas was ordained an Apostle. The verse you are referring to is as follows:

Acts 14:

14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

This is the only instance where Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle; and it could have been done out of respect for his companionship of Paul; or the word could have been used in its literal sense meaning “sent”. There is no indication whatsoever in the Bible that Barnabas had been an ordained Apostle.

Andronicus (Romans 16:7)

This is even more questionable. The verse you are referring to is as follows:

Romans 16:

7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

“Of note among the apostles” means “reputable,” “noteworthy,” “of good report” among the Apostles. It does not mean that they were included within the circle of ordained Apostles.

James (Galatians 1:19)

This is the only one who appears might be genuine. I will accept that from you thus far.

I count at least 16 Apostles alive at the same time as witnesses to the resurrection. It seems to me that The Twelve were all Apostles, but not all Apostles were members of The Twelve.

I counted 14! And that can be explained by the fact that we know so little about the fate of the remaining Apostles. We know that they were sent to the far-flung parts of the earth to preach the gospel to “all nations,” and that the lives of all of them came to a violent end. It is not possible to prove that these latter Apostles were not ordained in order to fill a vacancy left by the death of the one of the other Apostles. But given the proven track record that a vacancy in the Twelve was always filled by ordaining a new member, the most plausible explanation is that these other ordinations were also made for the same purpose. We simply don’t know enough to make that determination. Case not proved “beyond reasonable doubt,” to use a legal term.

When there were no more witnesses there were no more Apostles.

Not true. God could make His own “witness,” as He did in the case of Paul.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Just as there was no need to replace Christ after the crucifixion, the Apostles were not replaced after their deaths.

Incorrect! Jesus was not dead that He should need to be “replaced”! He was God Omnipotent. He rose again on the third day, and continued to minister to His church thereafter as He had done before (Matthew 28:9-10, 16-18; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-30; John 21:4-25; Acts 1:3; Acts 9:5-6, 10-16; Acts 18:9-11; Acts 22:17-21; Acts 23:11; Acts 26:15-18). There was no need to replace Jesus!

If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

As I had stated, that office could not be maintained by the church because of the Apostasy. The bishops held an apostate priesthood, and the perpetuation of their office was not a legally valid one in the church.

Paul put it all together nicely in his letter to the Ephesians. In chapter two (19-22) he wrote, “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
The corner stone and foundation are laid once; upon which we build the Church.

The “cornerstone and foundation” were living prophets and living Apostles, not dead ones! That foundation was destroyed because of the Apostasy. I like this passage equally as much:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

All these offices are necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” not just some of them; and All of them are necessary in order that “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” not just some of them. That obviously includes the offices of “Apostles” and “prophets”. They were meant to continue, just as the offices of “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers” were meant to continue.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Well, well zerinus, I have read your commentary, I must confess it does not prove or disprove an apostacy. Your commentary has not answered the basic questions of an apostacy. I dont find an apostacy in your argument, only your opinion of an apostacy that never happened. You have used sacred scriptures to support your improved 18th century argument (opinion) of an apostacy that never occurred. I am disappointed with your proof, I was expecting some historical facts, names, historical events. All you have provided was an opinion that has no credence or historical support. Why is it that the Roman Catholic church posseses these first century documents of an apostacy, and you dont? This is what is disappointing. I cannot stay long here, before I Release to you the first century interpretations of your scriptures, and how they conflict with your present day interpretation. Could you provide some historical data to support your apostacy. If you can only give definitions to the word of apostacy, and not facts, why is any one believing this false doctrine?

I hope to discuss further
Peace be with you

Thank you. All I can say is that I am also disappointed with your response. I do not accept your assessment of my commentary. If that is the best that you can do, I don’t think there is an awful lot left for us to “discuss”.

zerinus