Apostasy and Restoration in Mormonism (Mainly for Gabriel!)

[J_C]

If you know him well, you might like to take a printout of this post (as well as your original questions), and show it to him, and see what answer he gives. If he disagrees, ask him to write it down for you and bring it here and we will talk about it.

zerinus

no i don’t know him at all, but only met recently and had a conversation of about a half hour. However I did find an article contained in the Encyclopeadia of Mormonism, written by a De Lamar Jensen, under the alphabetical listing Protestant Reformation.

this is the 2d paragraph in the article:

“LDS perspective regards the Potestant Reformation as a preparation for the more complete restoration of the gospel that commenced with Joseph Smith. Thus, the Protestant Reformation initiated a return to pure Christianity, a work that could not be completed without divine revelation and restoration. The leaders of the Reformation are honored as inspired men who made important progress, but without direct revelation they could not recover the true gospel or the priesthood authority to act in God’s name. That was the mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

this sounds almost exactly like what the gentle man explained to me. i believe this is the lds attitude he was referrring to. it does seem to differ just a hair from your own analysis, but not enough to argue about. As you say, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

the remainder of the fairly short article in the EoM deals mainly with how the Reformation ultimately created the social/political/religious setting in which mormonnism was born.

 

[zerinus]

no i don’t know him at all, but only met recently and had a conversation of about a half hour. However I did find an article contained in the Encyclopeadia of Mormonism, written by a De Lamar Jensen, under the alphabetical listing Protestant Reformation.

this is the 2d paragraph in the article:

“LDS perspective regards the Potestant Reformation as a preparation for the more complete restoration of the gospel that commenced with Joseph Smith. Thus, the Protestant Reformation initiated a return to pure Christianity, a work that could not be completed without divine revelation and restoration. The leaders of the Reformation are honored as inspired men who made important progress, but without direct revelation they could not recover the true gospel or the priesthood authority to act in God’s name. That was the mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

this sounds almost exactly like what the gentle man explained to me. i believe this is the lds attitude he was referrring to. it does seem to differ just a hair from your own analysis, but not enough to argue about. As you say, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

the remainder of the fairly short article in the EoM deals mainly with how the Reformation ultimately created the social/political/religious setting in which mormonnism was born.

Thank you. You are right; there are differences of opinion; but probably not a lot to argue about. I personally believe that LDS still tend to think that the Protestant Reformation was more of a good thing than it really was—for the reasons that I have already explained. They have come a long ways from the old days; but some of those old Protestant sentiments still linger on, as in that article you had quoted. Although the Reformation had some unintended but desirable consequences as I described; it had far more undesirable consequences that God could not have approved of. It led to terrible wars in Europe for many years, and much destruction and loss of millions of lives which God could not have been the author of. It also led to the corruption of Christianity with some serious false doctrines, the most serious of which must be the doctrine of “justification by faith alone without works”. Mormons still have a tendency to forget or overlook those things.

I suppose you could argue that the best contribution that the Protestant Reformation did to the Restoration was that they broke off from the Catholic Church! If they hadn’t done that, one could argue that we would have had to do it ourselves, which might not have been such an easy thing to do. But my personal opinion is that the Reformation could not have had God’s approval. In the divine scheme of things the end does not justify the means. God is omnipotent and is able to do His own work. He did not need the terrible consequences of the Reformation in order to bring about the Restoration. Assuming that the Reformation had not taken place, I am sure God would have been able to create the right environment in His own time and way to make possible the Restoration, without the terrible cost of a wrongheaded Reformation.

zerinus

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you. You are right; there are differences of opinion; but probably not a lot to argue about. I personally believe that LDS still tend to think that the Protestant Reformation was more of a good thing than it really was—for the reasons that I have already explained. They have come a long ways from the old days; but some of those old Protestant sentiments still linger on, as in that article you had quoted. Although the Reformation had some unintended but desirable consequences as I described; it had far more undesirable consequences that God could not have approved of. It led to terrible wars in Europe for many years, and much destruction and loss of millions of lives which God could not have been the author of. It also led to the corruption of Christianity with some serious false doctrines, the most serious of which must be the doctrine of “justification by faith alone without works”. Mormons still have a tendency to forget or overlook those things.

I suppose you could argue that the best contribution that the Protestant Reformation did to the Restoration was that they broke off from the Catholic Church! If they hadn’t done that, one could argue that we would have had to do it ourselves, which might not have been such an easy thing to do.

**Wait,wait a minute. zerinus, you are stating that the protestant reformation (which your founder was one before starting his own religion) justified your founder to start a religion outside of prostestantism, and was instrumental to your founder, by making it easier for your religion to apostacise from the 2000 year old Catholic faith?

What happened to your theory of an a Apostacy Catholic church before the prostestant revolt in the 16th century? Now you see why it would be difficult to converse an apostacy from Lies, when you dont have facts to back them up. Because eventually truth will expose you and will end up catching up to you.But judging by your founder and your false claims, I am sure you will find a way out of this snag, a snake always does.**

But my personal opinion is that the Reformation could not have had God’s approval. In the divine scheme of things the end does not justify the means. God is omnipotent and is able to do His own work. He did not need the terrible consequences of the Reformation in order to bring about the Restoration. Assuming that the Reformation had not taken place, I am sure God would have been able to create the right environment in His own time and way to make possible the Restoration, without the terrible cost of a wrongheaded Reformation.

**So now you agree that the Reformation was not of God? or was it? does your religion have a position on this? I hope to get an answer from you? Let’s face the facts, the reformation occurred, and is failing, and your religion was born from it. If I were you I would stay out of the reformation period, because any credence you give it or not. Will disqualify your false claim of a Christian Apostacy from the Catholic faith. The Reformation founders confirm that a 2000 year old Catholic faith still existed in the 16th century unchanged, because they all came from the Catholic faith.

But if I know the character of Lawyers and snakes, you will find some way to justify your mistake of supporting and or not supporting the reformation period. The reason the reformation is failing to this day is because your Mormonism exists from it, along with the other different denominations claiming christianity.

Peace be with you**

 

[zerinus]

Thank you. You are right; there are differences of opinion; but probably not a lot to argue about. I personally believe that LDS still tend to think that the Protestant Reformation was more of a good thing than it really was—for the reasons that I have already explained. They have come a long ways from the old days; but some of those old Protestant sentiments still linger on, as in that article you had quoted. Although the Reformation had some unintended but desirable consequences as I described; it had far more undesirable consequences that God could not have approved of. It led to terrible wars in Europe for many years, and much destruction and loss of millions of lives which God could not have been the author of. It also led to the corruption of Christianity with some serious false doctrines, the most serious of which must be the doctrine of “justification by faith alone without works”. Mormons still have a tendency to forget or overlook those things.

I suppose you could argue that the best contribution that the Protestant Reformation did to the Restoration was that they broke off from the Catholic Church! If they hadn’t done that, one could argue that we would have had to do it ourselves, which might not have been such an easy thing to do.

**Wait,wait a minute. zerinus, you are stating that the protestant reformation (which your founder was one before starting his own religion) justified your founder to start a religion outside of prostestantism, and was instrumental to your founder, by making it easier for your religion to apostacise from the 2000 year old Catholic faith?

What happened to your theory of an a Apostacy Catholic church before the prostestant revolt in the 16th century? Now you see why it would be difficult to converse an apostacy from Lies, when you dont have facts to back them up. Because eventually truth will expose you and will end up catching up to you.But judging by your founder and your false claims, I am sure you will find a way out of this snag, a snake always does.**

But my personal opinion is that the Reformation could not have had God’s approval. In the divine scheme of things the end does not justify the means. God is omnipotent and is able to do His own work. He did not need the terrible consequences of the Reformation in order to bring about the Restoration. Assuming that the Reformation had not taken place, I am sure God would have been able to create the right environment in His own time and way to make possible the Restoration, without the terrible cost of a wrongheaded Reformation.

**So now you agree that the Reformation was not of God? or was it? does your religion have a position on this? I hope to get an answer from you? Let’s face the facts, the reformation occurred, and is failing, and your religion was born from it. If I were you I would stay out of the reformation period, because any credence you give it or not. Will disqualify your false claim of a Christian Apostacy from the Catholic faith. The Reformation founders confirm that a 2000 year old Catholic faith still existed in the 16th century unchanged, because they all came from the Catholic faith.

But if I know the character of Lawyers and snakes, you will find some way to justify your mistake of supporting and or not supporting the reformation period. The reason the reformation is failing to this day is because your Mormonism exists from it, along with the other different denominations claiming christianity.

Peace be with you**

Thank you for your contribution; but to be honest, I find your entire thought process so illogical, and your reasoning process so disjointed and lacking any reason that it is impossible to ague with. Sorry, but I have nothing further to say to your post.

zerinus

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you for your contribution; but to be honest, I find your entire thought process so illogical, and your reasoning process so disjointed and lacking any reason that it is impossible to ague with. Sorry, but I have nothing further to say to your post.

zerinus

Your welcome, please dont take offense of the Snake and the dark lies that come from your religion. It is not you personally, it is the father of lies and the powers and principalities that have infected you, these are the snakes and deceivers. Any time they surface in my circle, I will always raise the standard of Truth. and pray for the victims such as you, to be freed from their snares and deceptions.

I would be happy to dialogue with you on the apostacy issue. But sorry you have no proof that there ever was one. Although I was ready to give you a hand on this issue, for the apostacy that did exist in early bishops of the early church. I have this information for you. Maybe this is the apostacy that your founders found in the Catholic church but just misunderstood these documents. I was hoping we could clear this up. The fact is and records show, history records and eywitnesses can account that there was never an apostacy Catholic church.

One more item for thought, you never touched on what the body of Jesus christ is on earth. For 2000 years now, it has been professed to be the Catholic church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition of 2000 years support this, not to mention, visits from the blessed Mother of Jesus Christ, Miracles, and the confirmation of works from the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you zerinus, I will pray that St. Michael the angel who gives the trumpet call “who is like God” to defend you from the evil one.

 

[zerinus]

Your welcome, please dont take offense of the Snake and the dark lies that come from your religion. It is not you personally, it is the father of lies and the powers and principalities that have infected you, these are the snakes and deceivers. Any time they surface in my circle, I will always raise the standard of Truth. and pray for the victims such as you, to be freed from their snares and deceptions.

I would be happy to dialogue with you on the apostacy issue. But sorry you have no proof that there ever was one. Although I was ready to give you a hand on this issue, for the apostacy that did exist in early bishops of the early church. I have this information for you. Maybe this is the apostacy that your founders found in the Catholic church but just misunderstood these documents. I was hoping we could clear this up. The fact is and records show, history records and eywitnesses can account that there was never an apostacy Catholic church.

One more item for thought, you never touched on what the body of Jesus christ is on earth. For 2000 years now, it has been professed to be the Catholic church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition of 2000 years support this, not to mention, visits from the blessed Mother of Jesus Christ, Miracles, and the confirmation of works from the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you zerinus, I will pray that St. Michael the angel who gives the trumpet call “who is like God” to defend you from the evil one.

You can save your prayers. I have got bad news for you. Your version of Christianity is apostate. Mormonism is a restoration of the only true form of Christianity in the world today.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

That is the Mormon proof…the Mormon church exists, therefore there was a “great apostasy”.

I believe Rebecca is correct but let’s review

I was intrigued when I noticed Zerinus gave an event in his case for the Apostasy, which was almost as good as a date. The event was the loss of the Twelve Apostles. Zerinus explained why this was important. The Twelve Apostles held the keys of authority. As he points out, this assumes a permanent council of Twelve Apostles. If it can be shown that the council of Twelve Apostles was never meant to be permanent, his position collapses.

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going.

Paul does not qualify to be one of the Twelve. And there is no narrative in the New Testament telling of Paul’s selection to the Twelve.

We know from the New Testament that there were more Apostles than twelve at any one time. Acts 14:14 refers to Paul and Barnabas as Apostles. They were ordained Apostles and to paraphrase Zerinus, “by whom and where and when we do not know.” Even in Zerinus’ world of ‘Paul replaced James,’ there are now 13 Apostles. There are more examples of Apostles in the New Testaments but 13, is more than 12, so I’ll stop at that.
zerinus;3521570:

I counted 14!

There is more data proving the existence of more than 12 Apostles than there is for Paul being one of the Twelve. Paul is an Apostle but not one of the Twelve.

Zerinus wants us to believe that Peter meant these requirements just for Judas replacements because Judas was a special case. There is no where in the New Testament or even Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324 that verifies this claim. The only thing I can find special about replacing Judas as member of the Twelve is; it the only time it was ever done. There is no other place recording an Apostles being selected to the Twelve. When Eusebius refers to a member of the Twelve being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as members of the Twelve. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops. They were not replaced by Apostles because anyone qualified to take there place was already dead.

NT prophesies are not evidence that an Apostasy occurred; they are evidence that predictions of apostasy were made. None of those prophesies are clear about the nature of the predicted apostasy – whether of individuals, of groups, or of the whole Church. The wording of every LDS proof text is ambiguous and can be used to support any of these three ideas. Mormons simply read their assumption that an Apostasy occurred into the text itself, although none of the verses that Mormons famously cite clearly and unambiguously state who or what will “fall away”. They only state, cryptically, that at some undefined point in the future there will be a “falling away” (apostasia). Again, there’s no clarity about who will fall away and from what, or even when it is supposed to occur. So clearly we can’t depend on LDS apologists’ use of biblical prophesies to prove the Apostasy occurred………Personal testimonies are therefore worthless if we’re interested in establishing objective, historical fact. They have great value in motivating us to do good, but personal testimonies have nothing to do with determining what events occurred historically. I don’t need to consult scripture or pray about whether George Washington existed and had a set of wooden false teeth, or whether Galileo was wrong and the earth really is the center of the universe. I can review the evidence and draw an appropriate conclusion on both points. The same goes for whether a Great Apostasy occurred. We can’t use your testimony of the LDS Church or biblical prophesies as evidence that an Apostasy occurred……….

So we’ve ruled out the following as evidence of the Great Apostasy:

1. LDS interpretation of Biblical prophesy
2. Your (or any Mormon’s) testimony
3. The death of the apostles

Do you have any other evidence that the Apostasy occurred in the first century as claimed? In particular, what’s your evidence that one day God “took the priesthood from the earth”? What day did this occur? Who was the last righteous, priesthood-bearing priest, elder, bishop, deacon, teacher, or seventy?

Do you have anything else?

Over two days later we get-

Mormonism is a restoration of the only true form of Christianity in the world today.

Yes, She is very correct!!

The LDS definition is centered on the divine authority of Christ’s Church. This is very handy because you can not see divine authority. This makes it very easy for a Mormon to prove the Apostasy. They just declare it so; easy as that.

 

[zerinus]

I believe Rebecca is correct but let’s review

Over two days later we get-

Yes, She is very correct!!

So is that the best that you can do, after all the discussions we have had? It would have been more dignified if you had said nothing.

zerinus

 

[porthos11]

You can save your prayers. I have got bad news for you. Your version of Christianity is apostate. Mormonism is a restoration of the only true form of Christianity in the world today.

zerinus

As with any proper scholarly discussion, you are expected to give proper proof in defense of your thesis. I therefore demand, in the name of academic accuracy:

1. What was the event that marked the apostasy?
2. What year did this take place?
3. How do you reconcile the so-called apostasy with Jesus’ promise to be with his followers ALWAYS, until the end of time? 1500 years of apostasy is not ALWAYS.

Since you claim that the apostasy is a matter of fact, then factual sources should be sufficient.

 

[zerinus]

As with any proper scholarly discussion, you are expected to give proper proof in defense of your thesis. I therefore demand, in the name of academic accuracy:

1. What was the event that marked the apostasy?

Already answered.

1. What year did this take place?

Already answered.

1. How do you reconcile the so-called apostasy with Jesus’ promise to be with his followers ALWAYS, until the end of time? 1500 years of apostasy is not ALWAYS.

Already answered.

Since you claim that the apostasy is a matter of fact, then factual sources should be sufficient.

Already provided.

zerinus

 

[porthos11]

Already answered.

Already answered.

Already answered.

Already provided.

zerinus

Okay, I got your point number 6 addressing the promise. You now restrict apostasy to the sacramental and priestly power of the Church, and that those were lost.

But now we run into the problem. Yes, the Bible predicts that many or some will fall away, but none of those predictions point to a loss in the church’s sacramental power. If indeed the sacramental power was lost and the priesthood ceased, why did it do so? I already indicated that those Scripture passages were indicators of partial fallings away and indeed there were many great heresies of the early Church. But a cursory reading of the New Testament does not reveal any connection between the loss of the priesthood and the fallings away of a subset of the Church.

To back up the claim of a total apostasy in terms of priesthood and ecclesiastical power, there must be a clear connection between the cause and effect. The New Testament simply points to the falling away of individuals, but does not point to the loss of universal priestly power. Even your 2 Tim 3 passage refers to a specific subset of heretics, not a large-scale loss of authority.

Even then, the argument is problematic. Since Jesus promised to be with his Church as its head, surely such a bright head as that could have done a much better job with his Church. To let his church remain in darkness for 1500 years really makes him a lousy head.

 

[zerinus]

Okay, I got your point number 6 addressing the promise. You now restrict apostasy to the sacramental and priestly power of the Church, and that those were lost.

But now we run into the problem. Yes, the Bible predicts that many or some will fall away, but none of those predictions point to a loss in the church’s sacramental power. If indeed the sacramental power was lost and the priesthood ceased, why did it do so? I already indicated that those Scripture passages were indicators of partial fallings away and indeed there were many great heresies of the early Church. But a cursory reading of the New Testament does not reveal any connection between the loss of the priesthood and the fallings away of a subset of the Church.

To back up the claim of a total apostasy in terms of priesthood and ecclesiastical power, there must be a clear connection between the cause and effect. The New Testament simply points to the falling away of individuals, but does not point to the loss of universal priestly power. Even your 2 Tim 3 passage refers to a specific subset of heretics, not a large-scale loss of authority.

Even then, the argument is problematic. Since Jesus promised to be with his Church as its head, surely such a bright head as that could have done a much better job with his Church. To let his church remain in darkness for 1500 years really makes him a lousy head.

All has been addressed in my Blog post. No need to repeat the same arguments here. That is why I wrote that lengthy post, to preempt the type of questions that you are now asking. If you can’t do better than that, you are wasting your time.

zerinus

 

[porthos11]

All has been addressed in my Blog post. No need to repeat the same arguments here. That is why I wrote that lengthy post, to preempt the type of questions that you are now asking. If you can’t do better than that, you are wasting your time.

zerinus

Nope, not all. Those points in my last post were not addressed. They are new concerns that arise from your blog post.

One thing we do agree on, though, is that I’m indeed wasting my time…

I will therefore leave you with this last parting shot.

The head was not cut off.

 

[zerinus]

Nope, not all. Those points in my last post were not addressed. They are new concerns that arise from your blog post.

One thing we do agree on, though, is that I’m indeed wasting my time…

I will therefore leave you with this last parting shot.

The head was not cut off.

The head was the Twelve Apostles. When they disappeared, the head was cut off. No more revelations after that.

zerinus

 

[porthos11]

The head was the Twelve Apostles. When they disappeared, the head was cut off. No more revelations after that.

zerinus

Wrong. Jesus is the head.

 

[zerinus]

Wrong. Jesus is the head.

Jesus is in heaven. The earthly head of the church was the Twelve Apostles. That was the body through whom Jesus communicated His will to the Church. That “head” was cut off when the Twelve Apostles disappeared. If your argument was valid, then no true church or religion ever apostatized, because Jesus had been the “head” of them all.

zerinus

 

[porthos11]

Jesus is in heaven. The earthly head of the church was the Twelve Apostles. That was the body through whom Jesus communicated His will to the Church. That “head” was cut off when the Twelve Apostles disappeared. If your argument was valid,** then no true church or religion ever apostatized, because Jesus had been the “head” of them all.**

zerinus

Well, well, well.

And Scripture clearly states that even if Jesus is in heaven, he IS still head of the Body, which is the Church.

Yes, the Twelve were in charge, in an earthly sense. But Jesus knew they were also mortal. That’s why first of all, when a vacancy arose, it had to be filled. And moreover, when they all died, the gift of the Holy Spirit had to be given to those who would continue it (2 Tim 1:14; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Tim 4:14).

Those passages refer to post-apostolic people who were themselves given the gift of God through the laying of hands; the same gesture used to impart the Holy Spirit by the apostles. This is how Jesus can remain the Church’s permanent head, because the ministry would continue. To indicate a failure in the body is to indicate a failure in the head, and that head is Jesus, who promised to always remain with his followers, not abandon them. Timothy and Titus were already beyond the apostolic generation, and they outlived the Twelve. Yet they received the same gift to transmit the doctrine to those who in turn would transmit it.

 

[zerinus]

Well, well, well.

And Scripture clearly states that even if Jesus is in heaven, he IS still head of the Body, which is the Church.

Yes, the Twelve were in charge, in an earthly sense. But Jesus knew they were also mortal. That’s why first of all, when a vacancy arose, it had to be filled. And moreover, when they all died, the gift of the Holy Spirit had to be given to those who would continue it (2 Tim 1:14; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Tim 4:14).

Those passages refer to post-apostolic people who were themselves given the gift of God through the laying of hands; the same gesture used to impart the Holy Spirit by the apostles. This is how Jesus can remain the Church’s permanent head, because the ministry would continue. To indicate a failure in the body is to indicate a failure in the head, and that head is Jesus, who promised to always remain with his followers, not abandon them. Timothy and Titus were already beyond the apostolic generation, and they outlived the Twelve. Yet they received the same gift to transmit the doctrine to those who in turn would transmit it.

Well it didn’t work, did it? That is why Paul’s prophecy came to pass: they all have “a form of godliness,” but “deny the power thereof.” “From such,” says Paul, “turn away!” (2 Timothy 3:5).

zerinus

 

[NewSeeker]

Z.erinus –

Your arguments in your blog and on this forum in defense of LDS notions of an Apostasy are extremely weak. They’re weak because they are lacking in solid evidence. Instead, you take disparate scriptural passages that can be interpreted many different ways and read into them the official LDS view. Rather than seek evidence to test your hypothesis, you assume the truth of the hypothesis and look for confirming evidence in the predictions of scripture. The fact is, none of the verses you cite in your blog or on this forum support your view that there was a general Apostasy whereby all sacramental and priesthood blessings were removed from the earth. True, it can be said that the verses also don’t disprove your claim. But they also do not prove your claim. They neither refute nor support the idea of a general Apostasy since Paul and the prophetic writer of Amos (to reference the most common LDS proof texts) did not specify who would fall away, when they would fall away, or from what. This is the kind of evidence you need to point to in scripture to support your view that a Great Apostasy was foretold and this evidence is simply lacking. More to the point, it does not exist. You don’t even have any historical evidence in support of your notion that the Quorum of Twelve was intended to persist at the head of the earthly Church. All you have is a single reference from Acts that simply relates how Judas was replaced by the casting of lots. From this you speciously claim, through inference only, that the primitive Church mirrored the modern LDS church in its organizational structure. This passage, along with the few references that exist in Paul’s letters describing church organization, is very limited evidence with which to build a theory about what the early church looked like organizationally. We simply don’t know how the primitive church was organized in the first decades after Christ’s resurrection. All that we do know, through a close reading of the New Testament, is that there was a church; the first Christians were Jews, and participated in the Jewish temple rites – with its altars of sacrifice and incense, its candles, and its priests in robes; there were apostles (whose exact number is indeterminate), that those apostles traveled the countryside preaching, healing, receiving visions, and establishing churches (and that’s all we know about what they did),that Paul called himself an apostle for years prior to ever visiting Jerusalem to meet the other apostles, that there were also bishops or overseers (episkopos), deacons, and presbyters serving in some capacity within the evolving church structure (the scriptures aren’t very clear in this regard), and that the people met in private homes to have “the memoirs of the apostles” read to them and for “the breaking of the bread.” We also know there were persecutions by some of the Jewish leadership and that Paul predicted that a “falling away” of some sort would occur, though he did not clearly specify who would fall away or what they would fall away from. If you strip away all preconceived notions about “what’s behind the passages” and simply focus on what the words actually say in English translation, any honest person must conclude that there really isn’t much there to build a case for what the early Church of the 1st century looked like.

 

[NewSeeker]

Instead, we have a 2000 year old Catholic tradition, out of which the canon of scriptures you depend on for your proofs arose, that says there was no Apostasy and that Christ created a Church with a sacramental life through which he communicates himself and bestows his grace upon us. If you undermine that Tradition, you undermine the validity of the canon of the Bible, since the Catholic Church determined that canon. That same church, on a daily basis, “reads the memoirs” of the apostles to the gathered people (Liturgy of the Word), and gathers for “the breaking of the bread” (Liturgy of the Eucharist). Similar to the rites that once existed in the Jewish temple, those rites are celebrated by priests in robes who stand before an altar and use candles and incense as part of the worship and praise of God. Those same rites (again similar to the Jewish temple) proclaim the propitiating power of the shedding of blood, only in the Christian rite it is a re-presentation of the one, eternal propitiating sacrifice of the Unblemished Lamb that ended once and for all the shedding of animal blood in the Jewish temple. Instead, the propitiating sacrifice occurs eternally in the heavenly Holy of Holies, in the presence of God, with Christ as our only High Priest. No more high priests, no more temples, no more animal sacrifice. There is only one eternal propitiating sacrifice and one High Priest who eternally sheds his own blood for you and me in the heavenly temple. And then you have the central tenet of that Tradition (that Christ gives his flesh and his blood for you to eat and drink in the form of bread and wine), which is mirrored in the words of Christ himself (John 6). Many were so upset by that idea that when Jesus proclaimed it that they turned from him in disgust and never returned to him. The idea continued to be disturbing to some even after the Ascension of Jesus. Roman authorities, when they heard what the earliest Christians were teaching and doing during “the breaking of the bread” at the altar, leveled a charge of cannibalism at the Church. But this was not cannibalism. It is Christ, giving you his body and blood to consume as the means through which he pours his graces upon you to enable you to do good by becoming one with Him, and with his Father and with all Christians everywhere, both on earth and in heaven.

I would invite you become a follower of that High Priest and accept the graces he offers you through the Eucharist. There are no absolute proofs, but the weight of the historical evidence supports the Catholic view. It does not support the viewpoint of a “prophet” on the American frontier, who most certainly did not see Jesus in the woods, translated his most famous scriptural text by peering into some magic rocks placed in a hat on his lap, frequently married other men’s wives (sometimes without those wives’ still-living husbands’ knowledge), and mis-translated writings from common Egyptian funeral papyri and called it scripture. The gaping chasm of inconsistency and illogic that characterizes LDS history and doctrine is a huge obstacle to faith to those who are acquainted with the facts. The leap of faith it requires to become a Catholic is not nearly so great. Truth lies across the Tiber, Zerinus. It’s time you quit defending the specious and baseless argument that there was a Great Apostasy and join the rest of us in Christ’s true church.

NewSeeker