Concerning the alleged 'Great Apostasy' and how to discuss it...

  • Thread starter Thread starter DominicSavio23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DominicSavio23

Guest
I’ve skimmed through a few of the threads here about the LDS and their beliefs about the ‘Great Apostasy.’ Sadly, I found there to be a severe lack of charity (and clarity of arguments) on both sides of the debate. What I’m interested in here is sound discussion that seeks understanding: nothing more, nothing less.

Here’s my limited understanding–

The LDS believe that there was a Great Apostasy during the early Church by which the true doctrines of Christ were lost and made unavailable to man. God then restored His Church through Joseph Smith and revelation of the Book of Mormon.

Catholics, on the other hand, obviously believe that there was no such thing as a total or ‘great’ apostasy, rather that the Holy Spirit has always and will continue to protect the Church in matters of faith and morals.

A pretty basic overview of the respective positions.

My question is this: How do we authenticate one view over the other?

St. Thomas Aquinas (and it simply follows logically) teaches that we must start from some common ground or authority in order to dialogue with those of different beliefs. Now neither the LDS or the Catholic Church are believers of sola scriptura, so both form their beliefs on this issue from both scripture and another source (Tradition for Catholics, Revelation for the LDS-- both of which the other rejects).

It would seem to me that the LDS must then attempt to persuade the Catholics in the Revelation that they believe in and that the Catholics must then attempt to persuade the LDS in the authority of Sacred Tradition.

The Catholic might be able to authenticate Sacred Tradition by using Sacred Scripture (the common ground), but as far as I know, it is impossible to use Sacred Scripture to authenticate the Revelation of the Book of Mormon-- that must be the work of the Holy Ghost, according to the LDS, correct?

It doesn’t seem like there’s any way to authenticate either of these views (supposing both sides are completely open to the truth and open to speaking solely on common ground i.e. w/o Tradition/Revelation). Perhaps that Catholic view.

What do you guys think? Is there a way to logically authenticate either view? If not, what is the point of dialogue about the issue?
 
My viewpoint is different from that of some of my fellow debaters. I believe that the claim of an apostasy has only one function-- to validate the Book of Mormon. Without the Book of Mormon, the LDS would have no need to teach that there was an apostasy. There is no need to debate on the supposed apostasy, only on the BoM. And they fear that, and skittle out of the way.

Hang on a bit, I will find a quote from the BoM that illustrates the problem.
 
II Nephi 29, which Jockers’ study ascribes to Rigdon.
And my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the House of Israel. And because my words shall hiss forth, many of the Gentiles shall say, A Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travels, and labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles.
Click to expand...
O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads: for I the Lord hath not forgotten my people. Thou fool, that shall say a Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible, save it were by the Jews? Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember they which are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God.
Click to expand...
They are apparently concerned aqbout the justification for a new “Bible” They must SMEAR the Catholic Church in order to justify their “Bible”, and they do it in grand style.
IMHO
 
LongJourney said:
My viewpoint is different from that of some of my fellow debaters. I believe that the claim of an apostasy has only one function-- to validate the Book of Mormon. Without the Book of Mormon, the LDS would have no need to teach that there was an apostasy. There is no need to debate on the supposed apostasy, only on the BoM. And they fear that, and skittle out of the way.

Hang on a bit, I will find a quote from the BoM that illustrates the problem.
Click to expand...
That’s what I was beginning to think…

But unfortunately there is no way to validate the Book of Mormon, save by the Holy Ghost via a prayer, right?

And thanks for the quote, it’s very helpful.
 
I’m currently working on an invalidation of the BoM, I am up to 530 pages. Part of it is a parody of Mormon apologetics. Several of our posters have access to my draft.
 
Re: All

I would also be interested in a LDS perspective on this issue. Can the ‘great apostasy’ or the BoM be authenticated apart from one another?
 
Here is the problem with the LDS view of the Apostasy:
  1. The verses they use do not say what they want them to say
  2. They cannot tell us when it happened…just some general “after the Apostles…”
  3. To believe in the Apostasy, Jesus had to a weak, cruel, liar
 
SirThomasMore said:
Here is the problem with the LDS view of the Apostasy:
  1. The verses they use do not say what they want them to say
  2. They cannot tell us when it happened…just some general “after the Apostles…”
  3. To believe in the Apostasy, Jesus had to a weak, cruel, liar
Click to expand...
  1. Well, they interpret the verses according to their own tradition. Which, as Catholics, we do as well. So long as their interpretation is consistent with their tradition, then there’s little to say on this point. Scripture interpretation always takes place within a tradition-- Catholic or otherwise. There is no “objective” interpretation in so far as it can be accessed outside of a tradition. (That’s not to say that there is not an objectively correct interpretation-- there is, and it’s the interpretation via the Catholic tradition). So, in order to invalidate the LDS interpretations of scripture, you must show that it is inconsistent or in conflict with their own tradition.
  2. Yeah, I’m curious about this. Is there an LDS on this board that could clarify, as best as they’re able, when this apostasy might have happened and what evidence there for this timeline?
  3. I don’t think that’s a fair statement. I don’t want to argue about it, though. Seems to me that if God wished to have ordered salvation in this way, He could have, and it wouldn’t have made Him “a weak, cruel, liar.” Now the ‘liar’ part might be possible to establish if you can show an inconsistency in the LDS interpretations of scripture and their own tradition.
 
Because the Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods, they view the Council of Nicaea as a heretical council because it taught that there was One God. They claim this as evidence that by AD 325 the apostasy was complete.
They believe that Peter and the apostles had the keys of the kingdom and the apostasy, “ was complete once the keys went, because once the keys went, then there was nobody on earth left to authorize somebody to confer the priesthood on someone else” ( Elder Bruce McConkie 1967)

You really can’t argue with them on the apostasy.They believe that the bible says to baptize the dead. SInce the Church doesn’t do that it fell into apostasy.
They believe that since Jesus went to the spirit prison and preached the gospel therefore the True Church ( LDS) will do that when they die. Since the Church doesn’t teach that it fell into apostasy.
They believe that christians mis-interprete Jesus when he said there will be no marriage in heaven. SInce the Church says there is no marriage in heaven, it fell into apostasy.
It goes on and on.
 
DominicSavio23 said:
  1. Well, they interpret the verses according to their own tradition. Which, as Catholics, we do as well. So long as their interpretation is consistent with their tradition, then there’s little to say on this point. Scripture interpretation always takes place within a tradition-- Catholic or otherwise. There is no “objective” interpretation in so far as it can be accessed outside of a tradition. (That’s not to say that there is not an objectively correct interpretation-- there is, and it’s the interpretation via the Catholic tradition). So, in order to invalidate the LDS interpretations of scripture, you must show that it is inconsistent or in conflict with their own tradition.
  2. Yeah, I’m curious about this. Is there an LDS on this board that could clarify, as best as they’re able, when this apostasy might have happened and what evidence there for this timeline?
  3. I don’t think that’s a fair statement. I don’t want to argue about it, though. Seems to me that if God wished to have ordered salvation in this way, He could have, and it wouldn’t have made Him “a weak, cruel, liar.” Now the ‘liar’ part might be possible to establish if you can show an inconsistency in the LDS interpretations of scripture and their own tradition.
Click to expand...
I won’t argue, but I will explain…as to weak, for Satan to beat Jesus makes Jesus weak. As to cruel, how cruel would Jesus have to be to send out his best friend to be cruely killed for a Church Jesus knew was going to leave the face of the earth for almost 2000 years? As for liar, Jesus promised the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. A total Apostasy means hell prevailed.
 
Third_Day said:
Because the Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods, they view the Council of Nicaea as a heretical council because it taught that there was One God. They claim this as evidence that by AD 325 the apostasy was complete.
They believe that Peter and the apostles had the keys of the kingdom and the apostasy, “ was complete once the keys went, because once the keys went, then there was nobody on earth left to authorize somebody to confer the priesthood on someone else” ( Elder Bruce McConkie 1967)

You really can’t argue with them on the apostasy.They believe that the bible says to baptize the dead. SInce the Church doesn’t do that it fell into apostasy.
They believe that since Jesus went to the spirit prison and preached the gospel therefore the True Church ( LDS) will do that when they die. Since the Church doesn’t teach that it fell into apostasy.
They believe that christians mis-interprete Jesus when he said there will be no marriage in heaven. SInce the Church says there is no marriage in heaven, it fell into apostasy.
It goes on and on.
Click to expand...
It begs the question of which comes first-- the different doctrines or the great apostasy? If the different doctrines are what imply the great apostasy, then there must be some authority to authenticate the truth of these doctrines. That authority can’t be the Book of Mormon or the revelation received by Joseph Smith because those are only validated if there was a total apostasy.

I’m still interested in an LDS reply to all of this.
 
Here is something I just composed, right next to my explanation of that passage from II Nephi:

Mormons claim that the Catholic Church, guardian of the Bible for 1500 years, is in apostasy. The primary reason for this is the concept of “closed canon”. Once the Church determined which books would be included in the Bible, there have been no changes, other than translations. In order to argue for an open canon, and therefore the Book of Mormon, Mormons claim a Catholic “apostasy.” Catholics claim scripture plus tradition are the foundation for their faith. Many Christian fundamentalists place themselves in a difficult spot because they claim “sola scriptura,” rejecting the traditions of Catholicism. Mormons seek to resolve this through the BoM, and “revelations” from their “prophets,” who are constantly contradicting each other.
 
Hi to all - greetings and peace, my friends.

I’m LDS.

I have posted on some threads here about the Apostasy and I was just gonna cut-and-paste what I wrote. But, alas, I cannot find them.

As background information, I am baptized a Roman Catholic when I was a baby and remained a devout Catholic all my life until I got baptized by LDS authority when I was 30. Please understand that I love the Roman Catholic church to this day and forever. It is in the RCC that I built my foundation. It is a strong and valiant church with one great purpose - to lead us all back to our Heavenly Father. It is in the RCC that God chose to build me up in my journey.

Now, my journey continues with the restored gospel found in the standard works of the LDS church. For this to occur, I must have had to encounter the doctrine on this great apostasy. Because, for there to be a restoration, there must have been a complete falling away. There is no authority in the LDS church without the great apostasy occuring.

On the other hand, a Roman Catholic cannot claim authority if there is an apostasy.

So, here’s the dilemma we are in on this thread. It is but natural that Catholics will fight strongly against apostate teaching. And it is also as natural for LDS to stand by the apostasy. But this is nothing new to us. This is the same dilemma we fight between Jews and Christians after all.

Just like you will not find complete evidence in the Jewish scripture that Jesus Christ is God, you will not find complete evidence in the Catholic scripture that the great apostasy occurred. It is a fact in our lives that we can both read the same exact scripture passages from the same exact bible and come away with 2 completely different understanding. Which one got it right? Nobody can prove one way or the other. It is a matter of faith.

We have some recourse on the matter, because we all agree that “ye shall know them by their fruit”. This is not a nugget only found in the book of Matthew. This is common human principle.

Now, here’s the other dilemma - what kind of fruit would you associate with the bad fruit and such? Because, both Catholic and LDS churches have done both good and bad in their histories. But both churches go hand-in-hand with the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. So again, that’s a matter of faith.

So, when I was trying to understand the apostasy, I found that I can reason out of practically anything - for or against the apostasy happening - if it was just my own logical understanding that I rely on. It took me a few years before I actually knelt down in prayer and fasting and asked for guidance. And that was when my own personal history fell into place like puzzle pieces finally aligning themselves to show me a picture. It was over a year after that before I asked to be baptized under LDS authority. This is not going to be true for everybody. God’s will be done and if it is His will that one’s path back to Him is best served by leading him to the Baptist church, then who are we to tell Him He’s wrong?

Why am I telling you this? Because - although I can give you what I found was evidence of the great apostasy, it will not mean much to a Catholic. Instead, it can fuel ill-will and contention as you will see fairly soon where this thread is going to go (from what I saw the other similar threads went).

So, with that long-winded introduction, here’s apostasy in as few sentences as my long-windedness can shorten up:

1.) The great apostasy did not happen in one long swoop in year XXA.D. So, of course, one cannot say, the great apostasy happened in 96AD or whatever number you want to put there.

2.) The great apostasy happened not because of God’s actions but because of man’s actions.

3.) Christ’s church is eternal. An apostasy on the earth does not mean the church is dead. It only means that the authority to lead the church is not on the earth at that time. Because even when we are all dead, the church continues.

4.) God’s house is a house of order. Church doctrine is not a matter for debate. Church doctrine comes straight from the Word to prophets/apostles authorized to speak for God. Thus, in matters of questions about doctrine, Paul and other apostles sent several letters to direct the church. When an apostle dies/falls away, another is called by God to replace him by the power of the Holy Ghost. When John died, although several men held priesthood keys still, God did not call on an apostle(s) to hold the keys to lead the entire church. The bishop of Rome held the keys to lead Rome but not everybody else. This is evidenced by the confusion that existed among all the bishops for centuries until it became necessary to call the council in Nicea. If the priesthood keys to lead the entire church was present with Pope Sylvester, the council and the doctrine put forth would have come from Pope Sylvester or his papal legates. There wouldn’t be a need for consensus THEN the pope agrees. It would be the pope puts forth the doctrine of Christology then all the bishops choose to sustain the doctrine or not.

I’ll end it here because this is so long already. And, as you can see, there is no possible way an LDS can discuss the apostasy without undermining the authority of the Catholic church and I would really rather discuss how the LDS church and the RCC can work together towards glorifying God.
 
DominicSavio23 said:
It begs the question of which comes first-- the different doctrines or the great apostasy? If the different doctrines are what imply the great apostasy, then there must be some authority to authenticate the truth of these doctrines. That authority can’t be the Book of Mormon or the revelation received by Joseph Smith because those are only validated if there was a total apostasy.

I’m still interested in an LDS reply to all of this.
Click to expand...
And because the Mormon Church claims to be a ‘restoration’ after the apostasy, one would think unique Mormon doctrines and practices would be found in the early church. The Catholic Church claims to be the church started by Christ, so one would think unique Catholic doctrines would be found in the early church.
 
2.) The great apostasy happened not because of God’s actions but because of man’s actions.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question:

If it happened because of the actions of mankind,then why is it that the so-called Great Apostasy is not mentioned ANYWHERE throughout a 2,000 year history? Name one church father or pagan discussing this GREAT event against Christ Church? Names of bishops,priests,deacons,monks,nuns,laity,etc who joined the Great Apostasy movement?

If it is mentioned as though it was an historical fact and undisputable fact,then why no empirical evidence? Mankind throughout history records and writes about great historical events,but the Great Apostasy is left silent? No specific dates,no Christian or pagan writers wrote about it,no geographic region where it happened,etc,etc?

Here we are 2010 and I have yet to read a single shred of evidence of this GREAT event against Christ Church?
 
Thanks, Pinay, for your charitable response. It’s very helpful to me in coming to a better understanding of this issue. I do plan on putting together a more in depth response at a later time.
 
Nicea325 said:
Which begs the question:

If it happened because of the actions of mankind,then why is it that the so-called Great Apostasy is not mentioned ANYWHERE throughout a 2,000 year history? Name one church father or pagan discussing this GREAT event against Christ Church? Names of bishops,priests,deacons,monks,nuns,laity,etc who joined the Great Apostasy movement?

If it is mentioned as though it was an historical fact and undisputable fact,then why no empirical evidence? Mankind throughout history records and writes about great historical events,but the Great Apostasy is left silent? No specific dates,no Christian or pagan writers wrote about it,no geographic region where it happened,etc,etc?

Here we are 2010 and I have yet to read a single shred of evidence of this GREAT event against Christ Church?
Click to expand...
Oh, come now, you can inquire into this with a little more charity, can’t you? The sarcasm doesn’t help us in our search for truth. Perhaps things are clear to you, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to deride others in their honest and sincere quest for truth.

Perhaps it’s that everyone fell away, according to the teaching of the LDS? Then there wouldn’t be anyone to historically account for the apostasy because, like all heresy, the heretic (or apostates) don’t believe that they are going astray. It can only be recorded if there’s someone who has kept the truth and can recognize that the others went astray. But it would be my guess that according to LDS doctrine, no one kept the truth and therefore the entirety of Christianity was led astray.
 
DominicSavio23 said:
What do you guys think? Is there a way to logically authenticate either view? If not, what is the point of dialogue about the issue?
Click to expand...
The Mormon doctrine of the Great Apostasy is devoid of biblical evidence. They have about twenty or twenty-five proof texts for it, none of which come close to establishing a total apostasy, and many, such as Amos 8:11-12 and 2 Thess 2:3-4, if carefully examined, teach the opposite. A good review of the Mormon Biblical arguments can be found in Isaiah Bennett’s book Inside Mormonism. He lists each of the prominent proof-texts used by the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Sainst and gives an exegesis of each that proves devastating for the Mormon position. I do have some criticism for other parts of Bennett’s book, and he does miss a spot here and there. But he is almost exhaustive, and the two or three Mormon proof-texts that he overlooks can be easily answered by anyone who has read and thought through the verses that he does cover.

Catholics are sometimes surprised that Mormons are not easily impressed by some of the Biblical passages that we use to demonstrate the error of the Great Apostasy. One (but not the only) reason for this is that Catholics are not always know the right details of LDS Apostasy doctrine, and therefore do not clearly show the Mormons how the relevant verses connect point-for-point with LDS teaching.

A crucial feature of the Great Apostasy, which Catholics need to be aware of and actively engage in their discussions with Mormons, is that* the falling away of the Church entailed a removal of priesthood authority from the earth*. No matter how a plain a given text may seem to a Catholic, it will not look convincing to a Mormon unless the Catholic shows what it has to do with the priesthood as Mormons conceive of it. Catholics are so used to responding to Protestants by arguing that the Church cannot fail, they do not realize that for Mormons the winning thesis is that the *priesthood *cannot be removed from the earth. This is a costly oversight, particularly because the perpetuity of the priesthood is actually more explicit in Scripture than is the perpetuity of the Church.

Many texts prove this, but the one that I think takes the least skill to argue is a prophecy in Jer 33. Before showing this passage to a Mormon, it is helpful but not necessary to review a few key points:

(1) the Church is Zion, the Kingdom of God;
(2) Christ inherits the Kingdom as the Son of David;
(3) God is absolutely faithful to his covenants even in the case of human failure. For instance, when he swear to give Abraham innumerable descendants as a reward for his faith fidelity, then it is a done deal. Even if Abraham’s descendants sin, and are rejected by God, then God will still find a way to make good on his pledge.

Mormons are not likely to disagree with any of these points. It is important to bring them up, however, because having these points explicitly on the table will help them see the significance of the following words from Jeremiah:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them. Jer 33:14-26

The Mormons claim that Smith the Restoration returned the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood to the world. But how could it have ever been gone in light of the covenants outlined above?

By contrast, this text is no problem for Catholics, as we believe all the powers and sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood are present in fulfillment in the Catholic priesthood, who have always been present to serve the New David, who is Christ.
 
Let’s say there was an apostasy, and there was a restoration.

How do we know then, that there can’t be another apostasy? Maybe there already has been!

Maybe Mormonism as we have it today is apostate, and another restoration will be needed.

The idea of apostasy opens up a bucket of worms.
 
That bucket of worms has already been opened.😛 The Community of Christ (RLDS) claims that the LDS (Utah church) is in apostasy to itself. Its political agenda is definitely on the left, check out their website.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top