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

[SteveVH]

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?

First of all - great thread. I have always been of the opinion that we are speaking different languages and that the arguments arise out of misunderstanding rather than simple disagreement based upon solid evidence one way or the other. It becomes frustrating to both parties and usually ends in uncharitable conversation. Here’s hoping that this will be different.

 

[SteveVH]

II Nephi 29, which Jockers’ study ascribes to Rigdon.

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

Something that always strikes me as strange when reading the BoM is that apparently Jesus spoke in King James English. Can someone please explain that to me?

 

[DominicSavio23]

Hi to all - greetings and peace, my friends.

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.

It does seem difficult to use scripture to determine whether or not there is ample evidence of said apostasy. Like you said, both traditions have a different understanding or interpretation of particular passages. And one can’t assert their interpretation is more correct than the other without establishing who has the proper authority to interpret… which comes back down to whether or not there was an apostasy. So dialogue on that account seems somewhat pointless.

Unless, of course, there’s another way of looking at it. What if an interpretation from one sides conflicted with or contradicted its own tradition? Say, for example, if the Catholic interpretation can be proven to contradict some other aspect of its own tradition and beliefs. The same could be said for the LDS-- if that interpretation conflicts with something else that is held to be true, we could know that something in there is false.

If anyone is familiar with Alasadiar MacIntyre, philosopher, you’d recognize this as coming from his book After Virtue. In there he’s speaking more about traditions in general, not necessarily about religious beliefs.

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.

Right. It doesn’t seem like this principle is all too helpful in this question, since there has been both good and bad on both sides.

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?

This does bring an interesting question to mind-- that could be asked of either side: Where does the power of Satan come in?

Yours is a story where the Spirit has led you into the LDS, mine is a story where the Spirit has led me into the Catholic Church (I was an atheist who almost converted to LDS, but then became Catholic). Did we both experience the same Spirit, leading us to different places? Or did one of us experience a Spirit that was not from God? Both of us are well-intentioned and since in our pursuit of truth… yet we are in two very different places. Was either of us deceived by an evil Spirit, hood-winked into falsehood?

It’s a tough question. There’s the danger of falling into relativism if we say that it was the same Spirit that led us differently. Or we say that the other was led by something other than the Spirit of God (an evil spirit, pride, etc)-- but we are left asking how do we know which is which?

 

[DominicSavio23]

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).

I’m hoping that this thread will not turn into “ill-will and contention”-- I saw it in the other threads and I’m hoping that Christian charity will prevail and everyone here can dialogue with one another without it turning into a brawling match. Considering the other threads, it’s high hopes, I know.

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.

Okay, interesting. I had heard from some that it was with the death of the last Apostle. If it happened over time, is there any indication of when it was completed-- what can we trust of the early Church and what can’t we trust? How do we determine that? Is there any way to do so without recourse to the BoM or modern prophets?

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

I don’t mean to be incredulous, because I suppose it’s certainly a possibility, but does this mean that everyone abandoned the truth? That’s what a total apostasy implies, right? That none were faithful, therefore God withdrew the keys?

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.

I don’t have much to comment on this one-- except to ask why God would take away that authority, but that is answered by #2.

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.

My Church history isn’t the best, so I’ll let someone else take a stab at the particulars.

I will say, however, that questions of doctrine did arise at times even during the times of the Apostles and they had to pray and discern what was the will of God on the matter. The question of circumcision, for example.

 

[soren1]

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.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say it would have been cruel for Jesus to send his followers to be killed for a Church that was going to fall away. For it It would be worth dying to save just one soul even without a perpetual Church.

Having said that, your central point is sound: the Great Apostasy, if true, reflects badly upon Jesus. Not only are you right, but you make a point that must be deeply digested, for it shows not only why the Great Apostasy is false, but also why it is important. Christ is lessened, cheapened, and is not a true Savior if did not sustain his Church. Virtually everyone sees that this is true. In confirmation of it, consider the testimony of one Joseph Smith, Jr:

Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. [Context http://books.google.com/books?id=wlUoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA672#v=onepage&q&f=false”]here.]

Most people who cite this passage use it show that Joseph blasphemed by contrasting himself favorably to Jesus. Indeed he did, but it is also worth observing is that Joseph is also denying that Christ is the builder and sustainer of the LDS Church. For Smith contrasts the fidelity of his followers to those of Jesus. Mormons claim that Jesus is the true founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Smith had the experiences he claimed he had, we should expect him to have been more potently aware of that fact than anyone. He would have known that is was Jesus who made him a prophet, who restored the keys to the earth, who spoke to Smith in the BOM and Doctrine and Covenants, etc. He would have known that all of this was the Lord’s doing first and not his own. And yet we find in contrast to this, that Smith is willing and able to claim that the loyalty of his followers is a boasting point of his own not shared by Christ. Short of an outright confession, this is the most revealing admission Smith could possibly have made.

 

[LongJourney]

Yeah, I need to get into the King Follett Discourse. Was intending on it, but didn’t.

 

[pinay]

Something that always strikes me as strange when reading the BoM is that apparently Jesus spoke in King James English. Can someone please explain that to me?

Not strange at all.

Joseph Smith’s early history (before he was 14) shows his diligence in studying the Holy Bible. Okay, before I go to that, I first have to tell you, in a manner of full disclosure, I believe that everything that happened to Joseph Smith - just like everything that happened to me - has a reason.

In the case of Joseph Smith, as I believe God chose him for this work, everything that happened to him to prepare for this gigantic task, is more relevant than say, my history.

So, when he received his foundation through the King James version of the Holy Bible, it is, therefore, the King James English that spoke the truth of the gospel to him. Now, God spoke to him and so did other resurrected beings. And this is the language they chose to speak to him on. Since the King James Bible is what he recognized as the voice of God, it is logical to me that any other encounters he had with the divine is of this language as well. It is then natural for him to translate the Book of Mormon (written in some ancient text) into King James English.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

The problem with this point of view is specifically; what confusion? Who lead it? Was vital to our salvation? For example: When do we celebrate Easter? Many Bishops celebrated on different days. At the Council of Nicea the date for Easter was decided. In the 16th century the Pope changed the calendar which had an effect on when we celebrate Easter. The Mormon Church agrees with both of these decisions by the Catholic Church and the Pope. Our salvation does not depend on celebrating Easter on the right day. I think Mormons just claim ‘confusion’ and accept it as some kind of proof with no specifics.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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?

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.

I beg your pardon? Sarcasm? Deride others? How is asking for historical evidence being sarcastic? I did not know historical evidence is so offensive? If the Great Apostasy happened,then it becomes part of human history and Christian History.

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.

I am sorry,but I do not buy your argument. We are talking about a HUGE event against Christ Church and it goes unwritten for centuries by both sides? Come on…

 

[pinay]

Yeah, I need to get into the King Follett Discourse. Was intending on it, but didn’t.

The King Follett Discourse is not LDS scripture. It is a second-hand account of what Joseph Smith said during King Follett’s burial and there is nothing that can corraborate on what exactly was said. So, for all we know, Joseph Smith never said those things, or if he did, it was interpretted incorrectly, or whatever.

As an LDS member who has studied LDS doctrine, I can put the KFD in the proper context. Somebody who hasn’t will get nothing but confusion out of it. It is one of the most contended pieces of work out there.

I’m trying to find what I can relate this to… okay, say Jesus was doing His ministry and Matthew wrote about it. Then say Matthew said something that is not written on the Book of Matthew to Pinoy while they were at Pinoy’s home. Now, Pinoy writes something about what Matthew said in his presence 20 years later and puts it out as “Pinoy Discourse”. Would you then take it as “revealed scripture” or even take it as part of Matthew’s book? Or even believe that Jesus revealed this to Matthew? No. Not really. The best we can do about this new book is treat it as a nice story. Take out of it what applies to the doctrine, discard the rest.

Just so you know.

 

[SteveVH]

Not strange at all.

Joseph Smith’s early history (before he was 14) shows his diligence in studying the Holy Bible. Okay, before I go to that, I first have to tell you, in a manner of full disclosure, I believe that everything that happened to Joseph Smith - just like everything that happened to me - has a reason.

In the case of Joseph Smith, as I believe God chose him for this work, everything that happened to him to prepare for this gigantic task, is more relevant than say, my history.

So, when he received his foundation through the King James version of the Holy Bible, it is, therefore, the King James English that spoke the truth of the gospel to him. Now, God spoke to him and so did other resurrected beings. And this is the language they chose to speak to him on. Since the King James Bible is what he recognized as the voice of God, it is logical to me that any other encounters he had with the divine is of this language as well. It is then natural for him to translate the Book of Mormon (written in some ancient text) into King James English.

So if he had been reading another translation of Bible then God would have spoke to him in that language? Sorry, but I really think that is a stretch. What makes more sense to me is that he thought King James English sounded holier or more sacred than modern English, much like Hollywood using English accents for ancient characters that never spoke English. I think he thought people would think it sounded more like God speaking if it was in the same language as their Bible.

Would he have not understood God if He had spoke to him in his native tongue?

 

[DominicSavio23]

I beg your pardon? Sarcasm? Deride others? How is asking for historical evidence being sarcastic? I did not know historical evidence is so offensive? If the Great Apostasy happened,then it becomes part of human history and Christian History.

Perhaps it wasn’t meant that way, and I apologize if that wasn’t your intention, but your capitalization of specific works implied sarcasm to the reader. Tone can be difficult to read over the internet. I’m sorry to call you out if you didn’t mean to imply sarcasm.

I am sorry,but I do not buy your argument. We are talking about a HUGE event against Christ Church and it goes unwritten for centuries by both sides? Come on…

Again, the “come on…” Is that really necessary in a mature discussion? I don’t think you mean to belittle anyone with those types of comments, but over the internet they come out that way.

Anyways, to your comment… Who says it was a huge event? What if it happened over time, like pinay has argued? I personally don’t find it convincing either, but it I have to admit that it is plausible. If the Holy Spirit were not guiding the faithful, over time, everyone could completely stray away.

 

[pinay]

How is asking for historical evidence being sarcastic? I did not know historical evidence is so offensive? If the Great Apostasy happened,then it becomes part of human history and Christian History.

I am sorry,but I do not buy your argument. We are talking about a HUGE event against Christ Church and it goes unwritten for centuries by both sides? Come on…

Hello Nicea and Dominico (in answer to your other post as well),

You really can’t find anything on the great apostasy from the Catholic church. The Catholic church is not composed of stupid people. If they see evidence of the apostasy, they will not keep on believing they have apostlic succession. So, it is obvious that they do not see it, believe it, know of it, have it anywhere in their scripture.

What you’re trying to say is that the Great Apostasy is like World War II or something - that it is a great uprising and then wham - there it is, the apostasy.

It is not like that. If you must put a date on it, then I can give you a ballpark start date. It is when the Apostle John died - for he was the last to die with the priesthood keys to lead the entire church. Nobody received these keys after his death.

Also, another fallacy is that the Great Apostasy caused all the truths to disappear. No. This is not the case. Truth is ever present in one form or another. For example, I’m going to list some truths here:

1.) God the Father is in heaven and we are His children.
2.) Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is God and it is through his Atonement that we are saved.
3.) The Holy Spirit is God and he is our comforter.
4.) One must needs to be baptized by water and Spirit to establish a covenant with God.
5.) One must needs to repent and forgive others.

There are tons more truths. Did this go away ever? Nope. It is still here on earth. All churches took it and made it part of their doctrine.

So, why is it called the Great Apostasy? Because, there is not one church that holds all truth. And there is not one church that holds the keys to lead the entire church (note, when we say entire church, we don’t mean just the LDS church or the Catholic church, or whatever church, we mean to say, all of mankind).

You can’t really say that there is ZERO evidence of this happening. Martin Luther would not post his grievances against the pope on the church’s door if he didn’t find evidence of the fruits of the apostasy reaching the papal office.

Jose Rizal would not write Noli Mi Tangere and El Filibusterismo enlightening the Filipinos of the abuses of the Spanish friars with papal blessings.

The evidence can be found everywhere. BUT - is this enough evidence that the Catholic Church is apostate? NO. Even, I, an LDS, will tell you that. Martin Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church. He just wanted the pope to see what is happening to the church. Because, even if he sees these errors, he does not believe that God has abandoned the church. And neither do I. All the protestant churches evolving from Luther’s sentiments came away with elements of truth in them as well. It is a product of man’s desire to follow in Jesus’ footsteps in the best way they know how!

God continues to help us in our struggle to salvation. But when Joseph Smith asked the Lord, which church should he join, for all of them have some truth in them, God said to join none. The restoration is the way He brought all the truth and the priesthood keys to lead the entire church (that’s all of mankind again) to salvation under one organization again.

So that, when one asks the Holy Spirit should I join X church in all sincerity and prayer and the Holy Spirit manifests to you that yes, please do, nobody, not a single one of us here, can say, either you weren’t praying properly or the Holy Spirit lied to you.

No, because we are in no position to question God’s will. If it is His will, then let it be done. For everything there is a purpose.

A devout LDS going astray because he is learning the doctrine in a convoluted way (for the wards are run by man, unfortunately) is better off learning from the Catholic Church as it is closer to the path of salvation than his current path.

A person sincerely searching for the path to salvation finding it in the non-denominational church by sincere prayer to the Holy Ghost is better off there than becoming agnostic because he just cannot understand why we have to be baptized.

What we are then to do is to trust in Him with all of our hearts and to lean not on our own understanding. For we can discuss and argue but in the end, everybody has to seek what God’s will is for their own. Because, to say I am wrong or you are wrong (after you and I has pleaded with all diligence for the Holy Spirit to show us the way) is to say God lied to us somehow. If we both end up where God wants us to be, that’s all that matters.

 

[LongJourney]

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without: authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Joseph Smith, June 16, 1844

 

[Stephen168]

Who says it was a huge event? What if it happened over time, like pinay has argued? I personally don’t find it convincing either, but it I have to admit that it is plausible. If the Holy Spirit were not guiding the faithful, over time, everyone could completely stray away.

I once had an exmormon explain that when he thought about exactly what it would take for the Mormon Church to lose priesthood authority (slowly over time), go into apostasy, AND still be physically here on earth; he realized it couldn’t happen. So how could it happen to the early church which Joseph Smith claimed to have restored? It was just one of the reasons he left.

 

[pinay]

So if he had been reading another translation of Bible then God would have spoke to him in that language? Sorry, but I really think that is a stretch. What makes more sense to me is that he thought King James English sounded holier or more sacred than modern English, much like Hollywood using English accents for ancient characters that never spoke English. I think he thought people would think it sounded more like God speaking if it was in the same language as their Bible.

Would he have not understood God if He had spoke to him in his native tongue?

Hi Steve,

He did read several different translations. He went to different churches too. But the King James version is where he found the most learning from.

You can make of it what you will. Everything is conjecture.

But, if I apply it to my life for example - English is only my 3rd language. But, in the Philippines, the medium of instruction from elementary to college is English. So, I became a computer engineer. Now, I need to write a scientific journal on some technological analysis I have made. I wouldn’t know how to write it in either one of my 2 base languages. I didn’t learn technology in Filipino, I learned it in English. I can’t even begin to tell you how to translate “computer” into Filipino. So then God comes to me and says, “Pinay, ang calculador ay matanda na.” to say that “that computer is old now” using “calculador” for “computer” (I honestly don’t know what the translation is), I wouldn’t have a clue what He is speaking of.

So, sure, you can make of it what you will. That’s my experience and it’s what I make of it. For my understanding is enhanced or limited by my own experiences which is the only authority of which I speak in this forum.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
I beg your pardon? Sarcasm? Deride others? How is asking for historical evidence being sarcastic? I did not know historical evidence is so offensive? If the Great Apostasy happened,then it becomes part of human history and Christian History.

Perhaps it wasn’t meant that way, and I apologize if that wasn’t your intention, but your capitalization of specific works implied sarcasm to the reader. Tone can be difficult to read over the internet. I’m sorry to call you out if you didn’t mean to imply sarcasm.

Not a problem…no big deal.

Quote:
I am sorry,but I do not buy your argument. We are talking about a HUGE event against Christ Church and it goes unwritten for centuries by both sides? Come on…

Again, the “come on…” Is that really necessary in a mature discussion? I don’t think you mean to belittle anyone with those types of comments, but over the internet they come out that way.

I am sorry that if you or others find the expression: “Come on…” offensive?

Anyways, to your comment… Who says it was a huge event? What if it happened over time, like pinay has argued? I personally don’t find it convincing either, but it I have to admit that it is plausible. If the Holy Spirit were not guiding the faithful, over time, everyone could completely stray away.

You do not find apostasy against Christ Church as something huge? As for huge? Whether it happened gradually over time is still a huge event or issue against Christ Church.Does not matter if it took 50 years or 1500 years,it is still huge because we are discussing Christ Church.

 

[scipio337]

Joseph Smith, June 16, 1844

That’s pretty harsh stuff there.

But logically, for the LDS belief to be true, if there were a “Great Apostacy”, the Catholic Church would have to be not only aware of it, but complicit.

In my view, like the Book of Abraham, the existence of an iron age, pre-Columbian civilization in the Americas, and other LDS beliefs, it is based on faith, not historical fact.

The missing piece of the puzzle is the Jews. When did they stop believing in the pre-existence of souls, a God who was part of eternal progression, was male and had a physical body? When did the Jews go wrong, too?

 

[Nicea325]

You really can’t find anything on the great apostasy from the Catholic church. The Catholic church is not composed of stupid people. If they see evidence of the apostasy, they will not keep on believing they have apostlic succession. So, it is obvious that they do not see it, believe it, know of it, have it anywhere in their scripture.

And yet nothing you have said still proves an apostasy happened? If you as a LDS claim it happened,then why not present your sources or evidence out in the open? The only thing I have ever heard is a repeated charge over and over by so many believers of an apostasy,yet nothing is ever shown to support such a charge. Sorry,repeating a claim or charge without any historical support or evidence does not make a fact. It is called an opinion or mere assumption.

What you’re trying to say is that the Great Apostasy is like World War II or something - that it is a great uprising and then wham - there it is, the apostasy.

Not exactly! Whether it happened: Wham-there it is,the apostasy or over a gradual time makes no iota of a difference. The facts of the matter is that how can a huge crisis,heresy,schism,usurpation,etc against Jesus Christ Church or whatever term one chooses to apply go undetected? This Great Apostasy was so sly and clever it was never noticed even on the surface by anyone?

It is not like that. If you must put a date on it, then I can give you a ballpark start date. It is when the Apostle John died - for he was the last to die with the priesthood keys to lead the entire church. Nobody received these keys after his death.

Oh so it happened around the turn of the second century? So between 100 A.D and 110 A.D. is when John died by many experts. So there was an apparent start date? It was not as gradual as many claim? Ballpark start date indicates an initial beginning which can be pin-pointed,not a gradual process. So if it commenced with John’s death, I find it very intriguing how not one orthodox bishop,priest,deacon or lay person even managed to acknowledge an apostasy?

John received the priesthood keys? The only apostle I know from scripture is Peter to have received the keys. Unless you are referring to another set of keys?

 

[Kdesiel]

Hi Steve,

He did read several different translations. He went to different churches too. But the King James version is where he found the most learning from.

You can make of it what you will. Everything is conjecture.

But, if I apply it to my life for example - English is only my 3rd language. But, in the Philippines, the medium of instruction from elementary to college is English. So, I became a computer engineer. Now, I need to write a scientific journal on some technological analysis I have made. I wouldn’t know how to write it in either one of my 2 base languages. I didn’t learn technology in Filipino, I learned it in English. I can’t even begin to tell you how to translate “computer” into Filipino. So then God comes to me and says, “Pinay, ang calculador ay matanda na.” to say that “that computer is old now” using “calculador” for “computer” (I honestly don’t know what the translation is), I wouldn’t have a clue what He is speaking of.

So, sure, you can make of it what you will. That’s my experience and it’s what I make of it. For my understanding is enhanced or limited by my own experiences which is the only authority of which I speak in this forum.

J.Smith was 14 years old at the time of the first vision. How much dedicated Bible study could a 14 year old boy achieve while growing up poor on a farm?
I would agree later in his Life Joseph Smith studied the Bible in their various Translations but I would have to speculate the only Bible he would have available to him prior to the first vision would more than likely be the King James Bible.
Being strapped for cash while translating the BoM I doubt he would have resources to buy multiple Bibles. Plus it is widely taught in the LDS Church J.Smith had little formal education, this is what makes the advent of the First Vision and subsequent achievements so valuable. That a simple uneducated Farm boy was to be the instrument of the Restoration of Gods church on earth.the Lorenzo Snow couplet
So why would God address J.Smith using King James English in the first vision?
I would think God would converse with J.Smith in a language J.Smith would more fully understand, the contemporary American English spoken at the time.
I think he added the “Flair” of King James English to make things sound more appealing and authentic.